Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 03:32, 9 May 2008 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,508 edits →Not acceptable change regarding primary care/contact: editing controversial articles← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 03:31, 4 December 2024 edit undo2607:fea8:4a62:2f00:ac7b:e1d:4396:ebb (talk) →Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	<!-- Please do not remove or change this message until the issue is settled -->
			{{Talk header|search=no|noarchive=yes}}
	<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="afd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 0px 7px; background: #EDF1F1; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;">
			{{Controversial}}
	{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05_Chiropractic
			{{Censor}}
	|'''A ] has been made to ] for mediation on this article.
			{{Calm}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
			{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV and is mostly unverified, and its contents should be treated with caution as this violates core policies of Misplaced Pages. See ] and ].}}
			}}
			{{Copied|from1=Chiropractic|to1=Chiropractic treatment techniques
			|from2=Chiropractic|to2=Veterinary chiropractic
			|from3=Koren Specific Technique|to3=Chiropractic
			|from4=Chiropractic|to4=Baby colic
			|from5=Baby colic|to5=Chiropractic|from_oldid5=801357015|to_oldid5=801349349|to_diff5=801359943}}
			{{Trolling}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=acu|style=long}}
	Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved.
	|
	}}
	</div>
	{{notice|small=no|header=No plus sign please|In order to keep the references listed at the bottom, please don't use the new section tab above, or the "click here to start a new topic" below to start a new section.}}
	{{talkheader}}
	{{controversial}}
	{{Calm talk}}
	{{cleanup taskforce closed|Chiropractic medicine}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell
	|1={{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=A|nested=yes}}
	{{Rational Skepticism|class=A|importance=High|nested=yes}}}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	|maxarchivesize = 250K
			|maxarchivesize = 300K
	|counter = 18
			|counter = 40
			|minthreadsleft = 2
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			|algo = old(30d)
	|archive = Talk:Chiropractic/Archive %(counter)d		|archive = Talk:Chiropractic/Archive %(counter)d
	|algo = old(14d)
	|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	}}		}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive Index|mask=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index|mask=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
	{{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=14|index=./Archive Index|small=yes}}		{{Archives|search=yes|auto=short|bot=MiszaBot|age=30|index=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index}}
			__TOC__
	{{Archive box|auto=yes|
			== The section "History" could use an update ==
	* ]}}
	== Proposed section rewrites ==
	=== Scope of practice ===
	<s>Although chiropractors have many attributes of ] providers, they also have more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry.<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/></s> Chiropractors are considered ] providers who emphasize the conservative management of the neuromusculoskeletal systems without the use of medicines or surgery.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/> The practice of chiropractic medicine involves the restricted acts of ] and ]{{fact}}and involves a range of diagnostic methods including skeletal imaging, observational and tactile assessments, orthopedic and neurological evaluation, laboratory tests, as well as other specialized tests as required.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/><ref name=ccestandards>{{cite web |url=http://cce-usa.org/uploads/File/2007%20January%20STANDARDS.pdf |format=PDF |title= Standards for Doctor of Chiropractic programs and requirements for institutional status |author= ] |date=2007 |accessdate=2008-02-14}}</ref> A chiropractor may also refer a patient to an appropriate specialist, or co-manage with another health care provider.<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/> Common patient management involves:
	*spinal manipulation and other manual therapies to the joints and soft tissues
	*rehabilitative exercises
	*health promotion
	*electrical modalities
	*conservative and complementary procedures.
	*health and lifestyle counseling
	<ref>{{cite book|last=Haldeman |first=Scott|coauthors=Chapman-Smith, David, Petersen, Donald, Jr.|title=Guidelines for Chiropractic Quality and Practice Parameters|publisher=Jones and Bartlett|location=Sudbury, MA|pages=111-113|isbn=0-7437-2921-3|url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=MHqo1ngXtkoC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=&source=web&ots=lPUzIAEwfM&sig=2JZUNBxP4KNjwSuz_EvqIP5gzoY&hl=en#PPA111,M1|accessdate=2008-04-16|language=English}}</ref>
	Chiropractors generally cannot write medical (pharmaceutical) prescriptions; however there has been a shift within the profession with a slight majority of North American DCs favouring an expansion of scope of practice to include limited prescription rights.<ref>{{cite book |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M ''et al.'' |date=2003 |title= How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors |location= Ada, OH |publisher= Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University |isbn=0972805559}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Semin Integr Med |date=2004 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=92–8 |title= How chiropractors think and practice: the survey of North American chiropractors |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M |doi=10.1016/j.sigm.2004.07.002 |laydate=2003-06-02 |laysummary=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/21/12/19.html |laysource= Dynamic Chiropractic}}</ref> A notable exception is the state of ] which is considered to have an "expansive" scope of practice of chiropractic, which allows chiropractors with additional qualifications to prescribe over-the-counter drugs. With additional training and certification licensed chiropractors (DCs) and ] (DVMs) can expand their scope of practice and practice ] which includes assessment, diagnosis and treatment of biomechanical disorders of animals that may be amenable to manual therapy. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.veterinarychiropractic.ca/|title=Canadian Animal Chiropractic Certification Program|language=English|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.animalchiropractic.org/animal_chiropractic_certification.htm|title=Animal Veterinary Chiropractic Association|language=English|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref> Chiropractors are also generally permitted to use adjunctive therapeutic modalities such as ] and manipulation under ] with additional training from accredited universities/colleges.
	Currently, chiropractic is a regulated health care profession with licensure requirements in over 50 countries globally although chiropractic medicine is most established in North America, ] as well as a few ]. <ref name="CDC">{{cite web |url=http://www.chiropracticdiplomatic.com/strategies/global_strategy.pdf |title=Chiropractic Global Professional Strategy|author=Tetrault, Michael |publisher=Chiropractic Diplomatic Corps |accessdate=2008-04-18}}</ref> Similar to other primary contact health providers, licensed chiropractors can continue their education and specialize in different areas of chiropractic medicine. The most common post-graduate diplomate programs include ], ], clinical sciences, ] sciences, ] and ] which generally require 2-3 additional years of study following completion of chiropractic school and passing all state, provincial and national board exams to obtain the necessary license to practice chiropractic. <ref name="AHPCred">{{cite book|last=Pybus|first=Beverly, E.|coauthors=Cairns, Carol, S.|others=C|title=A Guide to AHP Credentialing |publisher=hcPro |pages=241-243 |isbn=1-57839-478-3 |accessdate=2008-04-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/ahcpr/chapter3.htm|title=CHIROPRACTIC TRAINING|coauthors=Ian D. Coulter, PhD Alan H. Adams, DC; Ruth Sandefur, DC, PhD|publisher=AHCPR|language=English|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|coauthors=Michael A. Mestan DC, John A.M. Taylor DC, G. Lansing Blackshaw PhD, and J. Clay McDonald JD, DC|date=June 2006|title=Establishing an Accredited Master of Science in Diagnostic Imaging Degree at a Chiropractic College |journal=Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics|volume=29, |issue=5|pages=410-413 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK1-4K4DFWG-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2f2a8802530a8e3ae4d8de4a3feaee80|accessdate=2008-04-16}}</ref>
	] (])
	04:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	] (]) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	] (])
	Strikeouts. ] (]) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	] (]) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	=== Comments Scope of Practice ===
	Please put any notable stuff that may be missing from scope of practice below.
	:*<s> animal chiropractic (i.e. non human practice) (expanded scope of practice with additional training/certification)</s>:* prescription of ergonomic devices (orthotics) and assistive devices, disability evaluations, IMEs, etc..
	:* practice of other regulated therapies (acupuncture (i.e does it require some kind of license to practice or is considered to be within the 'public domain'
	:* <s>clinical specialities (most common only, i.e. sports sciences, rehabilitation sciences, neurology, radiology, etc...)</s>:* Practice demographics (solo, vs. multidiscipinary, integrative medicine (i.e. public health/governmental)
	:* Anything else? ] (]) 05:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	This section is long and boring: it's a huge paragraph with no breaks and I suspect that nobody has read it. Does there really need to be this level of coverage here? It's too long by at least a factor of two, maybe three. Also, there's some duplication with the proposed Education and Licensing section (see below). ] (]) 08:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:It doesn't seem too long or boring to me. Changes may have been made to increase readability, but I think it reads well and is not too long. Any duplication should be taken care of. ] (]) 00:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	Several of the citations do not work for me. The Google Books citations don't work. Some of the citations are simply numbers in brackets; they don't work either. Please use proper citation templates ("cite journal", "cite book", etc.) As things stand the citations are too hard to follow. I fixed a couple of them but there are many more that need fixing, and it's hard to review the proposed text properly without seeing the citations. ] (]) 08:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:The section fully covers the scope of practice of chiropractic and represents the subtle ins and outs of scope of practice globally and within North America. Yes, there needs to be a full and appropriate coverage of chiropractic scope of practice in ]. This is done fully and completely in other regulated health profession in articles here. Duplication of material can be deleted.
