Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of --75.118.73.140 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)unverified mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine. Proponents believe that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system. The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), manipulations of other joints and soft tissues. Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence".

References
References

Please remove "unverified" from "treatment of unverified mechanical...". Modern chiropractic education, except education from a few schools, teaches the identification and treatment of mechanical disorders, i.e. fixations, hyper and hypomobility vs the subluxation focused schools--who do treat "unverified" subluxations. "unverified" paints a broad brush to a profession with many schools and leaders rejecting the unproved vertebral subluxation complex. "unverified" should more accurately be used when using the term "subluxation".

Please add "Some" before "Proponents" in "Proponents believe that some ...". Not all practitioners believe "subluxations" have an effect on general health. Some organizations (in the US, Australia and Great Britian as well as some colleges) have rejected the "subluxation" theory and no longer use the term and/or don't teach it. Msimone (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) As far as I can see "a form of of alternative medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders" wouldn't be alternative medicine, it would be medicine. I disagree that such a definition would be an accurate representation of a body of thought where the majority position depends on the theory of non-existent "vertebral subluxations". Where are your sources that contradict what the sources in the article state?

(2) You need the balance of good sources saying that "only some proponents believe that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system" to add the word "some". See WP:SOME. Adding it would allow the impression to be formed that a large, if unknown, proportion of proponents might disagree with the vertebral subluxations theories. But we know that most of the proponents of chiropractic affirm belief in vertebral subluxations.

(3) Before you post an edit request, you might at least have to courtesy to see if your request has been asked and answered previously. Just scan through the most recent archive, which you can find at Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 38 and you'll see that your assertions about chiropractic education have already been addressed and placed into context. The lead of the article is concerned with chiropractic practice, not education, and you'll find sources that speak to the mismatch between what is claimed to be taught and the pronouncements of the leading bodies representing chiropractic throughout the world. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS, see WP:V policy. There is original research in the lede. The source(s) do not back up the some of the statements in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per QuackGuru. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I am curious how long the WP:OR will remain in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Chiropractors do work in a PCP role and are considered by peer reviewed literature as a better source of treatment for spinal disorders based on this study. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Apr 4;166(7):514-530. doi: 10.7326/M16-2367. Epub 2017 Feb 14. Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Qaseem A1, Wilt TJ1, McLean RM1, Forciea MA1; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.73.140 (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The most common MSK disorder treated by both chiropractic and MDs is non-specific low back pain. This is a diagnosis of exclusion. "Verification" is actively discouraged in the initial 6 weeks if no red flags are present. Additionally for chronic low back pain, often the person has had other issues ruled out by MRI before chiropractic care is initiated.

"Unverified" is a strange term as I make lots of "unverified" diagnosis following ruling out conditions that can be verified. Just think about chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and IBS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine[citation needed] concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[1][2][not in citation given] Refs do not go at the end of the sentence per V policy and WP:CITEFOOT since both refs do not verify the entire sentence. One ref verifies part of the sentence and the other ref verifies the other part. QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

QG the page you list says "As in the above example, citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas."

Would be good to quote which text from the sources support the content in the first line. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This ref from the NCCIH says "Chiropractic is a health care profession that focuses on the relationship between the body's structure—mainly the spine—and its functioning."[1] And the fact that it is listed there means it is "alt med" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a debate over whether it is alt med and NCCIH does not verify it is a type of alt med. QuackGuru (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Lots of sources call it alt med[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an internal and external debate over how to define the profession. See "Chiropractic still maintains some vestiges of an alternative health care profession in image, attitude, and practice. The profession has not resolved questions of professional and social identity, and it has not come to a consensus on the implications of integration into mainstream health care delivery systems and processes. In today’s dynamic health care milieu, chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay so how would you describe it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This was not originally about how to describe it. It is about the placement of the refs to verify each specific claim. The part "a form of alternative medicine" describes it without taking sides in the debate. Doing other stuff does not mean they are "mostly" concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders unless the source verifies the claim "mostly". QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm perplexed to see QG arguing that chiropractic is not a form of alternative medicine, but he is correct that there is internal and external debate over how to define it. A very neutral way would be along the NCCIH source, which simply says that "Chiropractic is a health care profession..." DigitalC (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

But wouldn't that be giving a false impression about a set of practices that has virtually no evidence of effectiveness and where the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on a theory of non-existent "vertebral subluxations"? --RexxS (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No. What false impression would it give? Is chiropractic a health care profession? Yes. Is it alternative medicine? There is internal and external debate about that, yet we are stating it like a fact. Which, speaking of, do you have a source the the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on a theory of subluxations? Because that is not my personal experience. In terms of their practices having no evidence of effectiveness, just recently the American College of Physicians (ACP) released a Guideline on treating Low Back Pain - for acute LBP they recommend nondrug therapy, such as heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation. For chronic LBP they exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, spinal manipulation (among other non-drug treatments). DigitalC (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As you ask, it would give the false impression that a set of techniques firmly based in mumbo-jumbo about vertebral subluxations has far more validity than it actually has. Is chiropractic a health care profession? No. Health care is based on real medicine, which by definition works. There's no reliable evidence that Chiropractic works. Is it alternative medicine? Yes, because that's how all the reliable sources label it – see the article. That's what is defined as a 'fact' in Wikipedia. As for subluxations, I have a source for this (from Vertebral subluxation):

... the presidents of at least a dozen chiropractic colleges of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) developed a consensus definition of "subluxation" in 1996. It reads:

"Chiropractic is concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation. A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health. A subluxation is evaluated, diagnosed, and managed through the use of chiropractic procedures based on the best available rational and empirical evidence."

In 2001 the World Federation of Chiropractic, representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries, adopted this consensus statement which reaffirms belief in the vertebral subluxation.

Fortunately, we don't write Wikipedia articles based on your personal experiences.

In terms of their practices having no evidence of effectiveness:

• "An evaluation of the 29 recent reviews of spinal manipulation for back pain concluded that those authored by chiropractors tended to generate positive results, whereas the others failed to demonstrate effectiveness."
• "Collectively, their results fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is effective. The only possible exception is back pain. For this condition, manipulation may be as effective (or ineffective) as standard therapy."

References

In other words, chiropractic is as effective as "exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, etc." for back pain – in other words: no long-term benefit (as any MD will tell you). If you think that being as effective as acupuncture for treating medical conditions is a recommendation, you need to look harder at what pseudoscience is. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, if you don't mind, please lay off the condescending dismissive attitude, it isn't appreciated. reliable sources disagree with your original research that chiropractic is not a health care profession. For example, the Meeker & Haldeman source that QG cited/linked above, as well as the NCIIH source from Doc James. Further, your claim that all reliable sources label chiropractic as alternative medicine is demonstrably false, as evidenced by that same Meeker & Haldeman article that QG cited, which back in 2002 stated that "chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine". Thanks for the your links regarding subluxation, although they fails to demonstrate what you state, that the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on subluxations. Instead, it demonstrates that national associations, not practitioners reaffirmed that more than 15 years ago. As for Guidelines not being recommendations, that is a bizarre assertion, especially since the American College of Physicians explicitly uses the words "treatment recommendations" - i.e. "Treatment recommendations include massage, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, tai chi, and yoga".

In regards to effectiveness, a more recent review than the biased Ernst source you quoted is the very recent JAMA review by Paige et. al, which found that SMT was associated with modest improvements in pain and function for LBP. . DigitalC (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Quit worrying about my attitude, and start focusing on the content. It's the usual tactic for POV-pushers to start making ad hominems to attack those who disagree with them when they have no actual facts to back them up. The reliable sources in the article contradict your assertion that chiropractic is a health care profession; it's actually alternate medicine based on pseudoscience. Look at the article and you'll see PMC 1185558; PMID:18280103; ISBN 978-0-393-06661-6; ISBN 0-07-137534-1; ISBN 978-3-319-21987-5; and more.

One source from 2002 states "chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine" and you try to use that to justify your claim that not all reliable sources label chiropractic as alternative medicine? Give us a break.

The Association of Chiropractic Colleges and the World Federation of Chiropractic (representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries) all agree that chiropractic is based on (non-existant) vertebral subluxations and have done so for over 15 years. You try to tell us that doesn't represent the overwhelming majority of practitioners? Pull the other one.

What are you talking about: "Guidelines not being recommendations, that is a bizarre assertion" – I've made no such assertion. You're reading off the wrong cue-sheet. Of course ACP and lots of other bodies are happy to recommend chiropractic (and exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, etc.) for back pain, because they know for most people nothing is going to cure it, and people often feel better after some sort of management, even if it's a placebo. Take a look at Back pain #Management for a fuller discussion.

Of course you try to dismiss Ernst as "biased". All chiro-fans do. But he's a very respected academic, a now-retired Professor of Complementary Medicine, and has many publications in the most prestigious of medical journals. The sources from Ernst used in this article are published by Journal of pain and symptom management, New Zealand Medical Journal, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, etc. I suppose, according to you, those are all biased as well?

Interestingly, even Ernst also agrees that spinal manipulation is associated with modest improvements in pain and function for lower-back pain. But so is massage, exercise, yoga, heat treatment and any number of other techniques - not to mention pain killers. So what? That's the only claim to efficacy that chiropractic can muster, and that's by proxy, because plenty of other practitioners can carry out spinal manipulation. There's no other condition that chiropractic has been shown to be efficacious for, and that ought to tell you something. It doesn't work and its underlying theory of vertebral subluxations is complete woo-woo. --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources in the article contradict your assertion that chiropractic is a health care profession None of those sources discuss whether chiropractic is or is not a healthcare profession. Those sources discuss the legitimacy of chiropractic. You also said Health care is based on real medicine, which by definition works. The dispute here seems to be a semantic debate about the meaning of the word "healthcare".

[Healthcare:] efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially by trained and licensed professionals Meriam-Webster Dictionary That doesn't mention anything about evidence in the definition. Chiropractic falls under that definition.

[Healthcare:] the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind. Dictionary.com Again, no mention of the evidence you say is implicit with the word. Chiropractors also fall under this definition.

And then there's Wikipedia's healthcare page. Here's the lede:

Health care or healthcare is the maintenance or improvement of health via the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in human beings. Healthcare is delivered by health professionals (providers or practitioners) in allied health professions, chiropractic, physicians, physician associates, dentistry, midwifery, nursing, medicine, optometry, pharmacy, psychology, and other health professions. It includes the work done in providing primary care, secondary care, and tertiary care, as well as in public health.

you will also find chiropractic listed under the list of healthcare occupations. If you look around Wikipedia, (along with most sources) you will find chiropractic listed as a "Healthcare profession", which in no way ascribes validity to it. You're worried about the "impression" it will make if it says "healthcare", but that term is already used in several pages on Wikipedia to describe chiropractic. Ironically, the chiropractic page is one of the few that does not use the term healthcare"

Interestingly enough, I wasn't able to find an objective source that validated your opinion on the definition of the word "Healthcare". Do you have one you can provide? or one that explicitly states chiropractic is not a healthcare profession? I'm happy to provide several more that say it is.

Whether or not chiropractic is defined as alternative medicine is debated in many places and by many people, but the only debate as to whether or not chiropractic is a healthcare profession seems to be here.Jmg873 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If the definition of healthcare were to be taken as you wish it to be, then witch doctors would meet the definition, as might voodoo priests, white witches, homeopaths, faith healers, and any number of snake oil salesmen, who make a living from their "efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being". If that's how you want to see chiropractic, that's fine with me. Otherwise get yourself a better dictionary. I'm only interested in real healthcare based on medicine that works. Not one based on pseudo-scientific claptrap. --RexxS (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If the definition of healthcare were to be taken as you wish it to be, then witch doctors would meet the definition If a country has laws licensing witch-doctors to treat health conditions, then they are irrefutably part of its healthcare system. You tell me to get a better dictionary, yet I can link any number of dictionaries matching the definition of the word I've discussed. I asked you for a definition from an objective source (like a dictionary) that matches the definition of the word healthcare you are using, and you've yet to provide it.

If that's how you want to see chiropractic... I'm only interested in real healthcare based on medicine that works. You can be interested in whatever you choose, but that has nothing to do with chiropractic being a healthcare profession. You're maintaining that this view is unique to me, but it isn't, and it doesn't matter how I see chiropractic. My view of chiropractic doesn't matter, that's why I cited dictionaries. Chiropractic is a profession which deals with the health of the human body. Chiropractors are licensed by the government in the US and many other countries to treat health problems. That licensure is what defines chiropractic as a healthcare profession; That's not my view, it's an irrefutable fact. Jmg873 (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Chiropractic is a profession which deals with the health of the human body. No it isn't. Chiropractic is a profession that claims to deal with health, based on the pseudo-science of vertebral subluxations, even though there's no evidence of its effectiveness, nor does any scientifically accepted method of action exist.

In those respects, it's no different from acupuncture, which has licensed (and certified) practitioners; or homeopathy which has licensed practitioners; or even from witch doctors, who are also licensed practitioners. If licensure is the defining characteristic of a healthcare profession for you, and you're happy with magic as the curative mechanism, then you're welcome to your definition. I'll stick with real doctors for my healthcare, thanks. --RexxS (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Chiropractic is a profession which deals with the health of the human body. No it isn't

This appears to be another semantic argument. by "deals with", I meant that their treatments pertain to the health of the human body, and attempt to improve it. My phrasing has no implications of efficacy.

In those respects, it's no different from acupuncture, which has licensed (and certified) practitioners; or homeopathy which has licensed practitioners; or even from witch doctors, who are also licensed practitioners.

In each country that licenses those professions to deal with health-related issues, they are part of that healthcare system. You don't have to use them, you don't have to believe in them, but they are.

you're welcome to your definition It's not my definition; it's the dictionary you're arguing with. Jmg873 (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

My phrasing has no implications of efficacy.  – Indeed it doesn't. Which is why it's worthless.

You don't have to use them  – Indeed you don't. And our article needs to be clear why not.

It's not my definition  – But it's the definition that you choose to use to justify your advocacy of chiropractic, no matter how ridiculous it is. We don't do readers any favours by pretending that vertebral subluxations, acupunture, homeopathy, or white magic offer the same sort of healthcare as evidence-based medicine does. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the sources listed above referring to chiropractic as a healthcare profession, the WHO repeatedly refers to it at a healthcare profession:

As a health care service, chiropractic offers a conservative management approach and, although it requires skilled practitioners, it does not always need auxiliary staff andtherefore generates minimal add‐on costs.

as well as: Chiropractic: A health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders ongeneral health. There is an emphasis on manual techniques, including joint adjustmentand/or manipulation, with a particular focus on subluxations. WHO.

I'm actually surprised that a reference to chiropractic as a "healthcare profession" is even a disputed point. Jmg873 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is about how we define chiropractic in the opening words of the article. And I'm surprised that it's not described as pseudo-science in that opening sentence. But we all have to make compromises. --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:LEADSENTENCE. I'm curious how long the original research will remain in the first paragragh. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In the WHO document chiropractic is only referred to as a "healthcare profession" three times: in the glossary on page 3, the same definition repeated on page 5 and in the educational objectives on 10. The introduction section written in 2004 explains that in some countries "there may be no educational, professional or legal framework governing the practice of chiropractic." On the NHS careers website there is only a mention- it is grouped under the section covering complementary and alternative medicine [4]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not about a document. The pressing concern is about original research. A new editor knows there are problems with the first paragraph since 4 March 2017. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@drchriswilliams, Chiropractic is actually referred to as a "Health care profession" in the document about 40 times. You have to search for "health care" as two words, rather than 1, but QG is right, that isn't the point. Jmg873 (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jmg873, the word "profession" was in the first paragraph a little while ago along with sourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jmg873: While you say you are counting the use of a phrase, the WHO document does not use it in the way that you describe. It is most often used to refer to "other health care professionals", for example when describing where chiropractic might be given as "supplementary education". Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The WHO source is irrelevant since it is not being used as the first source in the article. This version uses Nelson. It says "The status of "licensed healthcare profession" confers upon the chiropractic profession certain privileges, but it also imposes upon it a specific set of expectations and ethical obligations."[5] By law a chiropractic is licensed to be a healthcare professional. Can we focus on the real problems now? QuackGuru (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, let's get back to the primary issue: The version that you linked looks good. It removes the WP:OR out of the lede; that revision should stand. Jmg873 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Except that the 2005 Nelson article, published in a chiropractic journal, is an opinion piece which clearly identifies the objective of the authors to "increase market share of the public seeking chiropractic care". Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We are not trying to continue to discuss adding the word "healthcare" to the first paragraph. The tile of this thread is "Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017". Let's try to address the valid concerns. We are trying to remove the original research. For almost 10 years I have been trying to remove original research and content that failed verification from this page. The only problem remaining is the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any objections? 15:54, 30 May 2017 QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I object to you adding to a 5 day old comment. It gives a misleading impression. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to sign a new comment. QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I support QG's revision. Jmg873 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It is far better than the current version. The failed verification content has been removed. See Talk:Chiropractic/Proposal to replace the current first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a complete whitewash of the subject which is never going to be more than alternative medicine. A series of techniques that has been demonstrated to be ineffective and based on a discredited theory is not comparable to real medical professions like dentistry. --RexxS (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There is original research and other text that fails verification in the lede paragraph. That's no good here. QuackGuru (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

profession or form of (alternative) medicine?

How other WP articles start...

• "Dentistry is a branch of medicine..."
  • "A dentist, also known in the U.S. as a dental surgeon, is a surgeon who specializes in dentistry..."
• "Surgery... is an ancient medical specialty...."
  • In medicine, a surgeon is a doctor who performs operations. Surgeons may be physicians, podiatrists, dentists, or veterinarians. "
• "Veterinary medicine' is the branch of medicine..."
  • "A veterinary physician, colloquially called a vet, shortened from veterinarian ..., is a professional who practices veterinary medicine ..."

