User talk:Bertilsson

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Bertilsson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Brangifer (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Violations of policy
You need to read the links above as well as the rules for how to use talk pages: WP:TALK. So far you have made no positive contributions and seem to be misusing Wikipedia as a battleground. Be careful, as such behavior can get you blocked. Editing here can be a very learning experience and I hope you change your focus and learn to be constructive editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Will you please inform me about the facts behind your views on my writings.My opinions seem to be illegal according to your views can you please tell me where I can read about, that it is illegal to want to read correct facts about chiropractic in wikipedia? ! --Bertilsson (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides the information in the links I have provided, you will find more information about what is allowed in articles about living persons such as Stephen Barrett in our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. Libelous or "unsourced negative" information is not allowed. You have quoted and used inaccurate information from known libelers of Barrett. You also made a very strong statement against the NACM, calling them fake and a scam. Such comments are libelous and very wrong. "Correct facts" about chiropractic are included in the chiropractic article, and they have been found in verifiable and reliable sources. They can be used here, but sources that repeat rumors and libelous statements aren't allowed, nor is information from them. Our articles are required by the NPOV policy to include both positive and negative information if it is found in such sources. That's why the chiropractic article contains much information, including some that's negative.


 * There are numerous inclusion and exclusion criteria that govern such information and it can be rather complicated to figure it all out at first! Nearly all the negative information about Barrett comes from very poor sources, while the positive information comes from very reliable sources and it is therefore used. This happens to be because what he writes is correct and backed up by good science and sources, IOW he represents the mainstream scientific and medical POV, while his detractors don't have such good sources or evidence. If your edits are reverted, don't restore them. That would be edit warring, a blockable offense. Instead, go to the discussion ("talk") page of the article and ask why your edits were reverted. The other editors will explain why. If you have trouble understanding things, just ask me in Swedish. I speak Danish and understand some Swedish and Norwegian. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * [BLP violation removed. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)] Stephen Barrett, MD, a psychiatrist in Allentown Pennsylvania was the leader of one of the affiliate groups called the Lehigh Valley Council Against Health Fraud. " (same source as above). If you have fact that show that these quotations are not reflecting the truth.Iwill be happy for that information.(By the way I am swedish with a Norwegian father.)I try to learn to quote! So sorry for my misstakes!--Bertilsson (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Forums aren't allowed as sources, and this one quotes a known libeler of Barrett (Bolen), whose websites are blacklisted here because they are so full of lies and errors. They are totally unreliable. In fact, you need to be careful about even quoting them here because repetition of libelous statements here violates our BLP policy and they must be removed. I'm going to do that after answering you. As to checking with the court, we aren't allowed to use primary source court records in BLPs unless they are published in secondary RS, and these aren't. They are only referred to by libelers. We can't be sure they are referring to them correctly or even quoting them correctly, and we would need to know the exact context in which the statements were made. We can't trust those sources. User:TimBolen happens to be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee itself, which is our highest authority here. That's how seriously they disagree with this libel campaign against Barrett. Joseph Lisa has been sued for libel by Barrett. His book is nonsense. If you keep posting such information, you too can get banned. Don't use Wikipedia to carry on a war against Barrett or anyone else. That's not what this place is for. We're writing an encyclopedia here. You're welcome to do something constructive in helping this project, but don't misuse it. Don't worry about your mistakes. That's only natural. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=50524--Bertilsson (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Request reference
Do you have a link to the reference for the dates August 27 and October 20 1913. This level of detail is better suited for other pages like the DD Palmer bio. The history section of the main chiropractic article is meant to be a summary of other articles.