	:Google Books citations work fine for me; where do I find citation templates? The citations are there; they take you to the relevant citations; are there any specifically that you dispute? If so, why? We can easily change formatting to increase readability and I will break the paragraph into 2. We could always add bullet points to highlight some of the major restricted acts or common treatment modalities in scope of practice as well. Thanks for your comments. ] (]) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: The Google Book citations don't work for me; I click on them and get a message "page unavailable for viewing". So I don't know what's being cited. You can find citation templates by looking at how books and journals are cited in ]. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::This is reading well. IMHO, this is the kind of professional information perfectly suited for an article about ]. Nice work! -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: As per Eubulides request, I will attempt to introduce good citation formatting; if it's not up to snuff, I apologize I'm still trying to learn how to use the various tools here at Misplaced Pages. Nonetheless, if there aren't significant objections, I propose we roll out scope of practice today.
	::::: It's not just the formatting (although that clearly needs to be fixed). The bigger problem is that some of the citations don't work at all, and I can't follow them to check them, and therefore cannot do what I feel would be a proper review. Please fix the citations first, so that people can have a day or two to review the whole thing. ] (]) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I can assure you that when I checked the citations they were functional and working but I'll make doubly sure they're still there. With all due respect I was pretty thorough in writing the section and made sure the citations met inclusion criteria. After all, I do have expertise in this field and know the salient points probably a bit better than other health professionals. ] (]) 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Thanks, but even if they work for you, they may not work for other readers. Google Books is notorious for this, since it may give a page to one reader but refuse access to others; please avoid URLs to it. Also, some of the references (e.g., "..") cannot possibly work for anybody; these clearly need fixing. ] (]) 19:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Citations were done using the cite button (that's pretty handy!) as to conform to proper citation formatting. Section was added today as there appeared to be no significant objections for inclusion. Scope of practice section was moved to conform with other health professional articles and to increase readibility. Education section will be dealt with next; comments for that section are welcome there. ] (]) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: I asked "Please fix the citations first, so that people can have a day or two to review the whole thing." But that's not what happened. Some citations were changed, and the material was put into ] in a matter of hours. Worse, nontrivial changes were made the non-citation part of the material just before it was put in, without any review. For now, I am reverting the change, and propagating its fixes into ] above. Please give us a day or two to review this revised proposal. (I don't have time right now to do a careful review, but I did notice that the Google Books URLs were not fixed, so at least that problem remains.) ] (]) 16:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::This section has been proposed already for a week, all the citations were there and looking at your contribs list I saw that you had been editing regularly over the past few days with little to no input on scope of practice of chiropractic. It's OK if it's not really a priority to you, but others shouldn't have to wait for one editor to give the final approval. Consensus doesn't work that way. If you have any specific objections than feel free to list them, otherwise I found your revert to be in poor taste. ] (]) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Actually on further review, I see you have misrepresented your statement once again. Nontrivial changes? Where, what, when? None were made, the citations were not changed this incorrect. Please be more careful in the future. ] (]) 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: Significant changes to the text were made a few hours before it went in, with no time for anybody to reasonably comment. The citations that went in could not be followed (at least, not by me: Google Books URLs are not reliable, for reasons I've already stated). About four hours ago most of the citations in the draft were fixed well enough so that they can now be followed so I will take a look at them and then use them to review the proposed text. This will take a bit of time, since it requires reading not only the proposed text, but also the supporting sources. Please give the other editors a day or two to do that. ] (]) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: One other comment about the citations (and then I really must run): the last two are so badly formatted that I cannot read them. Nothing happens when I click on the last citation, and the 2nd-to-the-last ends up with a weird long section of text that starts "<nowiki>{{<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chiroweb.com/…</nowiki>". Can you please fix this? And please check the other citations too: the Google Books URLs must go, for example. The idea here is to fix the proposal to have proper citations, and then give editors a day or two to review the proposal and check that it is adequately supported. Thanks. ] (]) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I have tried my best to format the citations for[REDACTED] but it's something I'm learning still. Regardless, the content is reliable, verifiable, accurate and notable and all the info is there. ] (]) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::''Similar to other primary contact health providers, licensed chiropractors can continue their education and specialize in different areas of chiropractic medicine. The most common post-graduate diplomate programs include neurology, sports sciences, clinical sciences, rehabilitation sciences, orthopedics and radiology which generally require 2-3 additional years of study following completion of chiropractic school and passing all state, provincial and national board exams to obtain the necessary license to practice chiropractic.'' This part seems a bit long and is not focused on Scope of practice. ] (]) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Similar to other professions, chiropractors can specialize in certain disciplines and increase their breadth of scope of practice. Do you feel it would be better elsewhere? ] (]) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: I have made a concerted effort to repair the ref code. Let me know if I have overlooked anything though. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::There is a Chiropractice education article. Some of this material could be split up and put there. Currently, it is too long and needs more focus. ] (]) 18:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::: This doesn't seem to be about Chiropractic Education though, but rather about Scope of Practice. Are there any passages in particular which you think are more appropriate for Education? Can you specify please? Thanks. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	Exactly. Thanks Levine2112. Eubulides, I strongly object to these stall tactics; the majority of editors here won't wait for your exclusive approval. Judging by your contribs history you seem to be quite active, so if this is not a priority for you then please be so kind as to say so; otherwise we will implement this section tomorrow. One final note: please do not making misleading or false allegations in your edit summaries. To say that I made "non-trivial" changes is completely untrue and easily verifiable by the diffs. I would like to note that the last week or so here I have your contributions and collaborative style to be less than ideal as seen from a ] editing in the "appeal to drop effectiveness". There seems to be an issue with respecting the consensus of a majority of editors. So, in summary, I would please ask that you refrain from making misleading statements, mischaracterizing other editors comments. You're approaching a dozen times now. ] (]) 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* It is not "stall tactics" to ask for a day or two to review a new section before it goes in. Without proper citations, it wasn't really reviewiable.
	:* shows that changes were made other than adding citations or trivial formatting changes. For example, the last stable draft talked about training for acupuncture, but the version that went into ] had a more-general claim about training for several "adjunctive therapeutic modalities".
	:] (]) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Actually, the citations worked fine for everyone else. This section had been here for a week and you had no specific objections until, of course, it was time to put the section in the body. Acupuncture is an example of adjuctive therapeutic modality that requires extra training. So is manipulation under anaesthesia. What's your point? That DCs don't take courses to get certified in adjunctive therapeutics? You're kidding, right? PS: Please check my comment left at Dispuritive edits by OrangeMarlin section, regarding your complete refusal to acknowledge my concerns of your habitual tendency to mischaracterize and mislead. I'm simply giving you the heads up as I'm going to be taking this ANI if it happens again, if this were baseball you would have struck out 4 separate times. You're at 13 now. That's more than enough "notices". ] (]) 23:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::All the citations worked fine for me. However, I cleaned one up using the Citation templates, and removed the link to Google Books from another, as no preview was available for that book. If anyone wants to follow the source, they'll have to go to the book. ] (]) 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Thanks for the cleanup. So far, the revised citations are working for me, with only minor formatting issues. I will try to do further cleanup as I review the text more carefully. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	==== Scope of practice comments ====
	Here are some detailed comments about ]. These comments are incomplete, as I'm still working on it.
	===== Scope of practice quality of sources =====
	First, the quality of sources could be improved. As per ] it's better to use articles published in refereed journals, preferably secondary sources. Here <s>is a</s> are several higher-quality sources that are the sort of thing that should be used in the section. I hope to add more sources later as I find them.