Am finding it odd to call this a "profession" and not a branch of (alternative) medicine... Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For the lede sentence we don't need to call it a "profession". We can't call it "alternative medicine" in the lede sentence when there is disagreement. QuackGuru (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I see, so your moving toward "profession" is an effort to escape the "(alternative) medicine" problem - is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not moving forward with "profession". I will not escape the "alternative medicine" content. There is no problem with "alternative medicine" content as long as the text follows the body. QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that in a bad way - artful editing can deal with difficult things. You certainly have been advocating for "profession". (note I said "moving toward" not "moving forward") Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not currently advocating for using the word "profession" for the lede sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I missed where your perspective has changed from this diff on the 19th or here on the 24th where you cited that diff. But OK fine, thanks for clarifying that you do not support using "profession" in the lead. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The diffs you provided shows the removal of original research and content that fails verification. My main focus is to remove the content that is against policy and summarise the body simultaneously. QuackGuru (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with calling chiropractic a profession. After all, it's beyond doubt that some people make a living practising the art. But then again, so do confidence tricksters and witch doctors. However, I do object to these constant attempts by POV-pushers to pretend that it's something that it is not. It's alternative medicine and plenty of sources tell us that. Here's how our page introduces the subject: "Alternative medicine — or fringe medicine — includes practices claimed to have the healing effects of medicine but which are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or can not, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims ...". Who is going to maintain, in the face of all of the evidence, that chiropractic claims to heal everything but has not been shown to be effective for anything beyond chronic LBP? --RexxS (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The body tells a different story regarding alternative medicine. We summarise the body. See "A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[9]" The reason this is in the lede is because I wrote it. It takes a person to summarise the sources and summarise the body. That's what I have been doing. QuackGuru (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. The body tells this story:

• Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine {ref name=Chapman-Smith} which focuses on manipulation of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.{ref name=Nelson}
• Chiropractic's origins lie in the folk medicine of bonesetting{ref name=Ernst-eval} and as it evolved it incorporated vitalism, spiritual inspiration and rationalism.{ref name=Keating05}
• This "straight" philosophy, taught to generations of chiropractors, rejects the inferential reasoning of the scientific method,{ref name=Keating05} and relies on deductions from vitalistic first principles rather than on the materialism of science.{ref name=Chiro-Beliefs}
• Although a wide diversity of ideas exist among chiropractors,{ref name=Keating05} they share the belief that the spine and health are related in a fundamental way, and that this relationship is mediated through the nervous system.{ Gay RE, Nelson CF (2003). "Chiropractic philosophy". In Wainapel SF, Fast A (eds.). Alternative Medicine and Rehabilitation: a Guide for Practitioners. New York: Demos Medical Publishing. ISBN 1-888799-66-8. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) }
• and so on

Summarise that and stop trying to whitewash the words "alternate medicine" out of the article, because that's exactly what the body of the article tells us it is. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine" is misplaced content and does not tell the reader anything accurately. Later in the body it is summarized correctly. The first paragraph is about summarizing the definition and scope of practice for chiropractic. The proposal contains content that does summarise alternate medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No. "Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine" is exactly in the right place because it sets the scene immediately for our readers. It is an accurate summary of the first sections of the article body. A reader who knows what alternative medicine is, will understand clearly that chiropractic is a manifestation of that; a reader who does not know what alternative medicine is, has only to follow the link to grasp that chiropractic does indeed claim to have the healing effects of medicine but those are disproven; and that the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims. There are no "vertebral subluxations" and manipulating the spine does not have a magical healing effect on general health. It's an open-and-shut case. Your proposal at Talk:Chiropractic/Proposal is a simple whitewashing exercise which attempts to elevate chiropractic to a status comparable with mainstream medicine. That is a travesty of how our encyclopedia should report on alternative or fringe medicine. The proposal is riddled with weasel words aiming to give the reader a false impression:

• "diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders" – there's no evidence of effectiveness of treatment, nor of any effectiveness in prevention;
• "the hypothesis that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system" – there's no such hypothesis: it's simply nonsensical conjecture, otherwise known as "woo-woo";
• "generally categorised as complementary and alternative medicine" – as if there is any other possible independent categorisation;
• "a characterization that many chiropractors reject" – Mandy Rice-Davies Applies;
• "chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers" – except for any evidence of being able to effectively treat any of the ailments that they claim to be able to treat;
• "chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry" – no it doesn't: both of those have a measurable effect on health;
• "A large number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence," – how large a number? If the number really is large, how come the main associations representing chiropractic both in the USA and world-wide still espouse the theory? Why can't this "large number of chiropractors" have any influence on the very bodies that they have set up to represent them?

If you want to make such a drastic change in how Wikipedia reports on chiropractic, then start an RfC and advertise it properly, because you'll find no consensus for that sort of change here. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine" is duplication. It is not a summary of that section.
• "diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders" – it is irrelevant whether there is or is not evidence of effectiveness for any treatment - that's not the purpose of the first paragraph;
• "the hypothesis that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system" – there is such a hypothesis: it's simply another way of saying idea or concept;
• "generally categorised as complementary and alternative medicine" – as there is disagreement in the body of the article;
• "a characterization that many chiropractors reject" – is accurate;
• "chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers" – this is not regarding evidence of being effective or not being effective;
• "chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry" – yes it does: both of those are not primary care providers like chiropractic;
• "A large number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence," – how large do you ask. The source says substantial. How come there is still original research and other text that failed verification still in the first paragraph? QuackGuru (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers" -- This is really a problem sentence and is only true if the scale of analysis excludes anything clinical. It's only true in a broad-brush context, like a taxonomic one: PCPs breathe air, and so to chiropractors. They are both humans. You can see where this goes. Chiropractors have almost no similarity to PCPs in a clinical context, and suggesting that they "share attributes" is misleading. Delta13C (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO, this content is better adjusted. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: What do you mean by it is "better adjusted"? QuackGuru (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I think that this version fits better than the previous one to the text of the reference (Meeker-Haldeman), which says (page 218): "With the advent of the category “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), chiropractors themselves are divided about how to define the profession; many do not want to be termed CAM practitioners (23). Chiropractors have many of the attributes of primary care providers and often describe themselves as such (24). Others point out that chiropractic has more of the attributes of a limited medical profession or specialty, akin to dentistry or podiatry (1). This is an ongoing internal and external debate affected by dynamic health industry forces." --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The change went against NPOV and V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:

• Of course "Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine" is duplication. That's what summaries do.
• "diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders" – it is irrelevant whether there is or is not evidence of effectiveness for any treatment - that's not the purpose of the first paragraph; The hell it's not the purpose: we have to establish in the first paragraph the nature of chiropractic, and the fact that it is ineffective as a form of treatment is anything but irrelevant. It needs to be stated loud and clear upfront.
• "the hypothesis that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system" – there is such a hypothesis: it's simply another way of saying idea or concept; No it isn't – it has implications of method and suggests the possibility that evidence may be found. That ship has sailed a long time ago. If you mean 'concept', write 'concept', instead of trying to weasel it into something that it's not.
• "generally categorised as complementary and alternative medicine" – as there is disagreement in the body of the article; That's the OR you're so fond of complaining about. It is categorised as alternative medicine, and the only dissenters are the chiropractors and their apologists. "Well they would, wouldn't they?"
• "a characterization that many chiropractors reject" – is accurate; But tells us nothing. Of course many chiropractors reject the appellation; but we're not writing this article from the point of view of a chiropractor, and their views on the topic are anything but independent.
• "chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers" – this is not regarding evidence of being effective or not being effective; Yes it is. It's the single most important attribute of a primary care provider: that what they do works.
• "chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry" – yes it does: both of those are not primary care providers like chiropractic; No it doesn't. Those are respected medical specialities with the highest quality of regulation and lengthy training, based on sound principles. They also do what they claim to do: fix teeth or feet.
• "A large number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence," – how large do you ask. The source says substantial. How come there is still original research and other text that failed verification still in the first paragraph? I'm still asking. What's the answer? --RexxS (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm trying to remove the original research and other content that fails verification from the first paragraph. The first paragraph is not intended to focus on evidence. That's not how to summarise the body. Later on in the lede there is plenty of content about evidence. There are ongoing problems with the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's already obvious to everybody what you're trying to do, and it's nothing to do with removing OR: you just want to turn this article into a glowing advert for chiropractic. The first paragraph has to focus on evidence, just as every other paragraph in the article has to. It's how we write our encyclopedia. I'm still waiting for an answer to how many chiropractors want to distance themselves from the woo-woo. A quarter? a third? 10%? 1%? We need to know some hard facts before you start this sort of "hand-waving". --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It is inherently easy to understand where I am coming from. It has to do with removing original research (OR) and other content that failed verification in the lede paragraph, while simultaneously improving the first paragraph. There is content in the first paragraph that is against V and OR policy. The first paragraph must not focus on evidence, as it is explained later in the lede in other sections. It's not the way to write our encyclopedia. You don't need to wait for a specific answer because the source does not give a specific percentage. I go by what the source stated without engaging in OR or speculation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I would like to get the neutrality we all seek. Sorry if it has already been explained, I have not read all the conversations thoroughly... what exactly do you consider OR in this first paragraph? --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Every sentence in the first paragraph is either OR and/or not neutral and/or failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

More problems with the lede with this change. All the sources do not support the change and the first paragraph should not have that kind of content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. It was already in the lead before the previous edit removed it, and it is clearly supported by Chiropractic: a critical evaluation which uses almost exactly those words. You need to read the sources instead of pontificating about what the lead should and shouldn't contain. I see you're still sticking with your contention that "vertebral subluxations" and "innate intelligence" exist, in the face of all the evidence. --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing for not describing chiro as alt med

QG, would you please provide refs from mainstream medicine (outside the alt med and chiro "bubbles" which are distinct but overlap) that describe chiro as something other than alt med? Doing so would greatly strengthen your argument and without them you are unlikely to persuade anyone. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to strengthen any argument or persuade others. Larry Sanger's V policy remains strong. I'm curious how long the policy violations will remain in the first paragraph. A short time ago the first paragraph did not contain any content that failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/Guidance_on_claims_made_for_the_chiropractic_VSC_18August10.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historyofchiropractic.org/assets/documents/ChiroHistoryPrimer.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424011335/http://ahc.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/ChiroHistoryPrimer.pdf to http://ahc.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/ChiroHistoryPrimer.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

PoV hatchet job

Why are we tolerating such a one-sided attack piece on an entire range of disciplines, that include doctors and quacks, not just quacks? There are multiple approaches to chiropractic, which did have pseudoscientific origins, but has evolved a long way since then. There are chiropractors who do hold with the nonsense 19th-century views (and probably also offer aromatherapy and naturopathy; if you encounter one, back out of the door slowly ...). But there are plenty of chiropractors who approach this as a scientific medical discipline, grounded entirely in observable facts, like whether one of the vertebrae is observably out of place. Anyone who's actually been to a chiropractor of the latter sort (e.g. because they couldn't stand up straight after twisting their back and were in great pain, and had this problem resolved in 15 minutes of manual or activator adjustment, with no hint of mumbo-jumbo) knows the difference.

I can't imagine that there are no reliable sources on the different approaches. I note that in the US at least, chiropractic is a regulated discipline like physical therapy, acupuncture (which also has questionable origins but produces results in modern practice), therapeutic massage, and other para-medical work, but unlike naturopathy, aromatherapy, colonic "cleansing", crystal therapy, past-life regression, and other pseudoscience – which have irrational adherents even within otherwise legit medical disciplines [6],[7], etc.

This article would do much better by our readers to distinguish between a) different approaches to instruction, licensure, and practice, and b) the problems inherent in the ideas behind the genesis of the field, as a side topic, not as the singular focus. The lead is also flat-out misleading readers into believing that all modern chiropractors hold to the older, unscientific ideas. It's a lie and a caricature.

We are making such distinctions elsewhere, e.g. between modern medicine and the dangerous mercury, leeches, and "vapours" nonsense from which it originated; between modern psychology and psychiatry versus the Freudian and Jungian mysticism-laced psychotherapy pseudoscience of a century ago (which still continues aplenty); and between radically different medical versus bunk approaches of osteopaths (real doctors in the US, mystical weirdos in Europe). Our approach to traditional Chinese medicine and ayurvedic medicine is also doing a much better job than this article, which seems to have been taken over by the Anti-Chiropractic League or something.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The lede is where most of the disputes begin and end. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 39 for the previous discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this? First and foremost.

For the Lede, it might go a little too far in some areas. A few quotes could be put into the body rather than the lede. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: you're simply talking bollocks. Your invective is completely free from sourcing and divorced from reality. If you're so sure that this article is a "POV hatchet job", do your homework and find the reliable sources that sustain your view. I'm sure we can all adduce stories of how a friend of a friend was cured of an otherwise incurable affliction by some miraculous intervention. Unfortunately for that theory of article-writing, the plural of anecdote is not data. If you're so certain that so many chiropractors reject the mumbo-jumbo of vertebral subluxations, then feel free to explain why the largest associations representing chiropractors believe in it:

... the presidents of at least a dozen chiropractic colleges of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) developed a consensus definition of "subluxation" in 1996. It reads:

"Chiropractic is concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation. A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health. A subluxation is evaluated, diagnosed, and managed through the use of chiropractic procedures based on the best available rational and empirical evidence."

In 2001 the World Federation of Chiropractic, representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries, adopted this consensus statement which reaffirms belief in the vertebral subluxation.

References

Or you could at least take the trouble to look at the last archive where this was discussed no more than a few months ago. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We have yet another editor concerned about the lede. See "The lead is also flat-out misleading readers into believing that all modern chiropractors hold to the older, unscientific ideas. It's a lie and a caricature." That's a very strong statement by SMcCandlish. The last archive must be closely read in order for editors to make sure the lede follows Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and properly summarises the body. QuackGuru (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Both the Association of Chiropractic Colleges and the World Federation of Chiropractic are not mentioned in the lede. Therefore, they don't represent the discussion for the content in the lede. Am I missing something? QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Been busy all day on other stuff. I'll try to get through this all later. To address RexxS's flameout:

No one else will care, so I'll collapse box this

First off, if one's "argument" is "you're simply talking bollocks ... divorced from reality" it's indistinguishable from the reactive defensive aggression of someone holding to an extremist position they know has holes in it. No one with a rational and bullet-proof position ever has to resort to ad hominem verbal abuse. It's the last refuge of the fallacious. Speaking of fallacies, look up straw man; no one said anything about any "cured of an otherwise incurable affliction" scenario, so your ranting about that is off-topic. Here's another straw man, though a cleverly disguised one: "...the largest associations representing chiropractors believe in..." – I never said anything about what specific organization state, and was pretty clear that there are differing views/positions. I never even suggested a guestimate of kook to scientist to in-the-middle ratios in this field, so there's no point throwing your own OR guestimates based on some organization sites you've singled out as particularly kooky. You're attacking a bunch of fake arguments I never made. As for "completely free from sourcing": This is a talk page, it's not an article. I'm making a tone and balance complaint, for editors who specialize in MEDRS sourcing to deal with, they way they have dealt with similar matters at topics I already enumerated in some detail. I'm also making a demonization-by-overgeneralization complaint, which is perhaps a severable though related matter. Yes, it will take sources to demonstrate what the different approaches are and how they differ (including differing definitions of "subluxation", plus there are chiropractors who don't use the term, and just speak of alignment of the spine, joint mobility, muscle tension or painful pressure on a nerve due to a partial dislocation, etc.) I'm suggesting that it needs to happen that Wikipedia get this material right. I'm saying this primarily as a reader having a "WTF?" reaction, not as an editor. At first I suspected the page had been vandalized, the lead is that bad and out-of-character for Wikipedia. MEDRS is not my area of great research productivity, largely because I do not presently have access to most of the full-text journal stuff. Anyone familiar with me knows the depth and breadth of sourcing work I can and will do when I GaF, often buying sources I can't get for free (over $3K so far). (Anyone familiar with me also knows I'm no friend of pseudo-science; I'm a rationalist without a "spiritual" or "mystical" bone in my body). But I also take a dim view of editors' WP:GREATWRONGS deathmatch behavior against people who disagree with them. It's disruptive and it doesn't serve our readers. In the end, I DGaF all that much about this particular topic, and there are MEDRS people who already have access to every journal site they could ever need, and know how to use them very efficiently, and love working on articles like this. I don't need to ineffectively try to devote my WP time to this article in order to point out NPOV and OR problems with it. If someone comes and tells me that, say, an article on English use of a particular punctuation mark is heavily, obviously biased toward only one viewpoint (e.g. British journalism or American academic publishing, whatever), or someone else tells me that an article on particular cat breed is a biased promotional piece obviously hacked together by breeders to make their breed sound unreasonably appealing, I'm not going to reflexively attack them, I going to look into the concerns. That's what Wikipedias do. This article, at least its lead, is just a Wikipedia embarrassment. We never permit a piece this single-mindedly hateful to sit here like this for so long. This is a community matter, not a personal one. So go ahead and yell at me for not fixing it all myself if that makes you feel magically superior. Everyone's entitled to an occasional irrational belief, especially if they spend their time mostly fighting others' irrational beliefs. Maybe it inevitably comes with the territory, like atheists who come to treat atheism like a religion (I call myself an agnostic instead, specifically to distance myself from them). Finally, Of course I'm aware that this has been discussed before. This article has been problematic for years, and has lots of archived talk. The fact that it's still this biased is a clear indication that the prior discussions have failed to resolve the matter, so I'm hardly going to waste time quoting them. The very fact that there's this much discussion about this, involving plenty of rational people (as well as, naturally, various fringey thinkers) is a strong indication that the balance problem is actual and you just don't want to see it. I would surmise that's because you've been "too close" to the content for too long, in too many heated arguments. I recognize the tone of someone who's gotten "argued out" on something and is just pissed off that the argument hasn't gone away.

So, well, meh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

ScienceBasedMedicine.org has a shorter but remarkably similar article. Despite a boatful of problems, it makes it clear (while trying to dodge or fudge about it) that "subluxation" has multiple meanings, that chiropractic views change, that spinal manipulation therapy is effective for low back pain (qualified unnecessarily with "for some patients", which is a qualification that applies to every treatment for everything) but "not superior to" other alternatives (a negative and bullshitty way of saying "as effective as" other treatments), that there are radically different kinds of chiropractors who (as I said) focus on SMT without mumbo-jumbo, versus those who are involved in kooky quackery, plus various stuff in the middle, like SMT chiros who also do massage therapy (a combination that is kind of obvious and not suspect in any way, any more than is an orthopedic surgeon's office with a physical therapist on staff). Like our article, that one tries to steer the reader into making assumptions, by bandying about claims that lots of chiropractors believe in [insert various irrational shit here]. It's a variant on "many dentists are Christians, who believe in stuff like a virgin birth and a man-god coming back from the dead, so dentists cannot be trusted!" transparent agenda-pushing, but craftily constructed to sound more plausibly scary.

Why does our article read so much like the people at ScienceBasedMedicine.org wrote it? Theirs is like an abstract of ours, and accidentally highlights many of the problems in it by reducing it to short sentences in which the guilt by association, argument to emotion, and other fallacies are more obvious due to the clipped brevity. While, yes, our lead is the most problematic, it's not the only trouble spot. Starting there, the main problem is a particularly verboten form of OR again: leading the reader to the editor's desired conclusion. We insert various non sequitur factoids as if they're damning evidence in a chain of logic when they're unrelated to each other, or to summarizing the topic accurately and informatively as WP:LEAD requires and says how to do properly. Just one example for now: the fact that some patients report short-term negative side effects. This is true of very nearly every treatment for everything (even aspirin), and is certainly true of every general branch of medicine and paramedical practice, from physiotherapy to tooth cleaning. This particular bit of negative dwelling on something in a fake "smoking gun" manner to scare the reader is WP:UNDUE, as well as just one of several reader-leading techniques used back to back.