The reference can be formatted but you are not obligated to format the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is the book: B.J. of Davenport . The Early Years of Chiropractic .The Author is Joseph C Keating. The book was published 1997 by The association for the history of chiropractic.ISBNnumber 0-9659131-0-4 .Links that say the same are:http://wapedia.mobi/en/Daniel_David_Palmer, and : http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=42251   I am  new at Wikipedia and  I try to learn. Thanks for your help!--Bertilsson (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the details about the dates can be moved to the DD Palmer page. I could add something to the DD Palmer bio but I do not have a copy of the book. You could add information from the book to the bio. You could use the exact text if you put it in quotes such as: "The 1997 book B.J. of Davenport stated "...". QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a from Joseph C. Keatings article :Myth 4. Old Dad Chiro died of auto injuries sustained when B.J. Palmer attempted patricide: This contention is absurd in several respects. Firstly, we know that Dad Chiro's death certificate indicates typhoid fever as the cause of death (Gielow, 1981); I am unaware that trauma is considered an etiology for this disorder. We also know that 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. More importantly, the claim of patricide is absurd on its face. If BJ had desired to murder his father, why do it at the front of a parade with many witnesses? Lastly, Dr. Carl Cleveland Jr.'s grandmother, Sylva L. Ashworth, DC, a 1910 graduate of the PSC, related to Carl that she had been there on that fateful day in August 1913, had witnessed the events, and recalls that DD was not struck by BJ's car, rather, that the founder had stumbled and that she had helped him to his feet. So why has this myth persisted so durably? Perhaps because BJ gave the profession so many other reasons to dislike him, and some of us cannot resist finding homicide credible? Yet logic and the available facts really do not support the perpetuation of this myth.--Bertilsson (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This information is mostly a repeat of a Keating reference that is in many articles. This text does not verify the exact dates of August 27 and October 20 1913 according to WP:V.
 * Different references come to different conclusions. We present competing views in each article but do not imply who is correct according to NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In Chiropractic An Illustrated History on page 86 is a photo of  an certified abstract of the death certificate that state that D.D. Palmer died october 20, 1913.That chapter is written by Dennis Peterson and Glenda Wiese. Ernst and Sing give no source to the date they mention, and none of the two are known for any writings on the subject chiropractic history. Ernst and Singhs book is not a scientific work. Also Walter I Wardell state the same days in his "Chiropractic History and Evolution of a new Profession" on page 62. I would say there are no debate about the date fore the parade or the date then D.D. Palmer died among historians. If you are intressted in chiropractic history. There will be no problem to find the books I have mentioned.--Bertilsson (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the text that verified the date of August 27. Do you have a quote or exact text from a book. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At page 129 in Chiropractic An Illustrated History in the chapter "Pathway to identity for a new healing art"(Capter 5) are four pictures from the parade august 27 1913.The chapter is written by Russel W. Gibbons. He has written a lot about the early years.The pictures are from Palmer college of chiropractic archives, Davenport Iowa. A quote from page 129:"The controversy that contiued to plauge B.J Palmer for much of a generation had its origins o august 27, 1913. Allegations that the son had knocked his father to the curb during the homecomming parade proved to be without foundation, despite attempts by rival Universal school owners and associations officials to obtain an indicement with the Scott County Jury. B.J provided full details  in publications issued in 1914, 11939, and 1949 to respond to the false and vicious charges of "patricide". "--Bertilsson (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a quote to the bio of B.J. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the quote from trick and treatment is correct:" Weeks later, D.D. Palmer died in Los Angeles." At least in the swedish version says:" a few weeks later" .But in reality it was close to three months. Ernst and Singh have problems with facts. There are no facts supporting their version, and they do not mention the most likely reason for the accusations the competition between the schools(Palmers and Universal)(That could be mentioned in the article.).--Bertilsson (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weeks later is correct. I did not specify how many weeks. I removed the word few. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK! I would have said months later.--Bertilsson (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't write months later when it is not in the book. The books uses the word weeks. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have an english copy of the book. But in the swedish translation do the book say "few Weeks", and that is not the same as "Weeks". so if the book say "few Weeks" the article ought to say "few weeks" too.(Of course this is not a big thing ...)--Bertilsson (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the word few for obvious reasons. The book uses the word few and weeks when it seems like a typo. Leaving it out is more accurate. The authors could of meant a few months. If someone contacted the authors with references a newer edition of the book could clarify the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you and I know more about the correct dates than E&S--Bertilsson (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not add any incorrect date to any article and the word weeks is not a date. E&S did not use a specific date. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You did wright:"The book uses the word few and weeks when it seems like a typo. Leaving it out is more accurate." It is not to you to decide. The book say:"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."E and s do not mention the dates. They only say "1913". So then E and S say DD died a few weeks later. Then it seems as they really think he died a few weeks later! If you change that quote it is incorrect. You change the text because of your own speculations, and i think you know that it is wrong! If you do not know. It is still wrong!--Bertilsson (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not change a quote. It is not in quotes. I summarised the source. I changed the text becuase of your objections. The book does not say only the date 1913. The word few seems to conflict with another source. We split the difference and say weeks which is still accurate enough. QuackGuru (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess the solution is to change the source from "trick and treatment" to "Chiropractic: An Illustrated History (1 ed.). Mosby. p. 88. ISBN 0-80167-735-1." Because it gives a deeper and more correct history of the 1913 parade and the different aspects of that event.--Bertilsson (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just use both of them. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If another source is more accurate and is a reliable source there is no reason to use two sources for the same thing. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We could replace it with another source. What is on page 88 that would be more accurate and can replace weeks. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)