	* Meeker & Haldeman 2002 ("MH2002" below)<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2002 |volume=136 |issue=3 |pages=216–27 |title= Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine |author= Meeker WC, Haldeman S |pmid=11827498 |url=http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/3/216.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref>
	* Cooper & McKee 2003 ("CM2003" below)<ref name=Cooper-McKee>{{cite journal |journal= Milbank Q |date=2003 |volume=81 |issue=1 |pages=107 –38 |title= Chiropractic in the United States: trends and issues |author= Cooper RA, McKee HJ |doi=10.1111/1468-0009.00040 |pmid=12669653}}</ref>
	* Eisenberg ''et al.'' 2002 ("E2002" below)<ref name=Eisenberg>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2002 |volume=137 |issue=12 |pages=965–73 |title= Credentialing complementary and alternative medical providers |author= Eisenberg DM, Cohen MH, Hrbek A, Grayzel J, Van Rompay MI, Cooper RA |pmid=12484712 |url=http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/137/12/965.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref>
	* Pollentier & Langworthy 2007 ("PL2007" below)<ref name=Pollentier>{{cite journal |journal= Clin Chiropr |date=2007 |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=147–55 |title= The scope of chiropractic practice: a survey of chiropractors in the UK |author= Pollentier A, Langworthy JM |doi=10.1016/j.clch.2007.02.001}}</ref>
	] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::It doesn't work that way, Eubulides. We don't get to formulate an "opinion" on scope of practice, because opinion doesn't matter. What we are doing is defining the '''legal''' boundaries of a profession. And, the WHO document, a tertiary source no less, representing the global POV reflects this legal fact. I'm not saying the sources aren't good to discuss the issue elsewhere, say, practice styles and schools of thought, but again, it's the validity of your argument, not the content that is fallacious. DCs are PCPs for NMS (this is specific) and the point is moot. Orthodox medical opinion has no place in the legal arena of scope of practice. It's that simple. ] (]) 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: The sources in question (WHO, etc.) do not define the legal boundaries of chiropractic. They do not set the legal boundaries, they do not cite the legal boundaries, and they are not even particularly trying to summarize the legal boundaries. They are merely introducing the subject of chiropractic in order to get on with their main topics, which are education, safety, and accreditation. If they were really attempting to summarize the legal boundaries (which they are not), they would be talking about the wide diversity of scope of practice among the various jurisdictions. But they aren't doing that. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: The WHO sets up a global POV. The WHO is a tertiary source which amalgamated various sources from peer-reviewed literature. The WHO clearly spells out common scope of practice for DCs based on training. There is more ] occuring here; and I'm really getting tired of continuously getting involved in nominal arguments with an editor who has no expertise on the subject. Do you dispute, that legally, yes or no, that DCs are PCPs for NMS? Because we're getting off track here. ] (]) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: The WHO document is about basic training and safety. It does not mention scope of practice anywhere. In contrast, MH2002 mention scope of practice more than once. MH2002 is on point (and is published in a high quality peer-reviewed journal); the WHO document is not. ] should prefer higher-quality, relevant sources when they are available, as is the case here. I do not dispute that DCs are PCPs for NMS in some jurisdictions; however, I do dispute that this is the whole story. MH2002 explain why it's not the whole story. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::"It does not mention scope of practice anywhere". Page 19, paragraph 4. Moving on, shall we? There is no scope of practice "story". The "story" is commentary; we don't comment about legal scope of practice boundaries. It's our responsibility to present to readers what practice parameters are in place; i.e. what the health professional can and cannot do. That's it. '''That's also the way the scope of practice section written at every other health profession article''' on Misplaced Pages. Not disputing the papers (they're good) disputing the validity of your argument (it's not). PS -Don't come back with a comparison to Homeopathy or Flat Earth (which you've already done '''several times '''. That tune is overplayed. ] (]) 04:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: Page 19, paragraph 4, is a vague, high-level description of chiropractic practice. It says that practice "involves" this and "emphasizes" that. But it doesn't ever say what the boundaries are, which is the essence of what scope is. Tellingly, the paragraph never uses the word "scope". It certainly doesn't talk about any legal aspects. In short, this is a low-quality source for scope of practice. It's far better to use a source whose main topic is scope of practice (the WHO document's main topic is something else). A source like MH2002, for example. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:The sources are fine. This is just another attempt to get more allopathic sources in there to dispute chiropractic scope of practice. You won't find a RCT on this, Eubulides.
	] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree with Eubulides, lets use the best sources AVAILABLE. Oh wait, I think we already are. We are talking about scope of practice, which is a legal entity. I have found a peer-reviewed article on scope of practice within the US, however it was old and outdated. ] (]) 07:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: I think, DigitalC, you are noticing a trend and pattern with Eubulides' editing style here at Chiropractic. IMO, it's gone overboard as of late, with this whole debate re: SOP as a perfect example of a case of civil POV pushing and disruption. There have been many instances of ], violations of ], ], ], ], ] amongst others. My patience is now beginning to wear thin with these needlessly long debates that sap productive editing not only here, but elsewhere on the project. ] (]) 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I agree that this discussion has been needlessly long, and I think it's probably time we took it to dispute resolution. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::There wouldn't have been a need if you ceded the way to CynRN who has demonstrated an excellent ability to collaborate productively yet firmly represent the orthodox med POV. She would be my nominee to be the lead editor in mediation talks; she is a strong representative of the mainstream POV but is fluid and adapts her arguments based on knowledge, rather than dogma. What do you think Cyndy? :) ] (]) 04:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: The only higher-quality source proposed so far is Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (MH2002).<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/> Are you disputing that it is a higher-quality source? If so, please explain the concerns with this source. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::The source is good, it's just in the wrong section. It also editorializes. ] (]) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: The source is more on point than the sources currently being cited for the first few sentences of this section. The source is a reliable one written by acknowledged experts in the field and published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal. One could just as easily say that the WHO source "editorializes" as arguing that MH2002 "editorializes". That's what reliable sources are ''for'': to give us their expert opinions. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Addition: When discussing scope of practice; we don't need refereed journals per say, nor would they be appropriate. This could introduce heavy bias, for example an allopathic 'opinion' in a "secondary study" from a 'critic' like Ernst. We have already listed 2 excellent books which cover this aspect extremely well and they are thorough.
	#^ Haldeman, Scott; Chapman-Smith, David, Petersen, Donald, Jr.. Guidelines for Chiropractic Quality and Practice Parameters (in English). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 111-113. ISBN 0-7437-2921-3. Retrieved on 2008-04-16.
	# Pybus, Beverly, E.; Cairns, Carol, S. A Guide to AHP Credentialing, C, hcPro, 241-243. ISBN 1-57839-478-3.
	::So, I don't see any justification for concerns regarding the quality of the sources but if other good ones can be found that's obviously OK too. ] (]) 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: So far, I have reviewed only the first part of the proposed section, which does not use the sources you mention. The sources that it does use are lower-quality than MH2002, because they are principally on different topics (education, safety) and only briefly discuss scope of practice by way of introduction. Also, they are not published in peer-reviewed journals. In contrast, MH2002 focuses heavily on scope of practice and it was published in a very high quality peer-reviewed journal. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::This is the legal arena, Eubulides. Secondary sources for scope of practice aren't necessary not are they at all valid. I guess you are disputing now the notability of the ]. Interesting. ] (]) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::The WHO and CCE sources are no more apropos for the legal arena than MH2002 is. In none of these sources is the law the primary topic. I am not disputing the notability of the WHO. I am merely saying that for the topic of scope of practice, MH2002 is a more-reliable source than that WHO source is. The WHO source is primarily about education and safety, not about scope of practice. Similarly, the CCE source is primarily about education and accreditation, not about scope of practice. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Actually they are. They describing the medical-legal realm of scope of practice. You're also confusing reliability with validity again, as I mentioned several times through this needlessly overdrawn debate. Next time, I'd ask that rather than reverting the entirely of scope of practice, like you did instead of either a) discussing your concern or b) editing the line you were concerned with would have been far more constructive and productive. I'd like for you to note, so I'm being clear, that I found that move to be a perfect example of a civilly disruptive move, ditto with your professional colleague Orangemarlin's incredibly convenient and timed reverts where he essentially deleted the whole scope of practice section without any comment whatsoever. And as of now, he still hasn't bothered to come here and explain his actions which was already cited as vandalism by admin Swatjester. ] (]) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: The sources do not discuss the legal scope of practice. I discussed concerns about the lack of proper sourcing well before the changes went in. Once citations were supplied (which happened only after the revert), problems were found with sources not matching the text. It's better to supply a complete proposal for a change, including proper citations, to avoid problems like these. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::You're the only editor concerned with the sources and the claims are well founded and well known. When a neutral, 3rd party observer, like admin Swatjester even calls it NPOV and well sourced, it should become readily apparent that your case is weak and are engaged in civil disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Swatjester's assessment of the situation predates the criticisms raised here, and did not address them. I disagree that I am the only editor concerned with the sources. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Where did Swatjester call it "vandalism"? Swatjester got reverted. Keep in mind you have a 1RR parole, which you just violated, so be careful. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Thanks for your concern Fyslee. Not only did Swatjester call say it he actually said again and also suggested it was disruptive and again . Seems like a pretty clear case of vandalism to me. ] (]) 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: Thanks for those diffs. I wasn't aware of those conversations and thought you were referring to edit summaries in this article. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::No problem. It seems documentation matters here, as much as real life. I'm glad I'm getting the hang of it; the concept of a digital footprint. I might trademark that before DigitalC does. ;) G'night. ] (]) 05:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	Now, comments on specific sentences in ]:
	===== Scope of practice comments on primary care =====
	* "Chiropractors are considered ] providers who emphasize the conservative management of the neuromusculoskeletal systems without the use of drugs or surgery.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/>"
	::I would ask that you do not delete striked out material. This issue was not fixed, in fact it completely ignored by previous concern about using a qualifying statement to open scope of practice. I had also removed portal of entry, so I don't know what your objection is. ] (]) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: Could you please explain the concern about a "qualifying statement"? Is it the form of the first sentence that is the cause of concern? As for "portal of entry", the objection was written before the phrase was removed; now that the phrase is removed that objection is moot and struck out. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::The concern is that rather than stating DCs current scope of practice in the legal arena, we are using the opinion of a paper which there is debate whether or not DCs are moreso PCPs or med specialists. The current text, which says DCs are PCPs primarily for NMS is accurate. They are the first point of contact for a very common medical ailment, i.e. back pain, do not require any referrals and are entitled to communicate a Dx and carry out a Tx plan. That is what PCPs do. So, to open the scope of practice already with a sentence which suggests a debate or controversy, is needless, and under the current context here, needlessly disruptive. This is really splitting hairs here and ultimately dragging this out when we could be more productive and finishing off education, licensing and regulation for example. Let's get those 2 done, then we can focus on Safety, Vaccination and get those sections back on track with the appropriate weight and tone. ] (]) 04:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: The current proposed text states one viewpoint (DCs are PCPs primarily for NMS). This may be the majority viewpoint within chiropractic, but there is a significant minority viewpoint that says that DCs are PCPs without being restricted to NMS. Furthermore, there is a widespread viewpoint in mainstream medicine that DCs are better thought of as specialists, not PCPs. It does not suffice to merely summarize one of these viewpoints accurately; they must all be summarized, fairly and neutrally. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: It's not that simple. PCP is not entirely synonymous with "portal of entry." DCs are portal of entry practitioners, but are hardly qualified or legally allowed to deal with all healthcare issues, as PCPs do. If they are seen as PCPs in any sense, then it is in a limited sense, like dentists or podiatrists. "Portal of entry" is not a controversial description, while PCP would need some qualifying. This qualifying would be especially embarrassing for the many DCs who actually claim to be unlimited PCPs, encouraging their patients to come to them for all their family's healthcare needs, which is a dangerous situation. This is unfortunately a widespread holdover of the ultra-straight, original philosophy, which a number of DCs still follow and advertise as a part of their "wellness" paradigm propaganda. This is in contrast to some of the more modern, science-based DCs who know how to appropriately limit their practice and cooperate with the rest of the medical system's players. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 04:58,
	21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::The initial version that got vandalized and reverted included PCP and portal of entry but this was objected by Eubulides. I think that portal of entry should go in that why I wrote it that way intially. PCP but for NMS or general health/lifestyle. Also, straights aren't the majority but they get the majority of the attention here. Time to represent the less contentious mainstream a bit more but obviously retain the notable and at times, questionable, practices of the straight wing. ] (]) 05:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: I objected to "portal of entry" primarily because the sources did not say "portal of entry". If reliable sources can be used to justify "portal of entry" that would be fine. However, my impression is that the reliable sources generally talk about primary care, not about portal of entry, and that our emphasis should be similar. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*<s>The cited source does not use the phrase "portal-of-entry", which in any event is redundant with "primary care".</s>
	:: Portal of entry is specifically different than exclusively primary care, but if you want to omit portal of entry, I don't think it's that big of a deal but the CCE source I think mentioned it. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*<s>The source calls chiropractors "primary-contact health care practitioners"; "primary care practitioners" is a more-accurate paraphrase of the source than "], ''portal-of-entry'' providers".</s>
	:*<s>The source says "chiropractic practice emphasizes the conservative management", but the current wording implies that chiropractic practice is limited to conservative management.</s>
	::Emphasizes is a good word to add. No objections.