More some other time; I gotta get some sleep.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a draft page without OR in the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/7/330
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.journalchirohumanities.com/Vol%2015/JChiroprHumanit2008v15-19-26.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.journalchiroed.com/2000/JCEFall2000Rose.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160324082643/http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/100_199/0107.html to http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/100_199/0107.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://jcca-online.org/ecms.ashx/PDF/2005/2005-3/Chiropracticclinicalpracticeguideline-evidence-basedtreatmentofadultneckpainnotduetowhiplash.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5sVyyGVET?url=http://jcca-online.org/ecms.ashx/PDF/2008/2008-1/ClinicalPracticeGuidelineUpdatefromTheCCACFCREABCPG.pdf to http://jcca-online.org/ecms.ashx/PDF/2008/2008-1/ClinicalPracticeGuidelineUpdatefromTheCCACFCREABCPG.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511154423/http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/425 to http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/425
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cmcc.ca/Media_Relations.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801072938/http://www.life.edu/node/94 to http://life.edu/node/94
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118013746/http://www.cceintl.org/About_Us.html to http://www.cceintl.org/About_Us.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217092348/http://ccea.com.au/Accreditation/Program%20Accreditation%20Status.htm to http://www.ccea.com.au/Accreditation/Program%20Accreditation%20Status.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527103605/http://www.chiropracticcanada.ca/en-us/AboutUs/ChiropracticInCanada.aspx to http://www.chiropracticcanada.ca/en-us/AboutUs/ChiropracticInCanada.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140405120410/http://www.chiropractic.org/ica/ethics.htm to http://www.chiropractic.org/ica/ethics.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625173624/http://chiropracticdiplomatic.com/strategies/global_strategy.pdf to http://chiropracticdiplomatic.com/strategies/global_strategy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922091855/http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/politicsnorthwest/2009/01/22/the_campus_is_heating_up.html to http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/politicsnorthwest/2009/01/22/the_campus_is_heating_up.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Baby colic

The review states "Moreover, a case of death after manipulation of the cervical and thoracolumbar spine in a 3- months- old infant is reported. For this reason, considering the lack of evidence of safety and effectiveness, manipulation of the vertebral column is not recommended.13"[8]

The content added appears to be too close to the original source and it is duplication of existing content in the chiropractic article. See "and that the evidence from reviews is negative, or too weak to draw conclusions, for a wide variety of other nonmusculoskeletal conditions, including..." The list includes baby colic,[125][126]. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_38#Misplaced_article.3F for the other copyvio. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you propose? There is no problem in reviewing it. Best. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 20:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove the copvio and duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO, there is no "copyvio". WP:CLOP "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." And there are few ways to say this. In addition, it is not a creative text. They are just two short sentences (not even a paragraph), paraphrased to the extent possible, describing facts. See also WP:NOCREATIVE and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Substantial similarity.

And about the possible duplication and this you said: "'and that the evidence from reviews is negative, or too weak to draw conclusions, for a wide variety of other nonmusculoskeletal conditions, including...' The list includes baby colic" No, the list does not include baby colic, it includes "ADHD/learning disabilities, dizziness, high blood pressure, and vision conditions.(122)".

Baby colic is included in a list that says "Other reviews have found no evidence of significant benefit for..." and is backed by references dating back 14, 9 and 8 years. The review I have included is of 2017 and expands the information, discouraging manipulation in babies.

Let's see more opinions. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is "As there is no evidence of effectiveness or safety for cervical manipulation for baby colic, it is not endorsed.[134]" The content about safety was moved to safety and rewritten. See "A three-month-old baby died following cervical and thoracolumbar manipulation.[134]" The source does not mention it was "chiropractic manipulation". The source mentioned it was "manipulation of the vertebral column".[9] That by definition is cervical manipulation. QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

On the other page it says "Further, as there is no evidence of safety for cervical manipulation for baby colic, it is not advised.[26] There is a case of a three-month-old dying following manipulation of the neck area.[26]" Both articles have slightly different wording from each other. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. Thanks. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2017

The information provided in this article is very biased and one sided. Chiropractic is an evidenced based field. I would be happy to provide said articles upon request to clear up any inaccurate information that was utilized to piece together this post. Furthermore, The schooling required to complete the Doctor of Chiropractic program is rigorous and covers a multitude of varying subject matter that includes but is not limited to human Anatomy and Physiology as well as the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Chiropractic is not a pseudoscience and the association of this type of false information provided on Wikipedia should be removed/corrected immediately. Provided below in (____) are just a few of the correction that should be made. These are opinions of biased articles and are only facilitating the spread of this propaganda.

Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine mostly concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[1][2] Proponents claim that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.[2] These claims are not backed by any evidence. The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), manipulations of other joints and soft tissues.[3] Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that are not based on sound science.[4][5][6][7][8]

Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results.[4] Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[4] A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[9] Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.[10] The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.[11] There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations.[12] It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.[13] There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation.[14] Several deaths have been associated with this technique[13] and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative,[15][16] a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.[16]

Chiropractic is well established in the United States, Canada, and Australia.[17] It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions, including massage therapy, osteopathy, and physical therapy.[18] Most who seek chiropractic care do so for low back pain.[19] Back and neck pain are considered the specialties of chiropractic, but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues.[4] Many chiropractors describe themselves as primary care providers,[4][20] but the chiropractic clinical training does not support the requirements to be considered primary care providers,[2] so their role on primary care is limited and disputed.[2][20] Chiropractic has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, "innate intelligence" and spinal adjustments, and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease; "mixers", the majority, are more open to mainstream views and conventional medical techniques, such as exercise, massage, and ice therapy.[21] Summerturn83 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Nihlus (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2017

Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine mostly concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[1][2] Proponents claim that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.[2] These claims are not backed by any evidence. The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), manipulations of other joints and soft tissues.[3] Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that are not based on sound science.[4][5][6][7][8]

While even many chiropractic doctors agree that manipulation therapy (manual therapy) is sustained by pseudopscientific ideas they claim that more modern chiropractic treatments which ave emerged are based on sound science and accepted by mainstream medicine. Such as various traction and motorized decompression chiropractic techniques. Chiropractic Biophysics®(CBP®) is the most published named technique in the Index Medicus using traction methods. Motorized decompression provided by the DRX-9000 machine, approved by the USA Food and Drug Administration is supported by sound scientific research. Both DRX-9000 motorized decompression and Chiropractic Biophysics traction chiropractic therapy techniques can be objectively quantified through pre-therapy and post-therapy Magnitic Resonance Imaging and X-ray imagining.

Numerous controlled clinical studies of manipulation treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results.[4] Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[4] A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[9] Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.[10] The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.[11] There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations.[12] It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.[13] There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation.[14] Several deaths have been associated with this technique[13] and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative,[15][16] a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.[16]

Chiropractic is well established in the United States, Canada, and Australia.[17] It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions, including massage therapy, osteopathy, and physical therapy.[18] Most who seek chiropractic care do so for low back pain.[19] Back and neck pain are considered the specialties of chiropractic, but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues.[4] Many chiropractors describe themselves as primary care providers,[4][20] but the chiropractic clinical training does not support the requirements to be considered primary care providers,[2] so their role on primary care is limited and disputed.[2][20] Chiropractic has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, "innate intelligence" and spinal adjustments, and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease; "mixers", the majority, are more open to mainstream views and conventional medical techniques, such as exercise, massage, and ice therapy.[21]

D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s,[22] after saying he received it from "the other world",[23] and his son B. J. Palmer helped to expand it in the early 20th century.[22] Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial.[24][25] Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccination is an effective public health intervention, among chiropractors there are significant disagreements over the subject,[26] which has led to negative impacts on both public vaccination and mainstream acceptance of chiropractic.[27] The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966[28] and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987.[20] Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services; in recent decades, it has gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the United States.[20] 168.179.249.126 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Repasting the entire introduction to the article without specifying your requested edits makes it difficult to see what you want changed Cannolis (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a link to a news story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41634996

Roxy the dog. bark 14:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a pointless post; do you have any suggestions to improve the article? The news story ends with "and we look forward to the precise cause of his death being resolved as quickly as possible." Perhaps once we learn the cause of death the story will have more relevance?

Pointless? A WP:SPA like yourself would say that I suppose. Also learn to sign your posts. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so you are suggesting that it is not a pointless post to link an article with no commentary and no suggestion on what to do with the link you provided? I will give you the benefit of the doubt; so what is your suggestion for improving the article based on the news article you linked?

If you cannot see why I posted that, I really dont mind. Also learn to sign your posts. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

"These claims are not backed by any evidence." There is no citation for this. 68.147.43.238 (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Which and which claim? –Ammarpad (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The sentence "These claims are not backed by any evidence" is in the lede. Which means there does not need to be a source: the lede summarizes the article, and the article, further down, has the citations needed. No action necessary here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[9]

Several red-flags alarm when reading this and checking the citation. First of which, two non-chiropractors evaluated a profession they have no learning and training in. It would be just as alarming to see an evaluation of a medical practice by a doctor of chiropractic.

Second, there is such a vast difference between a chiropractic adjustment and a spinal manipulation. Many professions use spinal manipulation as part of their treatments. D.O.s, physical therapists, etc. There is no specificity to a spinal manipulation, so what would lead anyone to believe it would be as effective as a specific chiropractic adjustment?

Third, modern day chiropractic makes no claims as to the chiropractic adjustment treating ANY condition. And, to research the Palmer father and son, they were FOUNDERS of a science and were working their own way through the understanding of it. As recent as the 1960's the practice of medicine claimed pregnant women should be treated with Thalidomide against morning sickness. Medicine felt bloodletting was an appropriate treatment for balancing the body fluids to treat all health illnesses. Of course any rational individual studied in any science understands the claims early on are based on observation and data available at that time. However, chiropractic, as a science has remained very consistent with the understanding that a central nervous system under the least amount of stress is the optimal form. If some chiropractors out in the field made public claims that chiropractic cures cancer, or heals the blind, etc., it is an error to then use that to brush the science of chiropractic as also making such claims.

So by using a "critical evaluation" performed by people who are not qualified to critically evaluate the science of chiropractic and then to post their findings as if such is scientific fact, is not only ignorant, it is also fallacious and dangerous.

Keeping it very simple, chiropractic works because the chiropractic adjustment locates, analyzes and corrects the vertebral subluxation complex and thus leaves the body in a more optimum state of healing and recovery. Because that is what the body is constantly attempting to do, maintain homeostasis. The body uses the CNS (central nervous system) to control and coordinate the actions of every cell in the body. Any unneeded pressure placed on the CNS reduces the ability of the body to be functioning at its optimal potential. Removing the unneeded pressure placed on the CNS by a vertebral subluxation leaves the body instantly in a more optimum state. If the body then is able to cure or heal ITSELF of cancer, headaches, mental illness, fatigue, WHATEVER, then the body did that, not chiropractic.

There is a wealth of peer reviewed critical evaluations of the science of chiropractic available done the correct scientific way. No need to use pseudo-research done by unqualified people.Dr Jeff Allen (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of formatting the above post to a more usual presentation, so that it doesn't hurt my eyes. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 05:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Still hurts my brain though. Full of non-sequiturs, false analogies, ad hominem, and other bad reasoning.

So, Dr Jeff, are you trying to say that there are mistakes in the paper quoted, and that there are conditions spinal manipulation is effective at treating? Which ones are those conditions, and where is the evidence? Which mistakes are those, and where is the evidence?

Handwaving, as in the above diatribe, does not count as evidence. Neither does credential-waving. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Naprapathy

Is it possible to get any more information, like a dedicated section, on naprapathy? I went to look it up, but there is barely any info on it here. I see that it used to have its own article but then it got merged. Perhaps some reliable sources got lost in the merge. Googling around, I can see some candidates. Just a thought for anyone who would like to improve this article. K.Bog 21:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Check out the history of that article. Maybe you can rescue something there and create a section here. I can't guarantee it will be saved here, but at least you'll have the beginnings of a stub article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

neuroleptic malignant syndrome

Chiropractors are decidedly not specialists with neuroleptic malignant syndrome. No chiropractor on the planet would even try to treat that unless they had a side-business as an undertaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1BA0:5D10:754C:423F:C121:32EE (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is this pag3e locked?

There is inaccurate information on this page. It has been locked so that the corrections can not be made. One can only assume that this is done intentionally so that true information about the subject can not be read. CMS2152 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest not to assume a conspiracy. Could you describe what exactly appears to be wrong in the article please? Retimuko (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Outdated, unfair, and bias

• The scientific community now recognizes that manipulation is of value for the vast majority of patients who seek chiropractic care (Haldeman & Underwood, 2010)

• 2018: The study led by investigators at the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, in conjunction with the RAND Corporation and the Samueli Institute– the largest randomized clinical trial in chiropractic research in the U.S. to-date – took place from September 2012 to February 2016 and involved 750 active-duty U.S. military personnel at three sites across the country. New study finds the addition of chiropractic care to usual medical care provides greater relief for low-back pain than usual medical care alone

• Furlan et al., 2010: Spinal manipulation significantly more effective at reducing pain in the short-term when compared to placebo or no treatment

• Rubinstein, et. al., 2011: 20 RCTs on acute low back pain: Similar clinical benefits to exercise, physiotherapy, and NSAIDS

• Goertz et al., 2013: Acute low back pain RCT of active-duty military personnel: Addition of SMT resulted in clinically and statistically significant reduction in pain and improvement in function

• Cochrane Review - adults with neck pain (Gross et al., 2010). 27 trials, 1,522 participants. Cervical spinal manipulation results in pain relief superior to that of sham control in the immediate and short-term for acute and chronic neck pain conditions

• Jull et al., 2002: Spinal manipulation favorable for cervicogenic-type headache

• Brantingham et al., 2013: Fair level of evidence for use of manipulative therapy for upper extremity conditions such as lateral epicondylopathy and carpal tunnel syndrome for short-term

• Systematic review - Brantingham et al., 2012, Fair level of evidence for manipulative therapy for knee osteoarthritis, patellofemoral pain syndrome, and ankle inversion sprains

• Cassidy et al. 2008: No evidence that patients receiving chiropractic care are at higher risk of suffering VBA stroke than patients visiting a primary care provider

• Cramer et al., 2013: Ascribed to increased joint mobility following the mechanical elimination of adhesions in hypo mobile spinal facet joints — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.220.220 (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018

change "find themselves is at odds with" to "find themselves at odds with" Richardpenner (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

When Wikipedia goes too far in the wrong direction in fight against pseudoscience

I gather from the article, and particularly this talk page that this article is under heavy attack from trolling, presumably proponents of chiropractic. It is now locked stating that chiropractic is a pseudoscience, as evidenced by a paper from last decade. However, things are moving. Just last year JAMA (yes, journal of American medical association) published a cochrane meta analysis of randomised clinical trials of the chiropractic spinal manipulation, and the results came out in favour of the intervention. So today it's simply not evidence-based to claim that it is a pseudoscience. Therefore I think this is a good example of overeager wiki editors trying to defend their own world view, rather than yield to evidence based world views. LasseFolkersen (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Lassefolkersen I've taken the liberty of moving this to the bottom of the talk page per convention.

Can I ask whether you have actually read the article that you referenced? First, it isn't about chiropractic - it's about spinal manipulation therapy. Some of the studies included did have chiropractors providing the SMT, but that was a minority. The review concludes that it appears that SMT is associated with only 'modest' improvements on average, and that it acknowledges that the heterogeneity of the outcomes of the studies was high, and that the quality of the review is limited by the low quantity of the studies, and the fact that more of the studies were low quality than high. In short, I don't think that it tells us anything particularly surprising - we don't really have any very good treatments for lower back pain, and that spinal manipulation therapy might help some people a bit, but not very much. That is very different from saying that it is has validated chiropractic. Girth Summit (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews are the highest form of evidence-base there is. Heterogeneity analysis and filtering of studies is what they do. Yes that includes talking about limitations. Such is the fact for any medical treatment. But one doesn't get to conclude on abstract in JAMA that "Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms" if it is pseudoscience (neutral point of view). LasseFolkersen (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It's about as good at that as massage. What makes it pseudoscience is the underlying theory and associated claims. And as pointed out, that review is of spinal manipulation, not chiropractic specifically. --tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This review says nothing about subluxations, it says nothing about innate intelligence, and it says nothing about chiropractic being good for anything except back pain - it basically says that spinal manipulations, including (but not limited to) those given by chiropractors, seem to moderately effective for back pain, while noting that the evidence isn't particularly good. This article already says in the lead that chiropractic might be effective for back pain, I don't see any conflict between the conclusions of this review, and the content of this article. Girth Summit (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Evidence based medicine does not require an explanation of mechanism of action. It only and absolutely requires properly conducted clinical trials to show improved effect over alternatives. If there was requirement for explanation of mechanism of action, large parts of psychiatric medicine would also be labelled pseudoscience according to your standards. But luckily FDA sets the standards and those are clinical trials. So it is your point of view that is much beyond neutral point of view, e.g. FDA standards LasseFolkersen (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Evidence-based medicine does restrict itself like that, yes. But Wikipedia does not. We do not simply concentrate on one aspect, we handle all the aspects of the subject if there are reliable sources on them. And the reliable sources say chiropractic is pseudoscience.

"large parts of psychiatric medicine would also be labelled pseudoscience according to your standards." Yes, large parts are indeed correctly labelled pseudoscience, for instance psychoanalysis, recovered memory, or Family Constellations.

FDA is one possible source. But Wikipedia is not a section of the FDA and does not have to follow exactly what it says and reject what it does not say. Instead, Wikipedia follows reliable sources.

You have not given any valid reasons for your opinion that this article goes "too far". You want us to use sources which come to the conclusion you would like to see, and ignore sources which come to the opposite conclusion. That is not how Wikipedia (or science) works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding psychiatric diseases; yes and antidepressants and antipsychotics, in everyday use in clinics around the world. Yet we don't understand their mechanism of action. Regarding FDA; so your argument is that Wikipedia indeed knows better than FDA what pseudoscience is. Ok. Regarding opinions why the pseudoscience-label is "too far" - I have: we cannot label as pseudoscience what is supported by controlled clinical trials. Simple as that. Anyway, I can see from the talk-archives that I'm not the first one that have tried this, only to be silenced by agenda-pushers such as yourself. Feel free to add whatever wise ending words you choose, you clearly are more entrenched in the Wikipedia system and I have no hope of ever winning this. Hopefully other readers will have the time to look beyond the article, and into the talk page. LasseFolkersen (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You have no hope of winning this, not because of external circumstances, but because you are wrong and you only have bad reasoning on your side.

"supported by controlled clinical trials" - This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. You picked one study out of the total data base. Tha fact that it confirms your opinion does not mean chiropractic is science, it means you used the invalid method of cherrypicking. "Agenda-pushers" is not the crux here, "bad reasoning" is. You are not competent to tell good reasoning from bad reasoning, and therefore your own agenda-pushing fails. Of course you fall back on argumentum ad hominem, as pseudoscience proponents usually do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, no I did not. Cochrane reviews are meta-analysis of all available studies, not cherry picking. LasseFolkersen (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Meta-analyses of all available studies of one specific treatment against one specific ailment. You cherrypicked the meta-analysis of the one ailment chiropractics can do something against and ignored all the other studies on ailments that they try to do something against, but fail abysmally. Somebody who tries to use a hammer for nailing, screwing, planing, painting, sawing, cutting, clamping, polishing, typing and milling is not a competent handyman just because the hammer works for the nailing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I am not suggesting this vindicates anything chiropractics have ever thought of. But I understand that spinal manipulative therapy is quite central to chiropractics (ref, any chiropractor-website). The current article does not at all reflect that there is evidence-based cochrane-reviewed support for a central method. Rather, it seems to try to hide it under accusations of pseudoscience LasseFolkersen (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Spinal manipulative therapy is the hammer I was talking about. Chiropractics use it as a panacea.

As others have already explained, the study is not about chiropractics, it is about spinal manipulative therapy used by lots of different people, a minority of which were chiropractics. Using my simile, the study says that hammers are good for nailing. This article is not about hammers or about nailing, it is about the guy who tries to use his hammer for everything he can think of, including nailing. And you think the article should mention that, like the stopped clock, that guy is wrong most of the time, but is also right twice a day. You are right. It should mention that. And if you actually look at the article, you will find that it already does! It says, "Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[4]" So what is the problem? Do you want us to delete the fact that hammer guy is wrong most of the time? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I just don't see that being the case. All the top-hits for business on a search for chiropractor say that they are offering spinal manipulative therapy for back problems, in various different phrasings. Yet, you claim that is the exception? "The clock that shows right twice a day"? Anyway - let's agree to disagree, I realize we are out in the nuances where hard evidence have long stopped making sense, so I'm out of arguments. I won't do any more edits to the article. LasseFolkersen (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia looks at the reliable sources, not at search engine hits.

A few years ago, there was a big stink about chiropractics: Simon Singh was sued for saying that a chiropractic organisation "happily promoted bogus treatments". He won because he was right. And the backlash against the quacks consisted of, among other tactics, reports to the authorities of chiropractic websites that happily promoted bogus treatments, resulting in fines. Maybe they learned that lesson, at least regarding websites, and now concentrate on happily promoting the nailing thing only, while still doing all the rest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Chiropractic is a pseudo-science because the entire theoretical basis of it is baseless, and filled with metaphysical claims. Imagine if a pseudo-science like Phrenology, happened to advocate exercize and healthy eating. Citing studies showing that this has scientific basis doesn't stop it from being a pseudo-science. For Chiropractic, Innate Intelligence and Vertebral subluxation, and other key concepts, are referred to as pseudo-science in many RS. Pointing to a Cochrane review of spinal manipulation is a dodge and avoids the broader issues relating to Chiropractic. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

If Phrenology did that, I should hope that it's Wikipedia-article editors would have the maturity to clearly mention that it was shown to be beneficial LasseFolkersen (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I repeat - the article already says that chiropractic might be beneficial for back pain (in the lead no less). If chiropractic restricted itself to saying that it was good for back pain, nobody would say that it was pseudoscientific. The reason we say that of chiropractors is that they continue to assert that it's good for all sorts of things, in the face of all the evidence. This study shows precisely what this article already says - spinal manipulations, when practiced by chiropractors or anyone else, may help with back pain. If you know of any Cochrane meta-analyses showing that it works for anything else, I'd be interested to read them. Girth Summit (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

conspiracy theory??

i get that chiropractic isn't sanctioned by "science-based medicine," but...conspiracy theory? that's more-woo-than-woo territory. unless Wikipedia has regressed to the preschool sensibilities of calling everything an editor doesn't like a "conspiracy theory." in real life this is generally considered the mark of a sore loser. Nonononocat (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comment here makes no sense at all. What are you on about when you mention "Conspiracy Theories" -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Nonononocat is referring to the Alt/pseudo science side panel - there's a reference to conspiracy theories there. Nonononocat, Chiropractic isn't in the conspiracy theories category - if you look at the side panel, you'll see that you can there are just some links to other articles in the series there. The article doesn't say that chiropractic is one of these. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, misunderstood the structure of the info box. apologies, i am new here.Nonononocat (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Chiropractors are not medical doctors."

Why is this being kept in the lead? This is a self-evident fact; WP:CK. If someone didn't know, the first paragraph makes it abundantly clear. Alternative medicine, at odds with mainstream medicine, sustained by pseudoscientific principles. There is no place on earth where chiropractors are medical doctors; why are we stating this?

Jmg873 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Because chiropractors create confusion and many market themselves as family physicians and pediatricians, just a chiropractic (and superior) version. They misinform their clients. Therefore this needs to be stated clearly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the MEDRS compliant source stated. The content is cited to a news article. It is not a MEDRS compliant source. See WP:MEDRS. The content also does not belong in the first paragraph even if cited to a MEDRS compliant source. QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't follow facts. Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. We follow verifiability. I recommended you work on rewriting the failed verification content on a related page. QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with BullRangifer in that it is not common knowledge that chiropractors are not medical doctors [10] Having this sourced information in the first paragraph is not an issue. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

As it is not common knowledge it is then a WP:MEDRS issue. It is also a WP:WEIGHT issue when is not common knowledge. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

Change: They were the third largest profession in the US in 2002, following doctors and dentists.

To: They were the third largest medical profession in the US in 2002, following doctors and dentists. 68.193.88.156 (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2019

This article says claims of subluxations affecting the nervous system are demonstrably false. There isn't even a reference for this statement. Until there's a reference, that's an opinion statement and should be removed. Jsed1 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The sentence in question does not say "claims of subluxations affecting the nervous system are demonstrably false", rather, it says "claim(s) that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system, through vertebral subluxation ... are demonstrably false". Although not indicated in the article through a placed ref tag, the reference for that statement is partially sourced from the following:

• Keating JC, Charlton KH, Grod JP, Perle SM, Sikorski D, Winterstein JF (August 2005). "Subluxation: dogma or science?". Chiropr Osteopat. 13: 17. doi:10.1186/1746-1340-13-17. PMC 1208927. PMID 16092955.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)  Spintendo  07:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Chiropractors do NOT go to medical school & are NOT “doctors”..only MD,DO & MBBS are doctors

Chiropractors are NOT recognized by the US Federal or state governments as so-called “doctors”. They don’t go to medical school like MDs and DOs in the USA or MBBS in the United Kingdom so stop misleading the public into thinking they are “doctors “ when they are not. Stop writing the fake claim that so-called “Chiropractic Medicine” is a medical “specialty “ when it is not even close. And stop writing that chiropractors are so-called “chiropractic physicians” when they are NOT real physicians, no chiropractor ever went to medical school they get a shorter inferior education compared to MDs. At the most chiropractors are just physical therapists and absolutely NOT “doctors” so stop lying to the public! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B010:B2FF:F44C:64B9:6562:A42B (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiropractors go to school for the doctorate in chiropractic and are primary care physicians in many states. They can legally call themselves doctors of chiropractic in every state in the United States. Your claim is not backed up by any definitive truth or fact. Drjakeh (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The poster above is actually correct in that, Chiropractors DO NOT go to medical school like regular physicians and ARE NOT medical doctors (MD's); they are not allowed to use the MD title in any state. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, everyone, please remember that this is WP:NOTAFORUM PepperBeast (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019

X - Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science.[4][5][6][7][8] Y - It's foundation works alongside mainstream medicine, and chiropractic has methodology that is diverse with multiple techniques, but consistent in diagnosing and treatment of the spine and related problems.

X - Chiropractors are not medical doctors.[9] Y - Chiropractors are doctors of chiropractic. Drjakeh (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration. The current wording seems acceptable with regards to WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Clear MEDRS violation

Chiropractors are not medical doctors.[9][unreliable medical source?] Salzberg, Steven (April 20, 2014). New Medicare Data Reveal Startling $496 Million Wasted On Chiropractors. Forbes. Retrieved: September 12, 2018. Why is there a Forbes news article in the lede?

Does anyone support a WP:MEDRS violation and content that does not summarise the body? QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I propose this change to address the concerns made by Drjakeh and for a more neutral lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no WP:MEDRS violation here; you need to read the policy again. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: You can't just blanket revert with "slow it down, discuss on talk". Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy, and reverting back to a "longstanding consensus version" is not a valid reason to obstruct good faith improvements. Stonewalling edits without good reasons is disruptive, as is condescendingly rejecting others' arguments with personal attacks, rather than providing a nuanced refutation. You wanted to discuss the edit on talk? Then discuss. Explain this, or don't stonewall edits. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect there is some confusion, so I'm giving this its own heading. I now see that your comment addressed two things, so I'll only address the first one.

That revert was actually a good one, but the edit summary wasn't at all precise. Let me try a better one to justify that revert of a pointless addition of over 9,000 bytes: "Please don't add archive links to refs that aren't really "dead". You can set the bot to only add such links to real dead links. What you're doing is only bloating articles and making them harder to edit." Some of their previous edits have added huge amounts of pointless bytes. Lately, it's not as many, but they are still adding them when they should set the bot to only do it where it's needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not about the archived links. That's irrelevant to this discussion. What about restoring the failed verification content and bias content? QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing the lede section

Here are the changes without the archived links. Unless there is an argument against having a more neutral lede I think we should restore the lede to this version. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The changes you suggest are not "more neutral", they are the opposite. The current and long-standing lede section [11] provides an accurate, well-sourced, general summary of Chiropractic. Removing sourced material such as "... through vertebral subluxation, claims which are demonstrably false" doesn't help inform the reader, it simply misleads them. You also want to remove "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science." Your suggested changes will white-wash the first paragraph of informational, well-sourced content, without any justified reason for doing so; see WP:Weight for why your suggested version is not "more neutral". Also, you currently don't have consensus for those changes. And it's worth noting that consensus can change rapidly, but we need to exercise patience while other editors share their opinions. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Restoring failed verification content or unsourced content is not acceptable. Please tell me what you restored that failed verification and/or was unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a strange diversion (I literally have no idea what you're talking about); more importantly, you need to respond to my previous comment with an argument(s) that support the changes you'd like to make. You can also, if inclined, initiate an RfC to get the attention and thoughts of more editors. Lastly, what is your motivation for the changes you propose? I see you were previously topic-banned [12] in part due to your actions at this very article; I don't have a good feeling about where this is headed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• We are talking about just the changes to the lede at the top of this section. I am in favor of some changes but not sure what I want. Here are some things in this proposal that need some work -
  • "Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry" - I put primary care doctors, dentists, and podiatrists in a medicine category, and chiropractors in an alternative medicine category. This comparison is odd. The source cited is actually quoting a 1992 chiropractic textbook; I interpret this as cultural context for their narrative and not the author's own views.
  • I prefer simpler sentences. The old first sentence defined chiropractic as a system of diagnosis and treatment, and new first sentence tries to cover that and the theory behind it too. That brings too much to debate in one sentence. For difficult topics, make more simple short sentences. I do not object to the content, just so much mixed in one sentence with the same sources.
  • I like the deletion or reform of "through vertebral subluxation, claims which are demonstrably false" - this article is too contentious to have a statement phrased that way hanging without a citation. There should be no debate about anything without a citation. Anyone can get rid of such things.
  • Forbes citation needs to go. It is the same as no citation. The Keating subluxation article which is one part of the proposed replacement says "the clinical meaningfulness of this notion brings ridicule from the scientific and health care communities" which is adapted here as "a vitalistic notion that brings ridicule from mainstream health care". The wording is awkward here. I prefer breaking this long sentence into multiple sentences. One of them might revive that "demonstrably false" phrasing that the wiki community has had here. We are not actually ridiculing anyone, and instead we are recognizing the lack of scientific evidence.
  • Are their religious origins? Why remove "after saying he received it from "the other world"?

Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please edit the section below. The current lede has too many sentences that fail verification. I prefer we start with the version that does not have any failed verification content or unsourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not how we proceed. We take the long-standing consensus version of the lede and go from there. Blue Rasberry has made some reasonable suggestions and I trust that he will adjust the current lede accordingly and in an NPOV manner. I will post the current lede below so that it can be discussed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I am in favor of deleting anything which fails verification. Anything without reliable sources can be dismissed without any sources. I do not see much of that here (Forbes and "demonstrably", as discussed) but by default wiki removes that and challenges proponents to show sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Changes to lede section without failed verification content

Chiropractic is a discipline that emphasizes diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine, under the hypothesis that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system. It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry. The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially manipulation of the spine, other joints, and soft tissues, but may also include exercises and health and lifestyle counseling. Traditional chiropractic assumes that a vertebral subluxation or spinal joint dysfunction interferes with the body's function and its innate intelligence, a vitalistic notion that brings ridicule from mainstream health care. A large number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence, chiropractic will continue to be seen as a fringe profession.

Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results. Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain. A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition. Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown. There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations. It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases. There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation. Several deaths have been associated with this technique and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative, a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.

Chiropractic is well established in the United States, Canada, and Australia. It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions such as osteopathy and physical therapy. Most who seek chiropractic care do so for low back pain. Back and neck pain are considered the specialties of chiropractic, but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues. Chiropractic has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, "innate intelligence", and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease; "mixers", the majority, are more open to mainstream views and conventional medical techniques, such as exercise, massage, and ice therapy.

D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s, D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s, and his son B. J. Palmer helped to expand it in the early 20th century. Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial. Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence. Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccination is an effective public health intervention, among chiropractors there are significant disagreements over the subject, which has led to negative impacts on both public vaccination and mainstream acceptance of chiropractic. The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966 and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987. Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services; in recent decades, it has gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the United States.

References

Comments on Changes to lede section without failed verification content

The lede is too long. I think it can be trimmed. The current lede suffers from duplication and failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of effectiveness section removed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&type=revision&diff=929886687&oldid=929712810 See Chiropractic#Effectiveness. QuackGuru (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The section was not removed, just a misleading sentence that misrepresented the source. Paisarepa (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentence that summarized the effectiveness section was removed. It was a neutral sentence that is supported by the source.

See "Numerous controlled clinical studies of chiropractic are now available, but their results are far from uniform."[13] QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The removed sentence read "Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results." Yet the source for this claim says in the abstract "With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition."

While it is true the article states studies are "far from uniform", it says this in order to warn the reader against looking only at any single study to avoid a bias present in the data ("an evaluation of the 29 recent reviews of spinal manipulation for back pain concluded that those authored by chiropractors tended to generate positive results, whereas the others failed to demonstrate effectiveness"). In fact, it follows up the "far from uniform" statement with "Collectively, their results fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is effective. The only possible exception is back pain."

The paragraph in the source reads "Numerous controlled clinical studies of chiropractic are now available, but their results are far from uniform. Rather than selecting single studies according to their findings, it is, therefore, preferable to consider the totality of this evidence ... Collectively, their results fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is effective. The only possible exception is back pain."

Leaving this at "studies ... have been conducted, with conflicting results" is a gross misrepresentation of what the source actually says. Paisarepa (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Both sentences next to each other explains things more clearly rather than just one. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, as did the editor who made the change. Paisarepa (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

+1. "Conflicting results" is disingenious. When something does not work, there will always be a few studies with significant results because that is how statistical significance is defined. That is not "conflicting". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As Paisarepa has indicated on my behalf, +1. The author of the source's conclusion based on the "conflicting results" is included. Mentioning the "conflicting results" that his conclusion was based on is thus unnecessary and leaves the lede ambiguous and open to misinterpretation of the scientific consensus on the efficacy of chiropractic treatment techniques. userdude 07:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

New source?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-50380928 -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 21:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion just reeks of POV; could you imagine if we included every news article about a medical error causing death at the medicine article? Ridiculous. 2001:56A:75CE:1700:7088:A11E:F693:2A8A (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Typical example of primary source that should not be used. KFvdL (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that somebody with your COI would say something like that. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 01:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I at least understand primary vs secondary sources. But I am not a chiropractor. KFvdL (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Lede a bit too long

See Many chiropractors describe themselves as primary care providers,[5][17] but the chiropractic clinical training does not support the requirements to be considered primary care providers.[1] This does not add much to the lede. The lede was over expanded. We need to think of ways to shorten it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I like that sentence and don't personally feel the lead is too long. It's within spec per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Paisarepa (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't keep content just because we like it. It is a violation of lede. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:LEAD and I don't see the violation. Can you point me to the specific guideline in WP:LEAD that is being violated? And "I like it' in this instance means "I believe that sentence is appropriate for the lead and should stay in." I apologize for being unclear. Paisarepa (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to long-standing consensus version of the lede

Here is the long-standing consensus version of the lede. Let's discuss. For any editors who are just now joining this discussion, see this talk-page section for context.

Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine mostly concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine. Some proponents, especially those in the field's early history, have claimed that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system, through vertebral subluxation, claims which are demonstrably false. The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), manipulations of other joints and soft tissues. Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science. Chiropractors are not medical doctors.

Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results. Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain. A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition. Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown. There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations. It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases. There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation. Several deaths have been associated with this technique and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative, a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.

Chiropractic is well established in the United States, Canada, and Australia. It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions such as osteopathy and physical therapy. Most who seek chiropractic care do so for low back pain. Back and neck pain are considered the specialties of chiropractic, but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues. Many chiropractors describe themselves as primary care providers, but the chiropractic clinical training does not support the requirements to be considered primary care providers, so their role on primary care is limited and disputed. Chiropractic has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, "innate intelligence", and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease; "mixers", the majority, are more open to mainstream views and conventional medical techniques, such as exercise, massage, and ice therapy.

D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s, after saying he received it from "the other world", and his son B. J. Palmer helped to expand it in the early 20th century. Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial. Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccination is an effective public health intervention, among chiropractors there are significant disagreements over the subject, which has led to negative impacts on both public vaccination and mainstream acceptance of chiropractic. The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966 and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987. Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services; in recent decades, it has gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the United States.