	:*<s>The cited source says "medicines", not "drugs".</s>
	::This is OK too and is probably more professionally sounding. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: I changed it to "medicines"; somebody changed it back to "drugs". Was that intended by you? The above comment suggests no. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: It should read medicines. ] (]) 04:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*MH2002 says "Chiropractors have many of the attributes of primary care providers and often describe themselves as such. Others point out that chiropractic has more of the attributes of a limited medical profession or specialty, akin to dentistry or podiatry. This is an ongoing internal and external debate affected by dynamic health industry forces." This is a better summary of both sides of a dispute about scope of practice.
	::We really shouldn't be making editorial contents on what the is going on behind the scenes although I don't object to mention that it is shifting towards a specialty is you want that it in there. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: MH2002 is a reliable source: we are not making editorial comments (I assume that's what you meant) simply by summarizing it and citing it. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: MH2002 is not a valid source for this section and does not conform with global POV and is being used as a red herring tool, i.e to distract that legislatively DCs are PCPs for NMS. ] (]) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: MH2002 is a better source than the sources currently being used: it is published in a peer-reviewed journal of high quality, and its subject is on point (rather than being education or safety). The current draft, by presenting only one side of this dispute, is POV; this needs to get fixed. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::There is no dispute Eubulides. A scope of practice is pretty straight forward. It's an act of legislation what a health profession can and cannot do as it forms the basis of regulation and licensure. To repeat, MH2002 is a good source, it's more apropos at practice styles/schools of thought and then we could give orthodox med its 2c there. Also, you're forgetting that the WHO is a tertiary document that is far more robust and valid here than MH2002. ] (]) 04:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: The WHO document is neither far more robust nor more valid than MH2002 on this particular topic. The WHO document is not about scope of practice; MH2002 is. The WHO document is not published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal; MH2002 is. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::You are questioning the validity and notability of a document that is produced by the leading health organization in the whole world, right Eubulides? A document that itself is well sourced. This is just a clear cut example of using a paper (MH2002) to undermine what common legal fact that DCs are considered PCPs '''for NMS'''. How can you possibly dispute this fact? ] (]) 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: I am not questioning the validity or notability of the WHO document for the subject that it addresses (namely, basic training and safety). I am questioning whether it's appropriate to pick bits and pieces out of that document for a different topic (scope of practice), a topic that the WHO document does not mention. It is far better to use a source that is directly aimed at scope of practice. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*To summarize, let's replace the above quote with:
	::: Although chiropractors have many attributes of ] providers, they also have more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry.<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/> They emphasize conservative management of the neuromusculoskeletal system without medicines or surgery.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/>
	::::This can go in a different section other than scope of practice as should the below reference. Let's work together here. ] (]) 04:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::If the "scope of practice" section is only going to be about legal issues, then it should use legal citations. My impression from the existing text and sources, though, was that it was not merely or even primarily about legal scope of practice, but about de facto scope of practice. I prefer having the article talk about practical issues rather than legal ones; I think that's more helpful to the average reader. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::It's not a matter of individual preferences, its a matter of accurately reflecting the state of the profession. And, when we are discussing a section, such as Scope of Practice, a legal arena, we musn't use more ] to mention potential debates in scope of practice. I could easily find a paper by MDs who dispute the expanded scope of practice of ] but I won't because a) a paper should mined and used to advance an agenda that way and b) it is not valid. Hopefully you catch the drift. ] (]) 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Sorry, I don't catch your drift. Surely you are not saying that Meeker & Haldeman are MDs who dispute the expanded scope of practice of chiropractors, or that they wrote a "mined" paper (sorry, I don't know what that is). ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*CM2003 say "Although most chiropractors consider themselves to be specialists in NMS conditions, many also view chiropractic as a form of primary care. For some, this means 'primary contact' for NMS conditions, but for most it is seen in its larger context....".<ref name=Cooper-McKee/> This nicely encapsulates the 3-way controversy about chiropractic and primary care; the current draft covers only one of the three points of view. ] (]) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Does the source say 'more attributes'? Chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers but are also being increasingly seen as specialists, like dentistry.
	::::: Yes, as mentioned above, the source says "chiropractic has more of the attributes of a limited medical profession or specialty". Since there seems to be no objection to this suggestion, I've put it in. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Actually I have objected to it, 2x now, but someone keeps on deleting my comments here on talk. That is in very, very poor taste. ] (]) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Are the comments deleted now? If not, where are they? ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: struck out the suggestion with the comment "the very first sentence should not be a qualifier. The source would be more apropos in practice styles or potentially education". Is the first part of the comment about English style, or something else? As for the source, it contains a lot of material about scope of practice and is highly relevant here; I don't see why it should be excluded. More important, the change fixes a real POV problem in the first sentence. It is controversial whether chiropractors are primary care (i.e., they are valid substitutes for primary care physicians) or specialists (i.e., they're somebody like a podiatrist that you go for specific problems). ] should cover this controversy neutrally: it should not just report the primary-care side. For now, I'm restoring that particular change; if there is an English-language issue let's fix it. ] (]) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	, a POV problem in the first sentence? DCs are LEGISLATED as PCPs. You're going to have to argue with your state representative for that one. Furthermore, you have a nasty habit of "restoring" stuff on the spot that you seem to like and drag out and stall stuff which you don't. That's not good editing style. So, to be clear you dispute that DCs are PCP despite the evidence presented to the contrary? ] (]) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Yes, there is a POV problem in the first sentence. I am not disputing that some people say that chiropractors are primary care providers, or that chiropractors are legally primary care providers in many jurisdictions. I am disputing that this is the only viewpoint. The article should be encyclopedic and present all significant viewpoints. The other viewpoint, which is that chiropractors have more of the attributes of a medical specialty, should also be presented. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: I have added more sources on this point: PL2007, E2002, CM2003. They are in agreement that the current ] draft oversimplifies the primary-care versus specialist issue. ] (]) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::So I'm clear, you are disputing the suggestion that DCs are legally PCPs? Is that the fundamental issue here? ] (]) 04:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I am not disputing that chiropractors are legally primary care providers in many jurisdictions. I am disputing that this is the only thing that should be said about scope of practice. The other viewpoints should be given. And the controversy about whether chiropractors are PCPs just for NMS, or for all medical conditions, should also be covered. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::To make it perfectly clear, I don't know of any jurisdiction where DCs are not legislated as PCPs for NMS. The claim is not that they are PCPs for all medical conditions. Yet another mispresentation of the the discussion or my comments specifically. I'd also like to note that I feel that you're being disruptive now trying to make a ]. So, you don't dispute that DCs are legally PCPs for NMS. So why are we having this conversation again? ] (]) 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: DCs are not legislated as PCPs in New York; see (dated 2005). I'm sure there are other examples. The point is that the rules vary quite a bit from one jurisdiction to another, and the assertion "DCs are legally PCPs for NMS" is not correct in general. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::"I am not disputing that chiropractors are legally primary care providers in many jurisdictions. I am disputing that this is the only thing that should be said about scope of practice. The other viewpoints should be given." - We should not be adding controversy here. Lets stay to the FACTS, shall we? Not what some people think about the facts? ] (]) 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: The other viewpoints are just as much "facts" as the viewpoint that chiropractors are just primary care practitioners for the the neuromusculoskeletal system. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::<s>The first sentence should say "primary ''contact''".</s> The way it is written sounds like DCs all offer primary care, only with an emphasis on MSK. The differences pointed out by Fyslee between DCs in how they practice, i.e. 'self-limited to MSK' vs offering to treat nearly everything (some straights) are important. WHO says 'primary contact'. 'Primary care' sounds like my family doctor, to whom I bring toenail fungus, rectal bleeding, abd pain and the like.CynRN] (]) 18:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	====== Primary care and specialty ======
	moved the text "chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like ]" from ] to the paragraph on the British Medical Association, with the comment "restore cited previously cited version, place opinion in medical opposition". There are several problems with this change:
	* The change log is confusing, as it describes a change that does not restore any citations; the change moves text (plus a citation) from one section to another.