References

Suggestion for change #1

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: I suggest we remove "claims which are demonstrably false" unless appropriate sourcing is provided. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I just took a look at this RS [14] which is currently used in the article; it states, "The core concepts of chiropractic, subluxation and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science" and "With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's replace that "demonstrably" phrasing with an adaptaptation of that first sentence. This article, "Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation", is a review article which more than 100 other papers have cited, so this seems like solid sourcing to back that idea. I like linking to what the wiki calls concepts, so I prefer saying "not based on scientific evidence" rather than "demonstrably false" or "sound science". Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blue Rasberry , would you support "... through vertebral subluxation, claims which are not based on scientific evidence." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: Yes great! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Done [15] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for change #2

1st paragraph, 5th sentence: Shall we remove "Chiropractors are not medical doctors"? - Even though I disagree with this removal (it is undisputed that Chiropractors are not MD's (they don't go to medical school, they go to an accredited chiropractic school in order to earn a D.C. (Doctor of Chiropractic) degree) which is why they can't use the MD title anywhere in the world. This statement also doesn't violate WP:MEDRS because when you read through that policy, it simply doesn't apply to general information that is separate from medical claims. In other words, there is no policy violation in regards to stating this information with its current source, according to Wikipedia's rules - have a look at WP:MEDRS if you think I'm mistaken.) With that said, if consensus is to remove it, then we will. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be worded differently, since although not medical doctors, most chiropractors are still doctors in one field or another. (Bit hard not to be after 6-8 years of education). That said, I still think it should be pointed out that they are decidedly Not medical doctors, so perhaps a little tag on end pointing out typical education levels? Sry if I'm doing this wrong, usually never suggest anything in these talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible not to be a doctor after 6-8 years of education. Especially if the education was in a field which has only a flimsy relation to reality, such as chiropractic.

That said: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about what is the case, not about what is not the case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No wording is accurate. Also the point "most chiropractors are still doctors in one field or another. (Bit hard not to be after 6-8 years of education)." is generalised incorrect statement. For example, minimum study time in Australia is 3 year bachelor degree. James Zeeder (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for change #3

4th paragraph, 1st sentence: Another editor had previously suggested removing the part of the sentence that states, "after saying he received it from "the other world" - The material is sourced and I personally find it to be interesting; it also provides the reader an opportunity to see where D. D. Palmer was coming from. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for change #4

1st paragraph, 1st sentence: rephrasing of "Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine" to "Chiropractic is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine". Changed proposed on the basis of definition (oxford): "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." See 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence; 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence; 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence for current examples within Chiropractic of why pseudoscientific is a fitting and necessary term to be included within the opening sentence. James Zeeder (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I recommend removing all instances of the word "pseudoscientific" from the body text. The mission of Wikipedia is not to judge others and find them wanting. To say "such and such treatment" or "such and such theory is demonstrably pseudoscientific" shows the author to be cognitively immature and displays black-and-white thinking. It is fine for a young adult to be opinionated, but there is no need to "save the world" by making sure everybody else knows your opinion. We don't have to go on a pseudoscience crusade, and mount a Grand Inquisition to purge the world of opinions that do not conform to the dogma we learned at the state university. The appropriate way to handle the pseudoscience issue is to put the entire discussion of evidence and controversy in its own section, and present the rest of the material in an objective, dispassionate, "just the facts, ma'am," manner. Please try to put yourself in others' shoes. Minority opinions (present company excepted of course) are not always wrong, as was the case with Galileo. But if the only mention your minority view gets on Wikipedia is an article edited by hostile young adults, that uses words like "pseudoscience" in every single paragraph, you'd feel pretty bad. The mission of Wikipedia is to avoid that kind of bias and hostility. Thanks for being mature, courteous human beings. Alfarero (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in right now on 'alternative medicine' vs 'pseudoscientific alternative medicine', but changing it simply to 'discipline' is definitely not appropriate for the lead. Paisarepa (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding duplication that is not a summary of the body is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

See "form of alternative medicine". It fails verification and is similar to other wording in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, YOU added the second mention (diff) and then deleted the mention from the first sentence, claiming that IT was the duplication. If you don't feel having a second mention of 'alternative medicine' in the lead is appropriate then you shouldn't have added a second mention!

In order to find common ground with you I'll remove the second mention from the lead. It and the source are essentially duplicated in the first paragraph of the body anyway. Otherwise please follow WP:BRD. There are two conversations about that sentence here on the talk page and there is no consensus to change it to 'profession' or 'discipline' -- most of the conversation is around whether 'alternative medicine' or 'pseudoscientific alternative medicine' is preferred. Paisarepa (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You restored the failed verification content and then restored the failed verification content and deleted the neutral content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You made that argument October 4th of this year. The source did not fail verification, and an alternative source was even provided. You may want to read WP:TE. And I must point out that only a few weeks ago you had no problem using the same source for the same statement when it you put it in the third sentence. Paisarepa (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The source did not verify form of alterative medicine. It was a different statement in the third sentence. It did not state form of alterative medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need to specify the form to be a source. A source can verifiably state that grass is green without needing to spell out the precise shade. Regardless, I added an additional source just to keep everyone happy and to prevent this from turning into a needless argument. Paisarepa (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The concern with redundancy has been accommodated by removing the more recently added mention of 'alternative medicine.' The concern with sourcing/failed verificaton has been met (second source added, and first source appears to in fact be fine, see this discussion). Paisarepa (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources agree Chiropractic is "demonstrably pseudoscientific", then it would be a policy violation to ignore the scientific consensus and present minority opinions as with equal weight. userdude 01:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for change #5

1st paragraph, 1st sentence: addition of quotations around "diagnosis" and "treatment". Misleading without quotations, as the statement "diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine." is not currently supported by scientific evidence. For further clarity scientifically valid diagnosis and treatment can not be achieved via either pseudoscientific or alternative medicine; if the argument is that diagnosis and treatment does not have to be supported by scientific evidence, then the words become devoid of any relevant meaning. James Zeeder (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Profession first, alt med latter

Have restored that they are a profession. Before going into that they are alt med. Was more neutral before IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, I invite you to participate in the two ongoing discussions about the wording of the first sentence (form of alternative medicine vs profession/discipline/pseudoscience). 1, 2. Thanks, Paisarepa (talk)

There is no such thing as a "form of alternative medicine". I never read that in any source. I don't know what that means. Is a form? QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

List of forms of alternative medicine. Paisarepa (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced equals original research. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're joking, intentionally being intractable for some reason, or you legitimately don't understand what 'form of alternative medicine' means. I'm here on the talk page in good faith, and I'm going to assume you are likewise acting in good faith and actually don't understand:

'Form' is synonymous with 'type' or 'kind'. For example, an intrauterine device is a form of birth control. You could likewise say it is a type of birth control, or a kind of birth control.

'Alternative medicine' is any practice that attempts to heal in the same way that medicine does, but is untestable or has been demonstrated to be ineffective. Chiropractic falls in the second category, as illustrated by the sources. That chiropractic is alternative medicine is well sourced in both the Chapman-Smith and the Trick or Treatment sources.

Hopefully this clears up any misunderstanding. If not, please help me understand where the breakdown is so we can both be on the same page. Thank you. Paisarepa (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe this demonstrates why the first sentence ought to include "pseudoscientific": some readers, QuackGuru included, do not know the meaning of "alternative medicine", whereas "pseudoscientific" more unambiguously states that chiropractic is at odds with the accepted medical science. As the lede stands currently, it appears as if only the foundation of chiropractic contradicts the medical establishment and modern chiropractic does not. userdude 01:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Userdude, you said "As the lede stands currently, it appears as if only the foundation of chiropractic contradicts the medical establishment and modern chiropractic does not." That is exactly the situation in reality, so it is good that this is the impression that the lede gives. See this source for example: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/210354 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:75CE:1700:C93C:E3E7:3D2D:BD89 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

From the abstract of that source: "Despite such impressive credentials, academic medicine regards chiropractic theory as speculative at best and its claims of clinical success, at least outside of low back pain, as unsubstantiated. Only a few small hospitals permit chiropractors to treat inpatients" … Contradictions and tensions exist not only between chiropractic and mainstream medicine but within chiropractic itself."

From the conclusion: "Chiropractic has endured, grown, and thrived in the United States, despite internal contentiousness and external opposition. Its persistence suggests it will continue to endure as an important component of health care in the United States. In response to the countless requests for the treatment of pain, chiropractors have consistently offered the promise, assurance, and perception of relief. Chiropractic's ultimate lesson may be to reinforce the principle that the patient-physician relationship is fundamentally about words and deeds of connection and compassion. Chiropractic has managed to embody this message in the gift of the hands."

As I read this source, it claims that the patient-physician relationship involved in chiropractic is responsible for the discipline's popularity in the 21 years since the article was published. It does not claim that chiropractic is supported by the medical establishment or scientific research, rather it claims to the contrary. userdude 05:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This has also been suggested in the discussion above. Paisarepa (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

UserDUde, first, what the mechanism of effectiveness of one of the modalities used by chiropractors is not what determines their acceptance into the healthcare arena. It looks like you have only cherry-picked the parts that support your position that the profession is not accepted. There is no doubt the profession has been controversial, which is reflected in the text you chose to quote. What about this text from the same source: "Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, it is distinctly mainstream. Facts such as the following attest to its status and success: Chiropractic is licensed in all 50 states. An estimated 1 of 3 persons with lower back pain is treated by chiropractors.1 Since 1972, Medicare has reimbursed patients for chiropractic treatments, and these treatments are covered as well by most major insurance companies. In 1994, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research removed much of the onus of marginality from chiropractic by declaring that spinal manipulation can alleviate low back pain.5 In addition, the profession is growing: the number of chiropractors in the United States—now at 50,000—is expected to double by 2010 (whereas the number of physicians is expected to increase by only 16%).6"

More evidence that modern chiropractic is more accepted, chiropractic is becoming more commonly referred by physicians in the US "Massage therapy was the most commonly recommended CHA (30.4%), followed by chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation (27.1%), herbs/nonvitamin supplements (26.5%), yoga (25.6%), and acupuncture (22.4%). The most commonly recommended CHAs by general/family practice physicians were chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation (54.0%) and massage therapy (52.6%)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31763927

Another good indicator is that modalities commonly used by chiropractors are gaining traction among other professions. For example, nearly every DPT program in the US now teaches spine manipulation to PT students as part of their basic training.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25899212

I would certainly not suggest that chiropractic is a mainstream profession at this point, but it is clear that modern chiropractic is not receiving the same animosity from organized medicine as it did in the past and it would be inaccurate to suggest that the profession has not increased in acceptance from mainstream medicine.2001:56A:75CE:1700:9837:3C62:EDD:B4B7 (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The phrase "distinctly mainstream" is clearly referring to mainstream society, not mainstream medicine. The source specifically states that chiropractic is not part of mainstream medicine. Being accepted into mainstream society does not at all mean that a practice has scientific basis.

2. The "CHA" in the quote you selected from Stussman 2019 stands for "Complementary Health Approaches". The fact that chiropractic is categorized as such demonstrates that it is considered distinct from the medical mainstream, in the same category as such approaches as Acupuncture, which is described in the first paragraph of the lede as "alternative medicine" and "pseudoscience".

3. Just because a pseudoscience shares a practice with mainstream medicine does not make it a pseudoscience. Nowhere in the full text of the article is "chiropractic" mentioned. To insinuate that DPT programs teach thrust joint manipulation because of some sort of acceptance of chiropractic violates WP:OR. userdude 21:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Policy violations removed from the lede

The failed verification content and was removed by a reader. Please do not restore content that failed verification. If anyone thinks the content passes verifiability then please provide verification rather than assert it is verifiable. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Verified relevant section(s): please refer to: " Singh, S. and Ernst, E., 2008. Trick or treatment: The undeniable facts about alternative medicine. WW Norton & Company. page 147-148 " if required. Will update accordingly, Thanks. As as side note, this users contribution does not appear to fail verification (although I have improved their initial citation) - did anyone bother to even look? James Zeeder (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain the purpose of adding duplication to the lede.

It is a violation of WP:LEADSENTENCE to add pseudoscientific to the first sentence. You added duplication to the lede. I will let our readers remove it. Just give it 72 hours. This was tried before. Consensus was against adding it to the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

1st point: you seem to make a case in support by adding the achieve, please could every new editor read this first to save circular arguments; 2nd point: it is is not a duplication, it is an initial statement that is later expanded on (common in lead sentences); 3nd point: there is no current violation; Final point: this issue has been addressed through multiple editors responding directly to you within archive [16]. I think this past quote sums up your input quite adequately: ""QuackGuru, you are doing it again: you make a demand, everyone says no, and when you've bored the pants off them with your endless argument by assertion, you then assert that it's time to make the edit you first wanted. This is why you get blocked and sanctioned. Some of us have had enough of it. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)"" Thanks, James Zeeder (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

1st point: Violation of WP:LEADSENTENCE.

2nd point: Repeating the same thing or similar thing in the lede is duplication.

3nd point Violation of consensus to add it to the first sentence. You should not forget about the readers. They will remove the duplication. History will repeat itself. QuackGuru (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be making your own counter point.. For example, and to further demonstrate, your initial reasoning was due to an apparent verification issue (which was non-existent, i.e. you appeared to used a fabricated reason to remove content) - your reasoning was addressed, which then resulted in a pivoting of reasoning to an alternative justification (which also doesn't stand up). To reiterate, you seemed to be just making this past point that I quoted above. Thanks, this should be self evident, but hopefully the additional wording helps. James Zeeder (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You have given no justification for the duplication. Again, soon our readers will arrive. QuackGuru (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Because you have resorted to asking readers to remove sourced content, I will respond to your arguments against describing chiropractic as "pseudoscience" here.

0) WP:NPOV: "Pseudoscience" is not a NPOV violation, as reliable sources describe chiropractic as pseudoscience. (See the sources currently provided.) Rather, it would be a NPOV violation to specifically avoid calling chiropractic "pseudoscience" when reliable sources describe it as such.

1) WP:LEADSENTENCE: You have not explained your rationale of how "pseudoscience" violates this MOS guideline. I do not believe it does, as "pseudoscientific" is a necessary descriptor.

2) Duplication: As another user has noted in this discussion, the duplication existed because you added it. Currently, the only other mention of pseudoscience in the lede is in reference to "subluxation and innate intelligence", not chiropractic.

3) WP:CON: Calling this discussion consensus against "pseudoscience" is blatantly untrue. With respect to "the readers", consensus is determined by the quality of arguments, not by the number of readers who delete sourced content because they disagree with it. userdude 23:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Found 1185 edits by QuackGuru on Chiropractic (10.87% of the total edits made to the page) - note this does not include any activity any from additional accounts. This is seemly highly problematic, given the current thread, even if the current instance is viewed in isolation it seems unlikely these kind of tactics (read thread for examples) would only occur within a single instance. Do any moderators have suggestions to address this? James Zeeder (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Added back the Alternative medicine sidebar that was also removed and never got any justification for it's removal nor for the omission of it when the content was added back. What would be the policy violation for a sidebar that completely has the article in question in it's listed entries?--User:Ebergerz (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@James Zeeder:, the edit count of QuackGuru (talk · contribs) on this article is not problematic at all. I would suggest that you assume good faith and focus on the content and not the editors. For information, Wikipedia doesn't have any moderators, there are administrators. They however don't have any special rights regarding content. --McSly (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@McSly: You have missed the point, it is problematic if the edits are based on fallacy in the initial reasoning (if this user is responsible for >10% of total edits - the size of the potential issue is greatly increased, as the same tactic has likely been implement)... To demonstrate this, scroll down to | Popular press articles where the same tactic of pivoting of reason to try to justify a given edit is repeated. Is there not something administrators can do to minimise this? James Zeeder (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru Is doing it all backwards claiming the oposite of what is happening. What he calls "problematic content" is what was the stablished content of the page, and was removed without consensus, and thus restored, The discussion and consensus is required to remove the correctly cited material, not to restore it.His claim that it did not pass verification is simply false. Verification as as simple as see that the citations were removed along the content and the sidebar both of which are valid. @Bbb23: as you have already involved yourself in this, can you please look into the editing history that clearly shows what I'm saying? Thanks in advance. --Ebergerz (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason for the duplication. This was explained before. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You are now changing to a second argument when it is shown that the first is not correct nor the consensus and being intentionally misleading by omitting the scope of the deleting action and pretending that ti is about the duplication: 1. The "duplication" consensus would apply only to the first sentence, not to the rest of the deleted content in the lede which included all and every mention of pseudoscience in it including 2 separate references (and the sidebar which I restored). If you want to make the argument that all those instances are also "duplication" then first restore the content, then make your argument (which is contested, thus not the consensus) and then when/if consensus is reached remove the content. 2. Saying "you added duplication to the lede" is also misleading as the the content was not "added" was restored from what the various content the "reader" deleted and you perfectly know it. So there is the content that needs to be added and only removed after consensus is reached. --Ebergerz (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What specifically do you think was not duplication? The sidebar is not the issue here. QuackGuru (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The sidebar is part of the issue here, because it was valid content that was deleted along and you did not restore claiming it was not valid. So I'll explain in detail for others to see your behaviour: Here 3 pieces of content were removed by an IP: a) the alt-med sidebar (which is as you have admitted, not an issue) b) the reference to pseudoscience in the first sentence (argued duplication and policy violation). c)The claim that it is at odds with mainstream medicina along with the valid reference to "Trick or Treatment". Then in 3 consecutive minor editions you claim that "policy violations were removed by IP" Which is not true as much more than that was removed. [17], that "No consensus to restore policy violations against V policy" [18] and that "Failed verification content was removed" Which is also untrue as the veriable content was removed along the citation (which was answered to you further up). So the policy violation only applies to the first line, as that is the one which constitutes duplication. Nevertheless you let the rest of the content be removed along. Now to answer your question. The not duplicated and verified content is: a) the sidebar -which I already restored- and b) the claim that "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and that it is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas" with the reference to the book, which while should not be repeated in the lede, can't be completely removed with from it either. You can't claim the issue is duplication when what you back is the complete removal of the claim, and you can't claim it is not verified when it is verified. Hopefully this is clear for anyone else who reads it as I have little expectation from you given the previous behaviour exhibited. --Ebergerz (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You stated "should not be repeated in the lede". That's correct. This suggests you agree no editor should restore duplicate content about the "pseudoscientific ideas" in the lede.

The sidebar is irrelevant here. The sidebar was not about the duplication. If anyone thinks "pseudoscientific ideas" should be mentioned more than once in the lede then they should present an argument for the duplication rather than assert it is not in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific ideas" is currently only in the lede in the phrase Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence. This clearly refers to the principles of subluxation and innate intelligence, not chiropractic itself. Indeed, the article does not currently describe chiropractic as pseudoscience at all, deliberately ignoring reliable sources (such as Singh & Ernst 2008 and Ernst May 2008) that conclude chiropractic is pseudoscience. It is crucial for a reader to understand that chiropractic is pseudoscience (per reliable sources) from the first sentence. userdude 01:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific

The lede now includes pseudoscientific, that should be removed and replaced with claims that chiropractors are magic and a perfectly aligned spine can render a person immortal since all diseases come from misalignment of the spine. I'm sure the army of quack loving chiropractors who troll this page will easily assent to this change. Tat (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You revert back to this version. QuackGuru (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree remove it. Alternative medicine is a better and less demeaning term.--2601:3C5:8203:B10:FC12:EBB9:F50F:F184 (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this edit. If reliable sources describe chiropractic as pseudoscience, you cannot remove "pseudoscientific" just because you find it "demeaning". Additionally, you certainly cannot call it "scientific" when this directly contradicts the consensus of reliable sources. userdude 06:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English." The opening sentence should explain what chiropractic is rather than labeling it as pseudoscientific. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

"The opening sentence should explain what chiropractic is" I agree, and "pseudoscientific" happens to be an apt, succinct and well-supported part of that explanation. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 11:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

See "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence.[21]" We already explain the pseudoscientific ideas in the lede. There is no reason to add duplication to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted does not explain that chiropractic is pseudoscience, it explains that its origin was not in mainstream medicine and that specific tenets (namely, subluxation and innate intelligence) are pseudoscience. Therefore the first sentence is not duplication. userdude 02:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the WP:NPOV issue, see WP:LABEL userdude 09:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

Remove'Pseudoscience' label as an established "fact" from intro. None of the named sources provide research behind this label. They only use this label based-on LACK of research vs stated claims. Also, long history of medical community bias and suppression against the chiropractic community. (see US Supreme Court Case Wilk, et al vs. the AMA, et al)

https://chiro.org/Wilk/Wilk_v_AMA_25_Years_Later.shtml

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/29/us/us-judge-finds-medical-group-conspired-against-chiropractors.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1556349919300208 Servitude45 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

See above discussion. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Posadzki P, Ernst E is a highly biased and unreliable source and should not be used in any citations. Please consider revising citation sources to neutral, unbiased research. 99.51.162.63 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not an actionable edit request. --McSly (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Headers

I claim no expertise on this topic. I am therefore here for information, not to join the fray. That said, I have wikified the topic headers to facilitate copy-editing and so that the automatic TOC will be created. Having edited several hundred articles, I have not previously seen the headers designated as they were here. That does not make them wrong, but w/o sections and subsections, every minor edit involves the hypertext of the entire article.

I did not differentiate between topics and subtopics. That may have advantages of clarity, but I'll leave it to the next reader, who is very likely more familiar with chiropractic than I. If I have gone against a perceived consensus, sorry, but I will not wade thru 39 archives to be sure. We are all volunteers, but I value my time more than that. FWIW, I believe robot archiving after only 20 days lends a false sense of resolution to an obviously contentious topic. Just sayin'. --the Ragityman. 20July2019 [This keyboard doesn't offer the 'tilde' so I am forced to sign manually.]

Popular press articles

Chiropractors are not medical doctors.

Palmer maintained that the tenets of chiropractic were passed along to him by a doctor who had died 50 years previously.

Medical practitioner is a protected term by Australian law, whereas the term 'Doctor' is not a protected title, meaning any professional can legally refer to themselves as 'Doctors'. In Australia practising chiropractors, typically hold a bachelors or masters level qualification, yet frequently refer to themselves as "Doctor". Chiropractors' appropriation of the title 'Dr' within the medical profession has been described as at best unhelpful, and, at worst, deliberately disingenuous for the general public seeking a specific type or level of recognised expertise.

References

See "Medical practitioner is a protected term by Australian law, whereas the term 'Doctor' is not a protected title, meaning any professional can legally refer to themselves as 'Doctors'." This content fails verifications.

News articles are the same as no articles or uncited content. Wikipedia should have higher standards for this article. I recommend all three sources be expunged. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Chiropractors are not medical doctors" is easily sourced and has no need to have a medical reference as they are not MD' in any legal form that allows them to perform surgery or prescribed medicines. As for news articles....the are fine for stating incidences.l--Moxy 🍁 23:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to see inclusion of the fact that chiropractors are not veterinarians. Many chiropractors seem to be treating animals these days (like this [[19]]) and we do not want people to think that chiropractors are veterinarians. I assume that, like the fact that chiropractors are not medical doctors, the fact that they are not veterinarians also does not need a source?2001:56A:75CE:1700:B9FA:2A17:78CD:4A3C (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

See "Chiropractors are not medical doctors.[1]"

Then see "Many chiropractors describe themselves as primary care providers,[5][17] but the chiropractic clinical training does not support the requirements to be considered primary care providers.[1]"

Both are similar. It is undue weight to include both. QuackGuru (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

See "Palmer maintained that the tenets of chiropractic were passed along to him by a doctor who had died 50 years previously.[2]" This is too much detail for the lede anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, your initial reasoning is due to news articles aren't a valid source (which is incorrect) - your reasoning was addressed as incorrect by another user, you then pivot to <insert any other reason> to provide some sort of alternative justification to make the change (which is also incorrect). Please, if other editors see these kind of tactics being used, please call them out and revert any changes that are not up to standard. James Zeeder (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can't disagree with the overall point, but I will point out that the last source is just an op-ed in The Conversation (website), which is not a sufficient source for stating, as it were a widely accepted fact, that it's "unhelpful" for a person who holds an academic degree at the doctorate level to introduce himself with his correct title. There are more than two people in the US who have a PhD for every licensed physicians. And while med school students love to boast about their many necessary years of underpaid post-graduate service–training, the fact is that the academic degree itself is awarded four years into (same as chiropractic schools, same as podiatry schools, same as nurse practitioners who pursue a doctorate rather than a master's...), and they're "doctors" at that point, even if they never complete their residencies or get a license to practice medicine.

This might be less confusing in some more formal cultures (when one is accustomed to addressing the neighbor as "Herr Professor Doktor Müller", one might be less likely to assume that a doctorate degree has any particular connection to health care), but anyone with a doctorate actually is "a doctor" and is correctly addressed with that title. The solution to that problem lies in teaching kids that "doctor" means "person who went to school a long time" and not "healthcare professional". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Heh, maybe that last sentence should be a footnote on all articles mentioning "doctor"....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Language is a funny thing, where if you're in the minority and you're arguing against something being a word, you're wrong. Look up 'doctor' in any dictionary, a health care provider will be one of the definitions, and it is a fact that people will continue to use it as such. I'm fine with teaching kids to use 'doctor' only in terms of a person who has received a PhD. to restore the language, but saying it is incorrect to do otherwise is more false than true, and your efforts will likely be futile either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.119.205 (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight in lede

Chiropractors are not medical doctors.[1]

Palmer maintained that the tenets of chiropractic were passed along to him by a doctor who had died 50 years previously.[2]

The lede is a bit long. We can cut back by removing these two. Reasons were given above. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the weight claim, finding the information pertinent to better understanding the field. They also don't add a lot of length to the lede. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. New readers will continue to delete the disputed content. They know it adds nothing to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Attention readers and editors:

Chiropractors are not physicians or medical doctors.[4] Irrelevant content.

Palmer maintained that the tenets of chiropractic were passed along to him by a doctor who had died 50 years previously.[21] This is dated content. This article is not about the history of chiropractic.

POV violations can go. You can remove these two tidbits. Anyone can edit. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If chiropractic is going to be deemed “pseudoscientific”, then the burden of proof that it’s actually pseudoscience is on the ones allowing this term to exist on the lede, and using biased sources that fail to objectively demonstrate the lack of scientific foundation is a very poor unscientific method. PapaBearsChickenDingers (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Any source that says something is pseudoscience will be "biased" in the eyes of the fans of that pseudoscience. Therefore, what you demand is logically impossible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

According to the United States federal government, chiropractors are considered physicians. Please change or remove the last sentence of the first paragraph. Here is the direct non-biased link:

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0600401295 2600:1007:B111:8178:6DF6:E7CE:49E6:42FF (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Haha certainly not. The source is completely unreliable. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

More specifically, it's in respect of getting reimbursement from social security and subject to limits, first of which is "Coverage extends only to treatment by means of manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation demonstrated by x-ray, provided such treatment is legal in the state where performed". (which IMO is a narrow subset of chiropractic activities) GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s the federal government, how is that unreliable? You literally wrote “in my opinion” this isn’t about opinions, it’s about facts moron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3E00:58A0:15A6:42D2:7181:E616 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

This entire article is biased as hell and is clearly moderated by morons who have personal vendettas against chiropractic. This is why no one will ever respect Wikipedia as a legitimate source. YOURE A JOKE 2600:1702:3E00:58A0:15A6:42D2:7181:E616 (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a specific actionable edit request. userdude 05:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Chiropractors are not physicians

From the Medical board in Illinois:“ Chiropractic physician" means a person licensed to treat human ailments without the use of drugs and without operative surgery. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a chiropractic physician from providing advice regarding the use of non-prescription products or from administering atmospheric oxygen. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a chiropractic physician to prescribe drugs. Source- 225 ILCS 60/) Medical Practice Act of 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solwis705 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

See, for example, this. The point of that sentence in the lede is to distinguish chiropractors from typical physicians. This is a distinction that reliable sources clearly support. Whether they're legally called "chiropractors" or "chiropractic physicians" does not change the fact that they are not physicians. Per WP:LEDE, the lead should include summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. userdude 03:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Reference 177 is a broken link. The new General Chiropractic Council website is https://www.gcc-uk.org/ and not http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm. I would be very grateful if you could change it. Robinolivermccallum (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Robinolivermccallum:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion: NMS

In the US/Canada subhead under the Reception header, it reads "although the majority of U.S. chiropractors view themselves as specialists in neuroleptic malignant syndrome conditions, many also consider chiropractic as a type of primary care." "Neuroleptic malignant syndrome" is incorrect, it should be "neuromusculoskeletal". This is probably an error derived from "NMS conditions" being changed to "neuroleptic malignant syndrome conditions." Neuroleptic malignant syndrome is a deadly condition related to antipsychotic use. It does not related to chiropractic and chiropractors do not treat neuroleptic malignant syndrome.

The source linked for this sentence https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690192/ confirms this: "A high percentage of chiropractic patients carry a neuromusculoskeletal (NMS) diagnosis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2200:6690:816B:33F:DD67:B0BF (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite right! Done. PepperBeast (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

Repalce: Chiropractic is a pseudoscientific[1] complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)[2] that is concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[3] Chiropractors, especially those in the field's early history, have proposed that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.[3] The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially manipulation of the spine, other joints, and soft tissues, but may also include exercises and health and lifestyle counseling.[4] Chiropractors are not physicians or medical doctors.[5][6]

With: Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)[2] that is concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[3] Some chiropractors, especially those in the field's early history, have proposed that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.[3] The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially manipulation of the spine, other joints, and soft tissues, but may also include exercises and health and lifestyle counseling.[4] Chiropractors are not physicians or medical doctors.[5][6]

Reasoning: The term pseudoscientific is defaming to chiropractors in general, particularly when in the same wikipedia article you have many references as to why it is not pseudoscientific. It may have been at one time and should be included in the history section. Any reference to it currently being as such is wrong. Thank you! Naa321 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done and not going to be done. This has already been discussed extensively. PepperBeast (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Chiropractic office in Japan.

This picture is Judo Therapist's office (Sekkotsuin) and NOT Chiropractic office. Tokioking (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. I have no way to verify either way, but in any case, it's a pointless image, so I just removed it anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)[2] that is concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[3] Chiropractors, especially those in the field's early history, have proposed that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.[3]Some modern day Chiropractors focus more on the mechanics of the musculoskeletal system, whilst others hold similar values to the founders of Chiropractic. The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially manipulation of the spine, other joints, and soft tissues, but may also include exercises and health and lifestyle counselling.[4] Chiropractors are not physicians or medical doctors.[5][6] Mcleaa (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, @Mcleaa: It is not clear what change you are proposing. --McSly (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

New source incoming (in December)

From Edzard Ernst, published by Springer.[20] This should be of great use to us. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If it's being published by Springer, then editors with access to SpringerLink (i.e., through an academic affiliation) can probably read that book online or download substantial portions of the book. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, I may have - ahem - a route to get a preprint. Guy (help!) 13:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Aren't Eddy's books under JK Rowling levels of security? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, very much so, but that wasn't my only route ;-) Guy (help!) 15:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Worthy as they are, I suspect Ernst's books aren't quite the revenue-generator JKR's are ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is littered with inaccuracies and an incomplete view of Chiropractic. While the history is largely correct, this ignores the decades of scientific literature available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaanrai (talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. You are welcome to suggest changes and examples of the decades of scientific literature available on the subject, but first you should read WP:MEDRS. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Science based medicine (the website) is not a good source. It’s loaded with POV and ad hominem attacks. It’s highly unprofessional. Many many highly regarded dr at places like Stanford hospital is hi aren’t alternative practitioners, some who even don’t like chiro, consider it to be a poor source.

The authors are heavily biased and only use work that backs them.

Calling it pseudoscience is POV. There are multiple types of science and medicinal practices (indigenous practices, eastern v western etc). Kizemet (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Kizemet 'science based medicine' isn't a source; science-based medical journals and textbooks are sources however, and they are what we base our articles on medicine on. WP:MEDRS gives more guidance on that. If you don't think that's the right approach for us to take, this probably isn't the right project for you to contribute to. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

BUT, with apoligies to Girth, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ is an excellent source when dealing with nonsense masquerading as medicine, very appropriate in this case. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, ah - gotcha, hadn't put two and two together there. That makes more sense - I wasn't sure how the entire field of science-based medicine could be loaded with POV and ad hominem attacks. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That website (Science based medicine) is an inaccurate source-- its loaded with POV and bias. Anyone can make a domain "science based medicine" and make up what they wish. Plenty of well renowned hospitals and medical institutions (Stanford in Ca, Johns Hopkins, UCLA) consider chiropractic to be a valid form of medicine and will refer patients to chiropractors.

Science based medicine admits to their biases and demonizes any kind of alternative therapy and ignores scientific evidence. They benefit from Pharma-based medicine and rather than analyze source and information based on the evidence, they make blanket assumptions based on whether a practice at one point had harmful practitioners or has needed to make sweeping changes to be updated.

The below speak to evidence based studies on the impact of chiropractic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3716373/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4591574/

The National institute of Health often cites articles and studies published by the health publisher Veritas whose site Spine-health com addresses chiropractic benefits/cons/uses.

Somehow it won't let me link to the website-- why is Spine Health blacklisted?

Kizemet (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Kizemet

As noted above, SBM is an excellent website with subject matter experts as contributors. -- Valjean (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean, SBM is an excellent source of information written by highly regarded authors who are knowledgeable about this subject. It is absolutely not POV to call chiropractic pseudoscience since that's exactly what it is in reality. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

About the reference #24 "History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint"

While reading the entry about Chiropractic, I stumbled upon this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#cite_note-DeVocht-24, referenced at 4 places, and read it. As someone who is new on Wikipedia, I'm interested in what is the consensus about the usage of references in an entry and if the usage of it on this specific article is ok. Here's what catched my eye:

1) About the second reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#cite_ref-DeVocht_24-1, following this sentence:

"All but one of the chiropractic colleges in the U.S. are privately funded, but in several other countries they are in government-sponsored universities and colleges."

This is directly taken from the referenced article itself, p. 245, sub-section "Education and Licensure", which says

"In the United States, all but one of the chiropractic colleges are privately funded, but the colleges in Australia, South Africa, Denmark, one in Canada, and two in Great Britain are located in government-sponsored universities and colleges."

This sentence, for its validation, than refers directly (a reference numbered #29), to another article "Chiropractic: A Profession at the Crossroads of Mainstream and Alternative Medicine". When reading this article however, the only related statement is

"Unlike in the United States, where all but one college are privately funded, chiropractic education in Australia, South Africa, Denmark, one college in Canada, and two in Great Britain is provided at established government-sponsored universities and colleges." (p. 218, Chiropractic Traning and Licensure section).

But this same sentence does not provide any other reference or details. No words about what are these government-funded institutions or colleges in these countries, which kind of program they provide, or anything.

I therefore find this statement dubious, since no directly verifiable information is provided for it veracity, and I'm here asking if it would be ok to remove it.

2) About the fourth reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#cite_ref-DeVocht_24-3, following this sentence:

"Chiropractic remains controversial, though to a lesser extent than in past years."

Excluding the fact that it is a wide statement, it however directly refers the subject of the referenced article, but I think it is maybe not precise enough. The article referenced primarily establishes this statement by referencing two studies that boil down to the fact that chiropractic could help lower back pain. The referenced article does not provide any other references or original research about other possible claims.

I would therefore maybe suggest to modify this sentence to add something about the fact that chiropractic is less controversial than before, but specifically on its efficiency to treat lower back pain, but I'm uncertain about how it could be formulated. Suggestions are welcome.

Tleilaxi (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say no, because a chiropracter would say that, wouldn't they? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 06:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

To label chiropractic "pseudoscience" in the first paragraph is very rude and disrespectful of chiropractic. This should be removed. It should not be in the first paragraph, but further down it could be mentioned that "some people consider chiropractic to be a pseudoscience." That would be a more fair and reasonable statement, although I question whether it should be in this at all, because chiropractic is covered by most major insurance companies and is therefore a legitimate and recognized healthcare service. It may have once upon a time been marginalized, but in modern and current times, it is mainstreamed and widely used by a significant percentage of the population of the United States, with excellent user ratings. For this reason, Nebraska Totalcare, a Medicaid Insurance Provider, has recently increased chiropractic from a limited number of visits a year to unlimited, because chiropractic has been shown to reduce surgeries in people with chronic back problems. And surgery is much more expensive to pay for than chiropractic visits.

There are unknowns in any field of healthcare, which is why research continues in all fields of care. Some aspects of chiropractic may be better understood than others.

In summary, chiropractic is not a pseudoscience but a healthcare treatment that is now mainstream. Medicaid, medicare, and major health insurance companies are not in the practice of paying for "pseudoscience". And the reputation and reliability of wikipedia is tarnished by labeling a mainstream healthcare practice that is covered by health insurance as pseudoscience.

Furthermore, I have read but don't currently recall where I saw, that recent studies show that patient satisfaction with the results of chiropractic treatments are higher than in any other field of healthcare. That is apparently and presumably because it works and helps a lot of people reduce pain. Back pain is a common problem. While chiropractic may not be the right treatment for everyone, for many it clearly works.