	* The text in question has nothing to do with the British Medical Association, and does not belong where it was moved to.
	* This is not an example of opposition from traditional medicine, and the text does not belong in the medical-opposition section. The text in question is supported by a citation by Meeker & Haldeman, two DCs who are widely respected and highly supportive of chiropractic.
	* The revised text contains the new claim "There is some debate in the medical community regarding the status of chiropractors as ] providers." but the cited source says the debate is both internal and external to chiropractic. Again, this is not a medical-opposition issue.
	* The text in question is supported by a highly reliable source on scope of practice, appearing in a high-quality refereed journal; it should not be diminished or deprecated by moving it to a "controversy" section.
	* Without the text in question, ] is heavily biased in favor of the point of view of chiropractic as primary care, and against the point of view of chiropractic as specialty. The section should be written with a neutral point of view.
	The change clearly has many problems. For now, I attempted to work around the problem by . Let's discuss how to improve matters further here. ] (]) 09:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::You are ignoring the compromise that was proposed by CynRN which changed primary care to primary contact. The difference is subtle, but important. There is no diminishing as implied, to the contrary, it meets inclusion criteria however, it was agreed by the majority of editors that scope of practice would reflect the legal status and not opinions on the legal status. If you would like to put it in a proposed conflicts and criticisms section, that would be apropos as well. We've gone circles around this and quite simply a majority of regular editors (not the occasional meat puppet gallery who seem to randomly chirp in) disagree with your stance. I also find it lamentable that you disagree with CynRN who suggested primary contact as a neutral way of resolving your concerns. Please avoid conflating primary care and primary contact. You have moved text back that was not agreed on by anyone but yourself. Don't forget, Admin Swatjester, a neutral 3rd party had already deemed the section NPOV as well. You need to stop turning everything into a controversy. ] (]) 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::* It's fine to say "primary contact", but merely saying "primary contact" does not resolve the concerns. There is a genuine dispute both within and without chiropractic as to whether (1) chiropractors should be the first point of contact, and (2) whether they should (one extreme) specialize in neck and back pain, or (the other extreme) treat a wide variety of other conditions such as baby colic and menstrual cramps, or perhaps take some position between the extremes (specialize in neuromusculoskeletal disorders, say). The text should not present just POV of this dispute, as if almost everybody agreed that chiropractors should be primary contact and should focus or specialize in neuromusculoskeletal disorders. The text should present all sides of this dispute fairly.
	:::* It is not the case that the majority of editors agree that Meeker & Haldeman is not a suitable source here, or that the issues are so cut-and-dried. On the contrary, the sentiment seems to be more the other way: there is genuine disagreement in the real world about scope of practice, and this issue should be mentioned.
	:::* Please see ] below for more.
	:::] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on therapy and diagnosis =====
	* "The practice of chiropractic medicine involves the restricted acts of ] and ] and involves a range of diagnostic methods including skeletal imaging, observational and tactile assessments, orthopedic and neurological evaluation, laboratory tests, as well as other specialized tests as required.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/><ref name=ccestandards/>"
	:* <s>The cited source does not use the phrase "chiropractic medicine".
	::This is commonly used. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: The phrase may be commonly used, but it is also somewhat controversial, and the cited source doesn't use it. Let's stick with what the source says. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)</s>
	:* The source does not say that diagnosis is a "restricted act". Nor does it say that spinal manipulation is a "restricted act".
	::Are you disputing that diagnosis and the application of SMT are not regulated, restricted acts? ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: Yes. Diagnosis in general is not a restricted act. And SMT's restrictions vary from one jurisdiction to another: in many countries it is not regulated at all. Regardless of the truth of the claim, though, it must be sourced; currently it's not. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::So you claim that the act of communicating a diagnosis is in the public domain? ] (]) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: No, I did not claim that; and anyway it's not important what I claim. What is important is that the material must be sourced. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* The source says "Spinal manipulative therapy is the primary therapeutic procedure used by chiropractors"; this point is important and should be mentioned. (To underscore this point, Meeker & Haldeman 2002 have an entire subsection "Spinal manipulation: the chiropractic adjustment" in their practice-characteristics section.) The source also mentions "other manual therapies, rehabilitative exercises, supportive and adjunctive measures, patient education and counselling." That complete list is a bit long but some therapies other than spinal manipulation should be mentioned.
	:* <s>The source does not mention nutritional counselling, just "counselling".</s>
	:: This in the sources listed; it's there. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: It may be somewhere in some listed somewhere in the section, but it is not in the cited source. Claims must be supported directly by cited sources. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Good grief Eubulides, its already mentioned elsewhere in the article several times and you know it's there. Why not collaborate and add it rather than drawing this out and making needless drama out of it? ] (]) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: The point is now moot, since nutritional counseling was removed from the claim.
	:* <s>The current wording characterizes nutritional counseling as a diagnostic method, which is surely not intended.</s>
	::Agreed, it's a management. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*<s> The source does not mention "specialized tests as required".</s>
	:: This is in the CCE standards. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: That is not the cited source. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, take a look. ] (]) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: The CCE standards were added as a source, after the above comment was made. That fixed the problem; thanks. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* To summarize, let's replace the above quote with:
	::: Chiropractic diagnosis methods include skeletal imaging, observational and tactile assessments, orthopedic and neurological evaluation, laboratory tests, and other specialized tests.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/><ref name=ccestandards/>
	::::Nah, this is a very watered down version of the above. The current draft is better. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: The only parts that are "watered down" are the parts that were unsourced. Without proper sourcing, they can't go in. For now, I've added a "Failed verification" tag to remind us to fix this. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::All the unsourced stuff is common knowledge and don't need citations. Look at ] SOP as an example and come back here and tell us our section is not stronger sourced (by far). ] (]) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: It may be common knowledge to experts, but it isn't common knowledge to the average Misplaced Pages reader. Sources need to be added for it, even if every expert would know it. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Eubulides, when I say it's common knowledge it should automatically be implied that is common knowledge, i.e. most people know it, not amongst experts. Again, as I've mentioned numerous times now, where was all these concerns when the proposed draft sat there for 5 days without you making a comment? DigitalC, myself, Levine2112 and even admin Swatjester already found this section to be NPOV. Even if, for example, you were seriously concerned about a particular claim, then still assume ] that I have done my homework when I wrote the section. We have similar goals, to make this article is scientifically, yet accurate as possible, but where we disagree, is the fact that you routinely dismiss high quality, peer-reviewed literature by DC/PhDs. And, the fact that you're doing this over the stroke issue to me is the biggest slap in the face of all. The tone of the safety section is hardly NPOV, and you're using orthodox lit to dictate the POV while vehemently lobbying to keep up notable '''experts on manipulation and stroke''' Haldeman and Cassidy out. It's this ] behaviour and civil POV push (to disproportionately increase mainstreams weight (which is not measured in words, I might add, but in tone) so that it not only dictates overall tone, but that the word of MD/PhDs gets the final say over DC/PhDs on chiropractic topics and ultimately at ]. That's not right, nor fair and you won't be able to wikilawyer your way out it. The precedent it sets for established (i.e. they could be considered mainstream and have their own, high quality literature base) CAM professions. Sometimes, we need to invoke ] and in order to strengthen the project and I'm doing it now. ] (]) 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::* I disagree that the unsourced stuff was common knowledge. But if it becomes properly sourced then there isn't a problem.
	:::::::::* The scope-of-practice section had some serious POV issues, which were pointed out only after the section was given proper citations that everybody could follow. The editors you mention have not weighed in on these issues.
	:::::::::* Let's focus on scope-of-practice here; safety issues are best discussed in a thread devoted to safety.
	:::::::::] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	This is getting ridiculous. So far, I think that you're *the* classic example of a civil POV pusher; and the more this section gets dragged through the mud needlessly the more it becames apparent. I also note that you conveniently ducked my question yet again which is itself disruptive, considering I've ask this in some form, for close to 2 months now, without a response from you. Classic example of ]. You've also violated, in some form, most of points already. I want to give you a clear heads up, that the longer you drag this out and stonewall it in effect; the stronger you make my case. The same editing tactics have been used elsewhere, particularly at Safety and Vaccination and even Philosophy. So, it's been 3 months of this nonsense; you've almost made me quit the project because your continued civil obstruction and trying to disproportionately affect tone (so that it reads negative) and continued insistence to reject perfectly good papers which I am now invoking ] since your wikilawyering of this issue has already caused enough stress and aggravation that was entirely preventable. ] (]) 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	: I am not aware of any "mud" or "negative tone" related to scope of practice. I am trying to get the best sources on scope of practice, and to have the draft section reflect those sources as accurately and neutrally as possible. That is how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work; it is in no way "gaming the system". If you wish to discuss safety again, please start a new thread on that topic (as the old threads are archived) and I'll be happy to discuss it in that thread. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I think we might need to talk about this . ] 03:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::That edit, I think, refers to comments below which talked about a later draft. Or at least, it was a draft put later on this page; it appears to be earlier work. It is quite confusing. Anyway, under the assumption it was talking about the later draft, the first and last strikeouts are OK (those problems are fixed) but the middle one (about restricted acts) is not, so I removed that strikeout. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on referral =====
	* <s>"When indicated, the doctor of chiropractic consults with, co-manages with, or refers to other health care providers.<ref name="ccestandards"/>"</s> ()
	:* This is a direct quote from the last line of page 15 of the cited source. I'm uncomfortable with taking an entire sentence from the source without using quote marks. Also, MH2002 cover the same point (they say "Essentially, patients may receive a trial of chiropractic care, be referred for co-management, or be referred to an appropriate specialist.") and are a refereed source that is more on-point; let's use them
	:* To summarize, let's replace the above quote with:
	::: A chiropractor may also refer a patient to an appropriate specialist, or co-manage with another health care provider.<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/>
	::::No objections there. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: OK, done. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	That's it for now; more later. ] (]) 07:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:What does "emphasize conservative management" mean? I think I understand the gist of it, but could a clearer wording be given? ] (]) 07:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::We could list examples "such as..." conservative pretty much means the opposite of surgery of invasive procedures. ] (]) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Anti-surgery? I presume you mean to say the absence. It would be vastly less pretentious to say "non-invasive" rather than conservative. ] (]) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Simpler would be to omit "conservative" entirely, since the very next phrase says "without medicines or surgery", which neatly summarizes "conservative" and makes the "conservative"/"non-invasive" bit redundant. Also, "conservative" is already discussed at length under ] and doesn't need to be repeated here. I've removed "conservative" in the draft above. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It would simpler to remove it, except it's pretty much the core of clinical practice. Also, conservative also implies the treatments selected and holistic and natural preferences of those methods. To object to using the word conservative in the scope of practice section, is, IMO, preposterous. Also, to clarify for Jefffire who seems to not understand what conservative means, it doesn't mean anti-surgery (?!) it means trying to resolve things without surgery first. ] (]) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: OK, then let's keep "conservative". ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on common patient management =====
	OK, starting up with some more review of quotes from the ] draft.
	* "Common patient management involves:
	*spinal manipulation and/or other manual and/or soft tissue therapies
	*rehabilitative exercises
	*health promotion
	*physiological therapeutic modalities
	*conservative and complementary procedures.<ref>{{cite book|last=Haldeman |first=Scott|coauthors=Chapman-Smith, David, Petersen, Donald, Jr.|title=Guidelines for Chiropractic Quality and Practice Parameters|publisher=Jones and Bartlett|location=Sudbury, MA|pages=111-113|isbn=0-7437-2921-3|url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=MHqo1ngXtkoC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=&source=web&ots=lPUzIAEwfM&sig=2JZUNBxP4KNjwSuz_EvqIP5gzoY&hl=en#PPA111,M1|accessdate=2008-04-16|language=English}}</ref>"
	:* This sentence duplicates material in the 2nd ("spinal manipulation") sentence. We shouldn't have two sentences that talk about spinal manipulation. It's better to have one phrase on diagnostics, and another on therapy, as ] proposes.
	:* The list of treatments is redundant with the list a
	:* "conservative" is redundant for reasons discussed above.
	::*important hallmark of clinical practice, used in nearly all sources provided ] (]) 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* OK, let's keep "conservative". ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* "complementary procedures" nearly content-free; it can go.
	::* we can make a list, it's not content free, to suggest so is allopathic arrogance. ] (]) 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* An example or two would be helpful, yes. Without examples, the non-expert reader won't know what it's talking about. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* "physiological therapeutic modalities" is jargon that the average Misplaced Pages reader won't follow. It should be replaced by non-jargon.
	::*It seems that any common medical language is deemed "jargon" at Chiropractic, but kosher for other articles about health professions. What's next, calling it "buzzing machines?" ] (]) 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* The Misplaced Pages audience is the general reader, not medical experts. Few general readers will know what "physiological therapeutic modalities" are. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* The Google Books URL should go: it is not reliable. Google Books puts a quota on each reader and if you go over quota it won't show the citation to you. Quota enforcement is erratic, and works for some users but not others under an algorithm that Google does not publicize but which I suspect depends at least in part on reader location. Also, the URL gives more-detailed information to Google about the editor who originally read the book, and allows Google to determine extra information about people who read Misplaced Pages; it would be better not to go into those privacy issues.
	::* You've advocated using Google Books in the past, now I find a great source and it suddenly has to go. No thanks, Eubulides. This is sinking to unheard of depths now, citing a red herring privacy concern.
	:::* Google Books is a good way to ''read'' books. It's not a good way to ''cite'' books. I am not saying the source has to go: the citation can stay, obviously. It's the the URL that should go. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* There is no need for "language=English" in an English-language article. By default, citations are to English-language sources.
	:* The bullet list is undesirable. The list items aren't long enough to deserve bullets. The original draft lacked bullets, and was better that way.
	::Nah, it's fine there, and it improves readibility which you were concerned about before. So far you claimed to not to have liked it without bullets, then not with bullets and now without bullets again. Look at ]. Bullets galore. We can add a few if there's not enough, I was holding back. ] (]) 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? I don't recall giving a different opinion about these bullets. Sometimes bullets are good, sometimes not; this is one of the places where they're not needed. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* To summarize, this sentence should be removed; it is no longer needed once the change in ] is made. ] (]) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Anything to water it down, eh, Eubulides? ] (]) 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on medical prescriptions =====
	* "Chiropractors generally cannot write medical (pharmaceutical) prescriptions; however there has been a gradual shift within the profession with a slight majority of North American DCs favouring an expansion of scope of practice to include limited prescription rights.<ref>{{cite book |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M ''et al.'' |date=2003 |title= How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors |location= Ada, OH |publisher= Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University |isbn=0972805559}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Semin Integr Med |date=2004 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=92–8 |title= How chiropractors think and practice: the survey of North American chiropractors |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M |doi=10.1016/j.sigm.2004.07.002 |laydate=2003-06-02 |laysummary=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/21/12/19.html |laysource= Dynamic Chiropractic}}</ref>"
	:*The cited source does not support the claim that there has been a "gradual shift" within the profession; that is, the source does not exclude the possibility that there was a sudden shift, or that the popularity of prescription rights goes up and down.
	::Historically DCs opposed meds. Now a small majority are in favour. What do you call that? Is it not a shift? ] (]) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: The objection is to "''gradual'' shift", not to "shift". The cited source does not say "gradual". ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*Since it's just one survey, it'd be better to say that, and give its date.
	::It was OK in the beginning, as you had no objections (this was in the article for 6 months) and now it's suddenly an issue. Bunk. ] (]) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: When it was in the article, it said that this was just one survey, and it gave the year. I'm asking that this be retained. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*There's no need for the "(pharmaceutical)". The standard phrase in Misplaced Pages is ] and we can use that.
	:*The text should wikilink to ].
	::Good idea. ] (]) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*The phrase "however there has been a gradual shift" makes little sense here. The gradual shift was from opposition to drugs to a slight majority favoring the right to prescribe drugs. But the current text doesn't mention the opposition to drugs.
	::Common knowledge, Eubulides. It's stated also in Philosophy and the lead. Why dispute something so obvious?
	::* It is not common knowledge to the average reader. Neither Philosophy nor the lead mention opposition to drugs. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*There is no need to repeat "scope of practice" here; this is the "Scope of practice" section.
	:*The two citations at the end should be combined to one, to avoid the syndrome. They are essentially the same source anyway.
	::If they're separate sources, keep them separate. What's essentially mean? Is that your call? ] (]) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	::* One is just a brief summary of the other. They are written by the same authors on the same subject. They resemble the Anderson-Peacock sources in ], which are also combined into a single reference. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*Typically, "A; however B" is better rewritten "Although A, B" so that the reader has a heads-up that a contrary clause is coming up.
	:*To summarize, let's replace the above sentence with:
	:::Although chiropractors traditionally opposed prescription drugs and generally cannot write ]s, a 2003 survey of North American chiropractors found that a slight majority favored limited prescription rights.<ref>{{cite book |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M ''et al.'' |date=2003 |title= How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors |location= Ada, OH |publisher= Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University |isbn=0972805559}} Summarized in: {{cite journal |journal= Semin Integr Med |date=2004 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=92–8 |title= How chiropractors think and practice: the survey of North American chiropractors |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M |doi=10.1016/j.sigm.2004.07.002 |laydate=2003-06-02 |laysummary=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/21/12/19.html |laysource= Dynamic Chiropractic}}</ref>
	:] (]) 23:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'll propose an alternate version a bit later, though this one is not too bad; though it needs to be mentioned that there has been a shift in thought. To say there hasn't is inaccurate and the section needs to acknowledge this. ] (]) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on Oregon =====
	* "A notable exception is the state of ] which is considered to have an "expansive" scope of practice of chiropractic, which allows chiropractors with additional qualifications to prescribe over-the-counter drugs."