Thanks.AHolisticView (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed too many times. Please read the discussions above and archives of this page (see links in the top section). Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

Chiropractic was once considered a pseudoscience, but is now a mainstream healthcare service in the United States, used by millions of people suffering from back pain, and is covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and many major insurance providers. Sources: Medicare.gov (Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) covers manual manipulation of the spine if medically necessary to correct a subluxation when provided by a chiropractor or other qualified provider.) https://medicaid.ncdhhs.gov/providers/programs-services/medical/chiropractic-services https://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-america/articles/when-opioids-arent-the-best-option https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/health/care/consumer/center/!ut/p/a1/hVBLT4NAEP4tPXCEHUAe9QaLbQAVmxqLezELWSlx2d0sa5v-e4HGxIPGSSaZSb7HzIcIqhER9NR31PRSUD7vJHzbFPsqTd0EqqAKIH8ItusifPQAR-iACkQ6LpsF_Ho0Rt1aYMFZqVYKw4Rpp2baAkSuk6ADQzUbFJcXxmzFqRj_pVJt-pZPPBwB3mRxbOMwzGzXvfPt1M18G2MIbrLEjRIvmNUS0fhxh4hm70wz7Xzq6b7ZYrx6nM9O04vOaeUw6f9COMrRoPonbvqVLHGAn--WOLZPIUAel8_ly7r0AbxvwB-VAFJDfPH56Z4d7I9dslp9AezW4G8!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

AHolisticView (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There does not appear to be an actual request in amongst this lot. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Not physiciand

This is patently false. Klsinternational (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

What is false? Please clarify and point to reliable sources. This is not a forum to express your personal views. Retimuko (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

Chiropractic is not pseudoscience. They take very real science classes, the same as medical doctors and their philosophy is based on science. Please update this incorrect information and correct it to science. Mel23073 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are no reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS) to support your suggestion, so we cannot. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the happy dog What a lazy response. The issue at hand here is that Chiropractic, the topic of the article, relates to an entire profession. This profession includes chiropractors who, for example, go through an extensive residency and practice as bona fide radiologists alongside MD radiologists. One quick example I found: https://proscan.com/physician-resources/proscan-reading-services/radiology-team/. Are they practicing pseudoscience when they are diagnosing a bone cancer? The profession also includes practitioners who are legally capable of ordering and interpreting blood work and other lab reports, xrays, MRIs, performing orthopedic exams, neurologic exams, physical exams, etc. All of the aforementioned practices are generally accepted as the standard of care by the broader medical community. These practices do not differ from practices performed by other practitioners that are generally considered to be practicing evidence-based medicine. The citations for the pseudoscience claim relate to particular aspects that are commonly found in chiropractic practice, which may be justly labeled as pseudoscience. There would be little debate about these various related topics being labeled as pseudoscience, such as subluxation theory, applied kinesiology, etc. However, labeling the entire profession as pseudoscience is completely out of line, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. As to your assertion that there are "no reliable sources", what exactly are you talking about? There are no reliable sources that show that chiropractors can and do practice evidence-based medicine? really? Esoteric10 (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Tough beans. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 07:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the happy dog Listen, I agree with everything on your talk page, but even if we are pro-science, that doesn't give us permission to violate wikipedia standards.Esoteric10 (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Does that mean you are going to stop? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 08:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the happy dog Stop what? Crusading against pseudoscience? No. But this page isn't about pseudoscience, it's about Chiropractic, which is a profession with many practitioners who happen to believe in pseudoscience, and many who do not. It is not a pseudoscience itself. Articles about specific pseudoscientific beliefs should be labeled as such, but not the entire profession itself, I'm sorry.Esoteric10 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a pseudoscience itself If that is the case, isn't it weird that several reliable sources say it is? Isn't it also weird that you cannot give us reliable sources that say it isn't? Instead you just claim it isn't. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on unsupported opinions of Wikipedia users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources claim that certain practices that are performed by some chiropractors are pseudoscience, but this article isn't about subluxation theory or applied kinesiology, it's about chiropractic, a practice which is far more broad and should not be blanket labeled as a pseudoscience. It is not even a philosophy in and of itself. Esoteric10 (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

chiropractic [..] should not be blanket labeled as a pseudoscience If that is the case, why don't you give us that source which says it isn't? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2021

I'm requesting the removal of the word "pseudoscientific" in the opening sentence, and hoping to get fresh eyes on this as opposed to people who, for example, literally admit that they are biased on their talk page, e.g. Roxy the happy dog .

The issue at hand here is that Chiropractic, the topic of the article, relates to an entire profession, and not a specific philosophy, doctrine or belief that may be held by some of its practitioners. While the profession surely includes many practitioners who hold pseudoscientific beliefs, the profession includes chiropractors who, for example, go through an extensive residency program and practice as bona fide radiologists alongside MD radiologists. One quick example I found: https://proscan.com/physician-resources/proscan-reading-services/radiology-team/. Are these chiropractors practicing pseudoscience when they are diagnosing a bone cancer on an x-ray? No. A majority of chiropractors also perform a multitude of procedures which are generally accepted as being within the standard of care accepted by the broader medical community as evidence-based practices. This includes performing venipuncture, ordering and interpreting blood work and other lab reports, xrays, MRIs, performing orthopedic exams, neurologic exams, physical exams, minor surgery, physiotherapy, etc. The citations for the pseudoscience claim relate to particular beliefs that are sometimes held by chiropractors (but not always), and should be labeled as pseudoscience, e.g. Applied Kinesiology and Vertebral subluxation (which, strangely, is not even described as a pseudoscience until the end of the article). There would be little debate about these various related topics being labeled as pseudoscience, however labeling the entire profession as pseudoscience is completely out of line, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Esoteric10 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

See the last of the large yellow boxes on the top of this page, just before the "contents" section. You could also learn something by reading WP:NPA as it relates to your attacks on me above. Thanks. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 08:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)-Roxy the happy dog . wooF 08:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

1) It's not a personal attack when I'm pointing out the fact that you are not qualified to speak to issues related to NPOV when you literally admit on your talk page that the entirety of your involvement on wikipedia is to push a bias, and to "resist NPOV pushing of lunatic charlatans". I happen to share your bias, but also have enough integrity to realize when it crosses the line. Labeling the entirety of the chiropractic profession as pseudoscience in the first sentence of the article is about 5 miles over the line. I am switching this to unanswered, and will revert if you try to switch it again, especially without addressing the substance of the points I made above. Maybe you should also take a look at the last yellow block on the top of the page. Esoteric10 (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If that isn't a personal attack, then neither is this. Stop being foolish Don't be a plonker all your life. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 11:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Esoteric10: I have the same userbox on my page, it's literally a reference to a statement Jimmy Wales made about how the basis of neutrality is science, and that neutrality is not a "middle ground" between science and pseudoscience. If you perceive that as a bias, then our community's collective response would be yes, we are biased. Saying that userbox disqualifies you from speaking about NPOV is admitting that your views are contrary to what NPOV actually means. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with that statement, but it's not black and white here. The vast majority of what chiropractic practitioners actually do in real life is evidence-based. The aspects that are not should be labeled as such, but the entire scope of chiropractic practice cannot be defined as pseudoscience. In fact, it doesn't even represent a single philosophy. Labeling chiropractic as pseudoscience is akin to labeling podiatry as pseudocience and citing reflexology. I know many editors policing this page think they're doing the flying spaghetti monster's work, and I probably agree with 99% of the work that is done in that vein, but a line has been crossed here.Esoteric10 (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Then quit making personal attacks and arguing from anecdote. I can follow your argument here, it isn't crazy or anything, but your personal opinion is meaningless. You need to provide sources. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Swarm Citing sources here is a futile effort. I saw someone post sources form government websites stating that chiropractors are officially recognized as physicians, and it was disregarded because it's primary and not secondary. Meanwhile, a blog post remains the source for the claim in the first paragraph that chiropractors are not considered physicians, and the statement "chiropractors are not physicians" remains in the article without even a caveat. Likewise, I could cite sources about evidence-based practices that chiropractors engage in, the rift among chiropractic practitioners as to what philosophies guide their practice, chiropractors doing residencies and practicing as radiologists, etc, but there will be an army of policemen here ready to cite subluxation theory as their justification for blanket-labeling the entire practice of chiropractic as pseudoscience. Passion for (or against) a subject shouldn't get in the way of being able to write an unbiased article. This article, however, is an NPOV shit show. I don't think it's appropriate to take Jimmy Wales' words about pseudoscience as permission to run roughshod on any article even tangentially related to pseudoscience.Esoteric10 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Esoteric10: Could you please identify which government source(s) were ignored? Did it refer to one or two state websites, or a national website, such as Medicare? Sundayclose (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Here's the medicare website that was referenced. It includes chiropractors under the definition of "physician": https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1861.htm (ctrl+f for "chiropractor"). Also, there are several US states which define chiropractors as physicians. Here are two that I found: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title54/T54CH7/SECT54-703/, https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1309. I think these sources should take precedence over a blog post, but what do I know. I will be starting a separate edit request for this. Would you mind taking a look? Esoteric10 (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10, please do not misuse the "edit request" function. It should only be used for totally uncontroversial content, IOW no need for any discussion. Instead, what you can do is start a new thread, but only if you have substantially new arguments, sources, or reasoning. Otherwise you may get accused of bludgeoning or IDHT behavior. -- Valjean (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10 The subject of the article isn't the profession, it's about the practice itself, and the assertion that the practice is pseudoscientific is well-sourced within the article. We aren't applying a label to the people who practice chiropractic; if they also practice other stuff, that activity isn't in any way tainted by the pseudoscientific nature of chiropractic. Please don't make comments about other editors on this talk page, it is inappropriate - comment on content, not contributors. Please do not change the edit request parameter again - it's not an decision that a single editor could make anyway, it would need substantial discussion, probably an RfC, and some very solid sourcing.

Roxy the dog please don't up the ante on the PAs by using words like foolish, plonker or whatever - it's just going to increase tension, which nobody needs right now. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Now, are you going to do anything about them? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that depends on what they do next. They made an edit request, it's been responded to. I have asked them not to make any more personal comments about other editors, I hope they'll honour that request. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We'll make a diplomat out of you yet. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the practice of chiropractic, which is extremely broad and is not limited to the pseudoscientific aspects referenced as sources for the pseudoscientific claim, as was pointed out in the OP. The topic is far too broad to put the blanket label of "pseudoscientific" in the first sentence, regardless of whether even a majority of the practitioners have some pseudoscientific beliefs. One test for this would be whether there is evidence showing that one could visit a chiropractor, describe symptoms that would indicate a musculoskeletal ailment, and receive an accurate diagnosis. I imagine this would be true 95%+ of the time, and true more often than would be the case with other evidence-based practitioners such as physiotherapists and nurse practitioners. I will have to gather some sources and make a proper RfC, however I do think the general distaste for pseudoscience among wiki editors and the number of said editors actively monitoring a page like this is tipping the scale way too far here, and placing something that is largely evidence-based in its modern form into the same category as astrology and homeopathy. Wikipedia is a neutral platform. There are plenty of articles that I'd love to slap a derogatory label on in the first sentence, but we are doing the site and readers a disservice. Esoteric10 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The test, for our purposes is how reliable sources describe it. Any argument you want to make here should be based on what sources say, and how we should summarise their content. General observations about the subject aren't constructive. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit I'm aware of how sourcing works, and above I gave an example of a type of source that may be relevant here. It also seems that general observations are indeed constructive here, as the vast majority of the editors here seem to have no idea about the topic at hand, and are apparently ok with a blog post being sourced for a claim in the first paragraph that chiropractors are not physicians, while disregarding sources from government websites stating the opposite because they're just "primary sources". I do feel like I need to inject some much needed balance to the discussion here. This type of chicanery would not fly on a less contentious article, but apparently it's ok here. Who will watch the watchmen?Esoteric10 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10, That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The 99% of charlatans definitely do give the 1% of reality-based practitioners a bad name, but we're writing about the subject as it is, not as you wish it to be. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Guy The real problem here is that I'm pretty sure most of the people actively policing this article actually believe that there is a 99% to 1% ratio of pseudoscience to evidence-based practices within chiropractic, when in reality the vast majority of what chiropractors do is evidence-based. I've worked with them and two MDs who have taught them, and the vast majority of chiropractors today are not learning or practicing pseudoscience, I'm sorry. No, this is not an anecdote, I could source their board exams. Maybe 5% of their curriculum covers spinal manipulation, and they are essentially being trained in general medicine with an emphasis on orthopedic evaluation and management / physiotherapy. There are spinal manipulation modalities, such as cervical / lumbar traction, that are evidence-based and generally accepted among the broader medical community as an acceptable modality for the treatment of certain conditions, particularly of those involving vertebral compression, e.g. sciatica and other radiculopathies. Yes, there are practitioners who still adhere to subluxation theory, but they are marginalized and represent a minority of practitioners today, as opposed to decades ago. Still, though, if you were to walk into their office with a rotator cuff tear, they would diagnose it correctly and either send you for PT or rehab it in their office. Lumping Chiropractic in with homeopaths, faith healers and psychics is disingenuous, and deep down I think you know this, unless you are completely mistaken about what chiropractors actually do within their scope of practice. Esoteric10 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10, the 99:1 ratio certainly applies on this taslk page, and my (not inconsiderable) reading shows that most chiropractic schools are increasingly vehemently anti-reality. Discussion in the press is dominated by trying to arm-wave away the risks (e.g. VAD) and whataboutism over NSAIDs. At this point it's fair to say that chiropractic works as well for chronic lower back pain as NSAIDs do, chiros punt that as hard as they can, and forget the corollary finding that NSAIDs don't work. Nothing does., Including back-cracking. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The assertion that there is no data regarding the safety of chiropractic manipulation is demonstrability false. Medical malpractice liability insurance premiums for chiropractors on average are 5% of those paid by medical doctors (which vary greatly among specialties) . Insurance actuaries and underwriters have no bias when they assess risk and formulate insurance premiums. They are not in the business of offering liability policy limits of liability of $1,000,000 per incident and $3,000,000 per year to over 70,000 full time practicing chiropractors in the United States alone for an average of $370 a year when these 70K+ chiropractors each routinely perform dozens of cervical manipulations per day. This article clearly misrepresents and overstates the risk associated with being treated by chiropractors. Cervical manipulation is the one procedure (among many) chiropractors perform that are associated with serious risk. Although the risk is indeed legitimate, the statistical incidence extremely low. A number of documents cases of vertebral artery disection involved incidences in which the manipulation was performed by a practitioner another health care professional other than a chiropractor and some by laypersons attempting cervical manipulation. Chiropractors are licensed and trained to perform the same procedures that physical therapists do. Many chiropractic patients opt not to have their cervical spine manipulated. The vast majority of practicing chiropractors in the US reject the early incorrect hypotheses of their profession, just as MD's and DO's have regarding their respective counterparts from the 1890's. Full disclaimer: I am not familiar with the weird tedious cryptic idiosyncratic Wikipedia procedural and form posting requirements. I am aware that my contribution to this discussion may very well be unceremoniously censored by the overzealous wiki editors with strange irrational vendettas against the chiropractic profession. I'm hoping someone else with the patience to deal with the nonsense they perpetuate has the time to research and post actuary data on the safety of chiropractic. Perhaps I'll do it myself when I have time. In the interim, can any of the staunch anti chiropractic crusaders respond substantively to the points I have made? 2601:240:C400:B280:D44D:414C:41D0:1E79 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)RationalGuy

There is no usable data because there is no systematic adverse incident reporting. Insurance premiums are irrelevant - when you're not supposed to deal with people who are actually ill, you'd expect lower rates of insurance claims and in any case victims of alt med cults have a long history of excusing away the abuses they suffer. Many things chiros do - notably including whole-spine X-rays - carry non-trivial risk for zero provabnle benefit, but we don't have figures around these things because they lack the reporting and data colleciton frameworks of ethical practice. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Section about views on vaccination

These sentences don't fit with the article. They're not focused on chiropractic, and the citation is not a systematic review. Greenriverglass (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that most, if not all, of the information in the article about vaccination focuses on chiropractic. And at least two of the sources present a historical review. Please explain further. Sundayclose (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I should have said the sentences about vaccination don't fit with the Wikipedia article on Chiropractic. The first reference takes one source as representative. The second reference is a historical review, which is not the same as a systematic review of research on chiropractor opinions on vaccination. Even that historical review says in the abstract that a majority of chiropractors don't object to vaccination. If opinions on vaccination are even relevant to the wikipedia article, they should be moved to a different section and the text should make clear that most chiropractors are not against vaccination.Greenriverglass (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell us how many "systematic review of research on chiropractor opinions" about any topic exist? I suspect not many. And please explain what's wrong with the historical review. Could you please give us a quotation from "the abstract that a majority of chiropractors don't object to vaccination"; I couldn't find that information. Did you read the entire historical review or just the abstract? And did you read beyond the lead in Chiropractic? Sundayclose (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

How does the lack of systematic reviews, or published research support keeping the section? The two sources cited are not even good. From the first one: "We have elected to focus on a Letter to the Editor of the Burlington Post (Ontario, Canada) (May 12, 1999), written by a chiropractor and clearly advocating against immunization programs. The following are excerpts from this single letter, but we feel they illustrate claims that commonly recur in antivaccination chiropractic writings." They just feel that it is representative. Second source is just a commentary and historical review. Part of it refers to another paper, which might be a decent citation if it's even relevant that one third of a bad sample size don't endorse vaccinations. "To determine the prevalence of antivaccination attitudes within the chiropractic community, Colley and Haas29 conducted a mail survey of ∼1% of randomly selected US chiropractors. Although the validity of the study is compromised by the low response rate (36%), approximately one third of the 171 respondents believed there is no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease, that immunization has not substantially changed the incidence of any major infectious disease in this century, that immunizations cause more disease than they prevent, and that contracting an infectious disease is safer than immunization." But the bigger question is, why even include opinions on vaccination in the wikipedia article in the first place?Greenriverglass (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Which "first source", the one in the lead, or the one in the main body of the article? Did you read beyond the lead?

Let me repeat two of my questions: Can you tell us how many "systematic review of research on chiropractor opinions" about any topic exist? And please explain what's wrong with a historical review.

Where did I say that "the lack of systematic reviews, or published research support keeping the section?"