	:* This claim is unsourced, and was marked with a Fact template last month. It's still unsourced now, but somehow the Fact template got removed in the draft. The claim should be either sourced or removed. I suggest removing it. For now, I've restored the Fact template.
	:] (]) 23:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm surprised there has been a reference for that; that is common knowledge amongst DCs about the Oregon situation. Minor surgery too. Definitely not average scope of practice, and it's notable. I'll track it down, it shouldn't be too hard. ] (]) 00:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: states that for surgery/proctology, they must have "36 hours of undergraduate or postgraduate education in minor surgery/proctology", as well as rotation under licensed "physicians (including, but not limited to DCs, MDs, or NDs)". According to this source, , Chiropractors in Oregon can NOT write prescrptions for "drugs", where drugs does NOT include over-the-counter non-prescription medicine. That is, they can write prescriptions for over-the-counter non-prescription medicine.] (]) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on veterinary chiropractic =====
	* "With additional training and certification licensed chiropractors (DCs) and ] (DVMs) can expand their scope of practice and practice ] which includes assessment, diagnosis and treatment of biomechanical disorders of animals that may be amenable to manual therapy. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.veterinarychiropractic.ca/|title=Canadian Animal Chiropractic Certification Program|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.animalchiropractic.org/animal_chiropractic_certification.htm|title=Animal Veterinary Chiropractic Association|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref>"
	:*These citations are weak: the first is the home page for the CACCP, and says almost nothing about scope of practice. The second is about certification, not about scope of practice. For example, neither source says anything about DVMs, or biomechanical disorders of animals, or manual therapy.
	:*I suggest removing this sentence; it's not key to scope of practice. For now, I've added a "Failed verification" template for each source.
	:] (]) 23:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Eubulides, it's not up to you to suggest it failed verification. The site clearly proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt the claims made. Again, the obvious: DCs and DVMs can practice veterinary chiropractic (they're trained together), manual therapy is what veterinary chiropractic is mostly about at this point in time, third in order to practice veterinary chiropractic you need additional training and certification for DCs and DVMs. This is directly a scope of practice issue. This type of nit-picking is a complete waste of time and energy. Also, another effort by you to water down the scope of practice. It's time to let the experts on chiropractic (i.e. chiropractors and chiropractic scientists). I cannot believe you honestly don't think that veterinary chiropractic is a) notable and b) a scope of practice issue. To make the point more clear; I'm a DC but cannot practice veterinary chiropractic. It's not within my scope and I don't have my accreditation. ] (]) 00:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I read the sources and they do not support the claims. The claims may well be true, but "Failed verification" is appropriate when the sources do not support the claims. I disagree that the claims are obvious to the average Misplaced Pages reader; so they need to be sourced. I think it's reasonable to discuss veterinary chiropractic briefly; what's not clear is whether it needs to be discussed in this section. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	None of the peer-reviewed sources on chiropractic scope of practice (MH2002, CM2003, E2002) mention veterinary chiropractic. It sounds like veterinary chiropractic is not notable within the scope-of-practice arena. Veterinary chiropractic may be suitable for other sections of ], but it doesn't sound suitable for this one. ] (]) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	:It's already been discussed ad nauseum re: the validity of those sources for scope of practice, and again, the legal right to treat animals, which was historically ONLY done by DVMs has now been expanded to include DCs. It's a scope of practice issue plain and simple. Name me another profession besides DCs and DVMs who can treat animals. Not even MDs can do it. ] (]) 05:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: Yes, it's a scope-of-practice issue; but there are lots of scope-of-practice issues that are more important than this one. Again, none of the peer-reviewed sources mention it, which suggests it's not notable here. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Again, this section is about Scope of Practice - something that is NOT generally covered by peer reviewed sources. Just because they do not mention it does NOT suggest it isn't notable. ] (]) 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: ] lists four peer-reviewed sources on scope of practice, which should be enough to address this sort of question. And if it's not enough, I'm sure more such sources exist. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::When peer reviewed sources do not generally cover ], it means it is not notable. AFD anyone? ] (]) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on sports chiropractic =====
	* {{cite journal |journal=Chiropr Osteopat |date=2007 |volume=19 |issue=15 |pages=14 |title= Australian chiropractic sports medicine: half way there or living on a prayer? |author= Pollard H, Hoskins W, McHardy A, Bonello R, Garbutt P, Swain M, Dragasevic G, Pribicevic M, Vitiello A |pmid=17880724 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17880724}}
	Can we include a brief mention about sports chiropractic. ] (]) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	: MH2002 and E2002 both briefly mention sports chiropractic (just the phrase, nothing more), and we could do likewise, citing them. ] (]) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::First as above, QuackGuru wants a mention of sports chiropractic in the main article and cites a paper. Today he proposes to delete the article at an AfD. Something smells fishy here... there wouldn't have been any canvassing going on here would there? I mean, surely there's a more rational explanation than that. It's all so very strange, yet oddly familiar... ] (]) 05:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on acupuncture and MUA =====
	:*"Chiropractors are also generally permitted to use adjunctive therapeutic modalities such as ] and manipulation under ] with additional training from accredited universities/colleges."
	:* This sentence is not sourced. CM2003 says "... chiropractors have obtained the licensed authority to administer acupuncture in 30 states,..." which suggests the "generally permitted" is a bit much: "permitted in most U.S. states" would be more accurate, at least for acupuncture. Unless the number of states has grown recently? Either way, we need a source.
	::* this is more splitting hairs. There are 50 US states. 30/50 (60%) permit it currently, hence "generally permitted". Also, more States are changing the laws to permit DCs, MDs, DOs to practice acu which will increase the total from 30. No need to mention the US, it the same situation in Canada. The article needs to reflect a global POV, remember? ] (]) 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* I disagree that "generally permitted" means 60%. It would be better to simply say "30 states". If we were to use a global perspective, the vast majority of the world's population lives in countries which don't have such laws at all. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* CM2003 also says "some chiropractors are attempting to elevate SMT to a new level by administering it under short-term general anesthesia, but most are moving in the opposite direction by incorporating other manual techniques in combination with exercise and various physical modalities". It's not clear from this whether MUA is "generally permitted"; we need a better source for that.
	::* MUA is definitely a scope of practice issue and we can find a source, it's easy.
	:* The simplest fix is to remove the sentence. Or it could be sourced and rewritten to match the sources. ] (]) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::* All your proposed "simple fixes" involve removing material that is relevant and notable to chiropractic scope of practice. I've already mentioned to you several times that your attempts to water down scope of practice that it conforms with *your* personal POV, is not what the project is about. Stop inserting your subjective opinions here and accept the fact that scope of practice, as currently written is indeed factual. ] (]) 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::* It's fine if the material is properly sourced and rewritten to match the sources, which was the alternate (and more-complicated) suggestion. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* might come in handy. ] (]) 05:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on global scope =====
	:* "Currently, chiropractic is a regulated health care profession with licensure requirements in over 50 countries globally although chiropractic medicine is most established in North America, ] as well as a few ]. <ref name="CDC">{{cite web |url=http://www.chiropracticdiplomatic.com/strategies/global_strategy.pdf |title=Chiropractic Global Professional Strategy|author=Tetrault, Michael |publisher=Chiropractic Diplomatic Corps |accessdate=2008-04-18}}</ref>"
	:* The cited source never says "50 countries". It says "there are only three countries where the profession is fully established with legal protection and can practice the full measure of the training. These are: the USA, Canada and Australia." It says there are "20 or so countries" where "there is yet much to be done before the profession can claim to be fully established".
	:* The simplest fix is to rewrite the sentence to match the quotes from the source.
	:] (]) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::*Cherry picking, again, eh? Let's go to the WFC and get those stats for you. ] (]) 05:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	===== Scope of practice comments on specialties =====
	:*"Similar to other primary contact health providers, licensed chiropractors can continue their education and specialize in different areas of chiropractic medicine. The most common post-graduate diplomate programs include ], ], clinical sciences, ] sciences, ] and ] which generally require 2-3 additional years of study following completion of chiropractic school and passing all state, provincial and national board exams to obtain the necessary license to practice chiropractic. <ref name="AHPCred">{{cite book|last=Pybus|first=Beverly, E.|coauthors=Cairns, Carol, S.|others=C|title=A Guide to AHP Credentialing |publisher=hcPro |pages=241-243 |isbn=1-57839-478-3 |accessdate=2008-04-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/ahcpr/chapter3.htm|title=CHIROPRACTIC TRAINING|coauthors=Ian D. Coulter, PhD Alan H. Adams, DC; Ruth Sandefur, DC, PhD|publisher=AHCPR|language=English|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|coauthors=Michael A. Mestan DC, John A.M. Taylor DC, G. Lansing Blackshaw PhD, and J. Clay McDonald JD, DC|date=June 2006|title=Establishing an Accredited Master of Science in Diagnostic Imaging Degree at a Chiropractic College |journal=Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics|volume=29, |issue=5|pages=410-413 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK1-4K4DFWG-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2f2a8802530a8e3ae4d8de4a3feaee80|accessdate=2008-04-16}}</ref>"
	:*"Similar to other primary contact health providers" is redundant and can be removed. It's also similar to medical specialists, no? And to electrical engineers?