As for your question "why even include opinions on vaccination in the wikipedia article in the first place?": for the same reason that the opinions of any healthcare professionals about vaccination are important in a Wikipedia article about that profession. Is there a reason such information should be withheld about any healthcare profession if the information is available? Or is is just chiropractic that you think the information should not be presented? Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The two citations are 27 and 28. I see now they are also referenced in the section on public health with the same conclusions. I doubt there are any systematic reviews on chiropractor opinions on public health; that's one reason the Wikipedia article should be very cautious about making claims on those topics. I think my points about the two sources are compelling. If they are to be used, then they should be fairly represented in the article. If there is actually quantifiable, researched, significant disagreement between chiropractors on the topic, then it can be explained. Same goes for other articles.Greenriverglass (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is that crazy ideas tend to keep company with other crazy ideas. The crazy idea of "subluxations" can only be held by someone who rejects the scientific explanations for diseases (which include germs). Anti-vaxx beliefs are clearly associated with the same basic science-rejecting worldview. Scientists have indeed noted anti-vaxx noises coming from chiropractors, and it is highly plausible that chiropractic beliefs and anti-vaxx beliefs are not only correlated but ideologically connected. That is worth noting, and therefore we note it. Yes, systematic reviews finding the correlation would be nice, but what we have is good enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a pretty good systematic review published in the journal "Vaccine" with regard to chiropractors opinions on vaccines; "Complementary medicine and childhood immunisation: A critical review" [21]. Here is the relevant text: "Most studies focused on chiropractor attitudes on vaccination, and found significant disparity within this practitioner group. One study found that 56.2% of qualified chiropractic practitioners believed that vaccination was an important public health measure [13] whilst only 25.1–30% actively recommend vaccination [14,15]. Lee et al. [14] found that whilst 30% of chiropractors recommended immunisation, 63% felt it important not to make comments or recommendations to allow patient choice. Russell et al.’s [16] study of Alberta chiropractors found that the majority of chiropractors (63%) wanted to take a more active role in immunisation activity, with the most common form of activity being the ability to refer to nurses or medical doctors for answers to immunisation questions, and the ability to refer to government vaccination services and information sources. This support did not extend to ‘in-clinic’ activities such as displaying of pro-vaccination posters or displaying official vaccination pamphlets, though approximately one-third of chiropractors did express interest in these measures. Heterogeneity appears to exist even within discrete CM practitioner groups such as chiropractors, whose attitudes to vaccination appear to be influenced by philosophical beliefs (i.e. ‘straight’ versus ‘mixer’ chiropractic). ‘Straight’ chiropractors (those who believe vertebral subluxation is the primary origin of all disease; approximately one-fifth of the chiropractic population) are significantly more vaccine hesitant than ‘mixer’ chiropractors[13,15,17,18] (those who focus on musculo-skeletal conditions and interpret diagnosis and treatment in a biomedical model). Personal experiences were reported by vaccine opposing chiropractors as being more influential in determining opposition than professional norms [19]. CM practitioners seem open to non-CM information sources on immunisation. A Canadian study of chiropractors found that qualifications in research (PhD) or biomedicine (MD) were seen as more important than chiropractic qualifications for instructors providing vaccination classes [20]." 2001:56A:75CE:1700:EC0E:1D0B:D79A:E6F6 (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The source from Vaccine seems better than the current citations. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to cite original research. Aren't 27 and 28 both claiming to produce new knowledge? A historical review is not the same as a systematic review. As for the connection between beliefs and anti-vax opinions, we can't just note that without any citations. All the sources I've seen referenced here say anti-vax is a minority opinion. Surely the issue can be presented in a way that is closer to actual research on the subject.Greenriverglass (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Vaccine article certainly doesn't make a resounding case for "minority opinion", especially compared to other healthcare professions. There are distinctions between differences, statistically significant differences, and meaningful differences. That's basic science. Use of the term "minority opinion" is very misleading. Sundayclose (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

Chiropractic is the science, art, and philosophy of removing nervous interference from the nervous system. It is not a pseudoscience any more than western medicine. Revcharles9000 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I'm afraid that that isn't a request for anything. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

Chiropractic is a SCIENTIFIC alternative medicine* 100.8.186.189 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There is significant consensus for the current wording. Please get consensus for the change before requesting the edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Original Research Source?

Russell ML, Injeyan HS, Verhoef MJ, Eliasziw M (2004). "Beliefs and behaviours: understanding chiropractors and immunization". Vaccine. 23 (3): 372–79. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.05.027. PMID 15530683. This is repeated as citation 225 and 226, but it's also original research. They conducted a survey and reported the results. Curious to hear if there are reasons to keep this source in the article.Greenriverglass (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Greenriverglass, Original research as Wikipedia defines it (WP:OR) refers to material that has no source - it originated with the Wikipedia editor who attempted to add it. When people who have nothing to do with Wikipedia conduct research and we then cite it, that is normal editing activity. - MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh OK thank you. So the duplicate citations should just be collapsed down into one.Greenriverglass (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks to the person who fixed it.Greenriverglass (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

POV issues

Some editors of this article seem to be pushing opinion labels like "pseudoscience" and the adjective "pseudoscientific" wherever possible and as high up in the article as possible. The references cited for this are often opinion based websites or non-medical journals. The statement that people consider Chiropractic to be "pseudoscience" is undeniable fact. The use of the label as a definitive descriptor of the practice is opinion. Neither Harvard Medical School, the NIH , nor The American College of Physicians use "pseudoscience" or any of the related terms to describe chiropractic treatments. It is extremely important for the wikipedia article to mention the debate, and to cite detractors of spinal manipulation and chiropractic treatments, but it is un"wiki" to constantly hammer and promote one side of a debate frey (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

OK, show me the empirical proof for innate, and an objective way of testing subluxations, or any objectively demonstrable effect of said subluxations sufficient to offset the risks of vertebral artery dissection and full-spine X-rays. Or, to put it another way, straights are quacks, and mixers are either physical therapists (like the excellent and trustworthy Samuel Homola) or quacks in denial. Note in passing: "as good as NSAAIDs for chronic lower back pain" is semantically equivalent to "does not work for chronic lower back pain". Nothing does. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The last "yellow" intro section at the top of this page says ...

"The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.

Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process."

Fellow editers would be well-advised to think about it. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the inedible dog ., FYI, I agree with your distaste for pseudoscience, I do however take issue with someone removing valid links to multiple national medical organizations terminology and definitions of the subject at hand. I feel that it is extremely important for Wikipedia to cover the subject of pseudoscience and the dangers associated with pseudomedicine, but you can’t simply erase references to national licensing standards to win your argument frey (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Are most of you editors in favor of censoring any reference to the fact that the profession is licensed in many contries? I am mildly surprised by how many of you come out of the woodwork to hide that fact. I don't even think we would disagree on the value of the profession. I don't want anyone touching my spine, but I feel like obfuscating governmental facts about the occupation is going a bit far, don't you? frey (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Ideas? pepperbeast(talk) , McSly , Roxy the elfin dog . ... You all seem opinionated about the subject. Do you really want to eliminate references to various national regulation and licensing of the profession? frey (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your update on licensing is probably not lede worthy, though if you update the body first with reasonable content we can discuss it. It it is certainly not DUE in the first couple sentences. Also one editor disagreeing with many is not a POV dispute its just one user disagreeing with consensus.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you for joining the conversation. I remain bothered by the tone of the lede, but I have other things to do with my life than fight this battle. It remains that I believe the tone of articles such as Herbal medicine maintain a more neutral stance than this one, but perhaps other wiki editors will come to see my perspective and take up the issue. If not, then the article will remain, in my eyes, biased. I was extremely offended by the fact that Roxy the elfin dog . removed my first comments on the talk page, but as long as the discussion stays open, I will admit that nobody else sees the tone the way I do and just move onfrey (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats the job of Big Pharma is too discredit anything that doesnt promote their medication or doctors. Of you disagree you support pseudoscience or you are a conspiracy theorist.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around: you are a conspiracy theorist because you accuse those who disagree with you of being in the pocket of Big Pharma. Discussion with conspiracy theorists is not possible because they will dismiss any reason that contradicts their position as coming from people who are part of the conspiracy. As you just did.

Please use factual reasoning instead of blanket ad-hominem. Or leave the page to people who do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Fruitloop11, oh the irony. The first entry at the disambiguation page Big Pharma is Big Pharma conspiracy theory. Which you just promted. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• The term "pseudoscience" is supported by sources. You present sources that don't use the term "pseudoscience", however, your sources also don't make any claim that the field is scientific or is not pseudoscientific. They don't address this issue, one way or the other. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, this is correct. Pseudoscience means a thing which is presented as science but is not. Chiropractic meets the definition perfectly. The sciencey-looking terms, the obsessive use of the honorific "doctor", the gadgets, X-rays and the like, the walled garden of journals, the whole nine yards. I have not seen any remotely reliable source that claims it to be a genuinely scientific endeavour. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Funny in the Soviet Union and Germany anything that was against the states views was considered a conspiracy theory or a lie to endanger people. I guess you are trying to makethe same accusations here. Calling a practice you have to go to school for pseudoscience isnt just illogically wrong it is morally wrong as well because it hurts the people who worked hard to become chiropractors. Alternative medicine is the most repectful way of putting it. End of comment.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

See the Courtier's reply (and Godwin’s law). Brunton (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That wasnt the point. I wasnt comparing anyone to hitler. I could have went with Soviet Union and communist China instead of Germany--Fruitloop11 (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear what you're comparing an authoritarian government to in your metaphor. Please, enlighten us. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Or rather, just stop it. We already get enough people who think they have to complain about their favorite pseudoscience getting called pseudoscience. It never works because they never have any reliable sources to back them up, just random accusations of dogmatism and censorship, comparisons with Soviets, Nazis, and inquisitors (you forgot that one), conspiracy theories involving Big Pharma, Bill Gates, or George Soros, and so on and so on. Or actual pointers to studies which turn out either to be abysmally bad or to say the opposite of what they are claimed to say. Whatever you plan to give us, it is highly likely that we already heard and refuted it dozens of times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm interested in hearing who or what Fruitloop is implying is the equivalent of an authoritarian communist or fascist state. This is the kind of thing that's relevant to understand in a DS area. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Swarm The term "pseudoscience" is supported by sources in relation to specific practices, not in relation to the entire profession, which is the subject of this article. Yes, I had to put this in bold, because this fact has apparently been lost here. Yes, label subluxation as pseudoscience. Label applied kinesiology as pseudoscience. This article relates to the entire profession of chiropractic. This includes, among others, people who go through residencies and practice as bona fide radiologists alongside MDs. Quick reference here: https://proscan.com/physician-resources/proscan-reading-services/radiology-team/. Are they not practicing evidence-based medicine when diagnosing an aortic aneurism on a plain film x-ray? Labeling the entire profession as pseudoscience is a clear WP:NPOV violation, and unfortunately it seems even 'neutral' third parties are susceptible to ignoring this fact when it fits their own bias. Esoteric10 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

100% agree that this article is biased against chiropractic. I have no axe to grind either way but I went elsewhere to find out about the subject after reading the first sentence. In the UK for example there was a law passed to create a general chiropractic council to regulate practioners in the same way as medical doctors (who by the way do not have doctorate degrees). I suppose the UK government must also be psuedoscientific too. Polymath uk (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Polymath uk: You state that the UK regulates practitioners as if it is a rare phenomenon. Other countries regulate chiropractors as well. And regulation does not equate to science-based. Regulation only provides the minimal amount of protection for the public from charlatans. As for your comment that medical doctors in the UK do not have doctorate degrees, the issue isn't whether they use the title "Doctor". Read Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery. Practicing physicians in the UK have equivalent training as physicians in the United States who have Doctor of Medicine degrees. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Please fix this page to be more accurate. I am concerned with calling it a pseudoscience when DO and DPT are now performing manipulations. Unless you are also willing to call those professions pseudoscience for practicing that. The first sentence of this page is an old mindset, incorrect, and is the reason we still have so many discrepancies between healthcare professionals because most people don't understand chiropractic and when they look it up that is the first thing they see. Please just remove the word. If you would like any more information on chiropractic please contact me. 198.102.161.2 (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources in the article support the assertion that it's pseudoscience. I don't know what DO or DPT are, but without presenting any sources to challenge the description, we can't action this request. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, DO is Doctor of Osteopathy, the offshoot of chiropractic / osteopathy that decided to take up reality-based medicine. DPT is, I assume, doctor of physical therapy. Both do indeed perform manipulation therapy, but neither supports the bullshit subluxation theory, the idea of "innate", or any of the other signature facets that define chiropractic. Not least because a regulated medical practitioner who performed the chiropractic neck twist would lose their license to practise. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG Your assertions regarding osteopathy are completely false. In the United States, many DO's become osteopaths because they applied to DO school as a backup when applying to MD programs. Many osteopaths ignore joint manipulation when they choose their medical specialty. But osteopathic joint manipulation is indeed a central tenet of their profession and is taught in DO school curricular. The profession of osteopathy in the United States is still very much steeped in joint manipulation and "osteopathic holistic philosophy. They are like chiropractors with Rx pads, scalpels, and high malpractice insurance premiums. 2601:240:C400:B280:F904:4757:AEEC:14C5 (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)RationalGuy

JzG What about cervical traction? Not all spinal manipulation is based around subluxation, and some modalities are widely accepted amongst the broader medical community as effective and evidence-based. Describing the entire field of chropractic as 'pseudoscientific' is completely out of line here, and an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. I'd have no problem with several related topics being labeled as such, such as subluxation, innate, etc., but labeling the entire profession as pseudoscientific when a significant proportion of what chiropractors do is evidence-based is totally out of line. A large portion of chiropractors - especially new graduates - run completely evidence-based practices. They order and interpret blood work and labs, x-rays, MRIs, do orthopedic testing, neurological testing, physical examination, etc. This stuff is all in line with the generally accepted standard of care, and completely evidence-based. Some chiropractors receive a DACBR post-doc and practice as bona fide radiologists, alongside MD and DO radiologists. Clearly they are not practicing pseudoscience. The pseudoscience verbiage has no place in the first sentence of the article. I'm as much for fighting against pseudoscience as the next guy, but this is really egregious, and clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. I think there is a large subset of the population who believe that chiropractors all believe in subluxation theory, and only crack backs. Not true, and it is wrong to represent the profession as such.Esoteric10 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10, there is a Venn diagram, there is a small overlap between defensible reality-based treatments and chiropractic, but it is small, and in most cases the chiropractic version is a cargo-=cult imitation.

Caveat: mixers (like Samuel Homola) are more likely to be reality-based and accept the limits of their knowledge and scope of practice. But most of the ones we see here are straights. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the pseudoscience label is laughable - I can find one reference like this article has (from one book) with the same degree of veracity, to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. It's a ridiculous argument that some one person's opinion in one book is enough to condemn an entire field of medicine in the opening sentence. I'm a physicist and as much as I support evidence based articles, this hatchet job is no good. Polymath uk (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Polymath uk: Take another look. The article has more than "one person's opinion in one book" to back up the idea of pseudoscience. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@sundayclose it's possible to support any pov with selective referencing. One of the handful chosen is a critique of chiropractic. However, the only(!) citation of that reference is a rebuttal, but nobody has mentioned that. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702021/ Journal entries like that are no good in academia as sources but maybe they will do here. Polymath uk (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Polymath uk: You seem to be confused, and your comment doesn't make much sense. If you think there is "selective referencing", then the way to counter that is to provide equally weighted and reliable sources for your point of view, which you have failed to do, except for your link to one brief response to one of the citations in the article, and that one response says nothing about chiropractic. It makes no sense to try to defend chiropractic with a brief response about complementary/alternative medicine in general. "Chiropractic" and "complementary/alternative medicine" are not interchangeable terms. And you completely ignored the other six citations for "pseudoscience". Sundayclose (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 07 April 2021

This wiki in its current state is blatantly biased and controlled by anti-chiropractic trolls. I think one important point that is being overlooked, and easily verifiable, is that chiropractors are choosing to be represented by organizations, like the American Chiropractic Association, that describe and present chiropractic in a scientific manner. Their website is fully referenced, and includes proper citations, including a page specifically for research . The logic that certain users are using could also consider modern medicine to be pseudoscience because of their known history of the use of asylums with abhorrent procedures such as electroshock therapy and much worse, lobotomies. One author notes “Lobotomies were performed in the thousands from the 1930s to the 1950s, and were ultimately replaced with modern psychotropic drugs .” That is egregiously recent for a profession that is supposedly “based on science.” Chiropractic on the other hand, while in the past it has described itself with terms that some users are deeming “unscientific,” it at least was not hurting people in any similar way. Today’s chiropractors in the United States are licensed, regulated, and must establish medical necessity before performing services or they risk being disciplined by their state boards. Furthermore medicine has many common clinical practices that are well known to be currently unscientific like the overuse of antibiotics, narcotics, and psychiatric medication that has created issues that are actual national crises . This wiki currently reflects terribly on Wikipedia’s community and must be updated to be objective, fair, and unbiased. Furthermore, chiropractors deserve to be recognized as they describe themselves, in a scientifically congruent way, as evidenced by their national representation in the American Chiropractic Association. Darren.Hollander (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

Well, what's the definition of pseudoscientific? Let's break this down to understand why they're probably like this.

pseudoscientific means "falsely or mistakenly claimed or regarded as being based on scientific method". Chiropractic can't even agree on what subluxation means and generally isn't taken seriously by the general public.

When your own specialists write papers like "The Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation as a non-invasive treatment for lumbar disc herniation" with such little research utilized in the paper (26 studies), and utilizing estimative language like potentially effective treatment shows you, as Chiropractors are unsure of yourself.

Like, it could potentially be effective, but we're unsure, sir.

That's why it is very much pseudoscientific. This is literally just one sentence in an entire article on Chiropractic, though. Reading the whole page and looking through it, I'm not sure I see the issue. There's a lot missing. 78.101.162.5 (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a request for anything. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 11:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

UK Section is inaccurate

Chiropractic is not widely available on the NHS, but it may be offered in exceptional circumstances in some areas. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/chiropractic/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2021

Change "A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[8" to "Spinal manipulation was found as effective as surgery at treating low back pain and sciatica, and was found effective at increasing functionality and reducing pain in low back pain by the US Army in a controlled study. Many studies have proven chiropractic manipulation to have a very low rate of adverse outcomes, and a higher rate than non-treatment of reducing pain and restoring functionality in cervical pain, low back pain, and sciatica." These sentences should be struck(erased) altogether as being untruthful and wildly inflammatory: "The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.[10]" There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations.[11] It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.[12] There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation.[13] Several deaths have been associated with this technique[12] and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative,[14][15] a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.[15]" Awolf003 (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2485083/pdf/jcca00044-0031.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1dtkNaDs4trO5Ucq9g-ol_neQmJZuzeveNwuqIxI_JztQaIN00e01uqVc https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2020.0107?fbclid=IwAR1pgzK1XAvZk4AJK0gyRSPr-3RluUzIcoLR45eC_6Aj0dTSdoX2fHWC7mo https://academic.oup.com/painmedicine/article-abstract/21/12/3567/5788462?fbclid=IwAR1o7nnbLW_WG9_YPtSLMy6zY9-i_dQrD5pk-HHRo4vY8AU-y2zeaugaviI https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1529943005008338

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 10:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)