	:*"in different areas of chiropractic medicine" is also redundant.
	:*Which of the sources say that the given list is the most common, and where?
	:*The phrase "which generally require 2-3 additional years of study following completion of chiropractic school and passing all state, provincial and national board exams to obtain the necessary license to practice chiropractic" is not that important and can be removed. It's also hard to parse; most of it is about getting a license, but it's in a section that talks about continuing education?
	:*In short, these two sentences should be trimmed way down. There's no need for 3 citations; one should do.
	:] (]) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	:If its hard to parse, perhaps a suggestion to rephrase it? The section is not talking about continuing education, it is talking about specialization. It is within the scope of practice to become a specialist, which requires further education and subsequent licensing exams. ] (]) 06:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::OK, here's a proposed rephrasing:
	:::"Chiropractors can gain accreditation in ], ], ] and other specialties by taking 2– to 3–year postgraduate programs and passing competency examinations.<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/>"
	::] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::*"Similar to other primary contact health providers, <s>licensed</s> chiropractors can <s>continue their education and</s> specialize in different areas of chiropractic medicine. The most common post-graduate diplomate programs include ], ], clinical sciences, ] sciences, ] and ] which generally require 2-3 additional years of additional post graduate study <s>following completion of chiropractic school and passing all state, provincial and national board exams to obtain the necessary license to practice chiropractic</s> and passing competency examinations. <ref name="AHPCred">{{cite book|last=Pybus|first=Beverly, E.|coauthors=Cairns, Carol, S.|others=C|title=A Guide to AHP Credentialing |publisher=hcPro |pages=241-243 |isbn=1-57839-478-3 |accessdate=2008-04-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/ahcpr/chapter3.htm|title=CHIROPRACTIC TRAINING|coauthors=Ian D. Coulter, PhD Alan H. Adams, DC; Ruth Sandefur, DC, PhD|publisher=AHCPR|language=English|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|coauthors=Michael A. Mestan DC, John A.M. Taylor DC, G. Lansing Blackshaw PhD, and J. Clay McDonald JD, DC|date=June 2006|title=Establishing an Accredited Master of Science in Diagnostic Imaging Degree at a Chiropractic College |journal=Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics|volume=29, |issue=5|pages=410-413 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK1-4K4DFWG-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2f2a8802530a8e3ae4d8de4a3feaee80|accessdate=2008-04-16}}</ref>"
	::::The refs should be kept; Pybus is a independent 3rd party textbook on credentialing although we can add Meeker. The refs support the claims made, and it makes it harder for a skeptic to parade through and vandalize the section by taking out one ref. If there's a few there, its harder to "ignore". ] (]) 15:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::*"Similar to other primary contact health providers," is not needed and can be removed.
	::::::Disagree, other health care professionals have subspecialties. It should stay.
	::::::: A wide variety of topics in ] are in common with other health care professionals. But we don't have a phrase "Similar to other health care professionals" in front of all those other sentences. Why have that sentence here? Also, is this sentence sourced? ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::*"of chiropractic medicine" is also redundant and can be removed.
	::::::*It should stay.
	:::::::*Is it not redundant? If not, what does it add? It is already in a sentence that makes it clear that it's talking about chiropractic. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::*In "The most common post-graduate diplomate programs include" "The most common" is not necessary and reads weirdly when connected with "include"; let's remove "The most common". Also, please add veterinary chiropractic here; that should suffice to cover that subject (assuming the sources mention it).
	::::::*It doesn't read weird; the sentence is perfectly fine. Veterinary chiropractic is a scope of practice issue. No minimizing it, Eubulides. It's also completely outside your scope of expertise and you should recuse yourself to the experts who know of this issue much more than yourself. ] (]) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::* Briefly mentioning it, with a wikilink to the article on veterinary chiropractic, should suffice, just as a brief metion of sports medicine should suffice. My personal expertise is irrelevant here. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::*"], ], clinical sciences, ] sciences, ] and ]" is too many subjects. Please trim it down to three or so.
	::::::*Why not list the whole sha-bang then? It's already done in ]. I wanted to list the most common, feeling that there wouldn't be any objections or insinuations of puff. Now you want to pair down the most common. It's not going to happen; they are all important. More attempts to minimize noted. ] (]) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::* I think it weakens ] to include that list, because it makes ] look a bit like a sales pitch; but if you feel strongly about the current list, let's keep it. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::*"2-3 additional years of additional post graduate study" is way redundant. Remove both "additional"s; the "post graduate" implies "additional".
	:::::*Extra sources should be added only if they are needed to have a good encyclopedia; they should not be added merely as cannon fodder for edit wars (wars that they would have no effect on, at any rate). MH2002 is a good source here, since it's high quality and freely readable; I don't see what the other sources add here.
	:::::::*The sources back the claims. There's no need to remove them. ] (]) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::*It's not a huge deal, but redundant citations do add up, and in the end they'll need to be trimmed; we can't have an article with a thousand citations. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Forget it, Eubulides. I tried to compromise. It's clear to me now that your intent is to stall as much as possible, to insert as much controversy as possible, to blow up minor controversies as much as possible and to civilly push your POV as much as possible. A great recipe to drive certain editors batshiat crazy. I've been fallen for these tricks once already. Not again. ] (]) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: The intent is to have a neutral section on scope of practice that is solidly based on reliable sources. The draft isn't so very far from that; it has only a few major problems (most of them are minor). Please don't assume the worst of honest criticism. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	=== Watering Down Scope of Practice: Tendentious editing ===
	What turned out to be a pretty straight forward, NPOV section has resulted in a needless edit war and an attempt to essentially ] the section. Amongst proposed changes made by Eubulides include
	# suggesting that a qualifying statement be made in the very first line of SOP "Although..."
	# suggesting that DCs are not PCPs
	# suggesting that veterinary chiropractic is not a scope of practice issue
	# suggesting that conservative care should be taken out
	# suggesting that DCs performing minor surgery and writing medical prescription in the state of Oregon is not notable
	# suggesting that common knowledge stuff like restricted acts of diagnosis and SMT are not restricted and are fall within the public domain
	# suggesting to take out a Google Book source which supports claims being made citing privacy issues and some kind of bandwith problem (talk about grasping for straws)
	# suggesting that DCs opinions of wanting limited Rx rights does not represent a shift from the historical "without drugs or surgery" approach
	# more
	These types of objections are completely trivial and represent more stall and delay tactics and disruptive editing practices. Note, that NO objections were raised by Eubulides et al. for a whole week until I suggested we include the SOP section. Then suddenly, objections started flying out left and right, first with apparent citations problems (that no one else had) then pleading for more time to review (while actively editing other articles on[REDACTED] the whole time).
	: I raised one objection early: the citations were missing or busted. This problem remained until a day or two ago. Once usable citations went in, I started to review. Most of the comments are minor, but that's how reviews work. Some of the comments are definitely nontrivial, though. In particular, the dispute about whether chiropractors are better thought of as primary care practitioners or as specialists is an important one, one that the current draft presents only one side of; this is a serious POV issue. The review is not done yet, alas, as I have other responsibilities (plus this discussion to attend to :-) and have found more problems than I expected. I hope to finish it soon, though. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: There 2 key points here that should be highlighted. 1) no other user but yourself claimed the citations were busted and not working for them. 2) more importantly, you have a penchant for making small things turn into very big things, i.e. blowing of a controversy out of proportion. Also your language (...and have found more problems than I expected) is a classic example how you continuously insert little shots here and there that don't necessarily cross a civility line but taken altogether over the past 2 months suggests a bigger problem. Also, a whole sections titled "Scope of Practice: Comments by Eubulides" is a bit much, no? ] (]) 05:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* What can I say? I had problems following the citations. Clearly were busted, independetly of whether an editor mentioned that fact.
	:::* POV issues are not little things; they are a major problem with ].
	:::* I've changed the subsection title, and I'm sorry if its name offended anybody. That was not its intent.
	:::] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::*Regardless of POV issue that YOU think the article may have, the bigger problem is your editing style which perfectly reflects that of a civil-POV pusher. When you factor this with the fact that you have grossly obstructed the SOP section, an area where you have 0 expertise in becomes even a bigger issue. Then, lastly, and most importantly, your refusal to include indexed, peer-review literature that I present that clearly refutes your argument, you engage in more tendentious wikilawyering. You have disrupted this article so make a ]. I'm offering you one final chance: please collaborate productively with the chiropractic experts. There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be sorted out in a fair, just manner. But you're going to have to change your approach here and start treating this article as a profession and not some medication that can be picked apart, reduced, quantified, etc. This line of exclusive thinking, reductionism, is not always valid nor the best approach. ] (]) 22:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::* It is not obstruction to present detailed and useful criticism of the draft section. Most of the points raised were minor, but (when fixed) will improve the quality. There is a significant POV issue that does need fixing, and some other stuff that needs to be better sourced and/or rewritten to match the existing sources. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: I've finished the review of ]. The section has mutated while I was reviewing it so there are some rough edges no doubt. But it's a reasonable first cut. ] (]) 08:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	=== Education, Licensing, Regulation ===
	Chiropractic medicine is currently formally regulated in approximately 60 countries although chiropractors are also practicing in several other countries where there is no formal legal recognition of the profession at this time {{Fact|date=April 2008}}. To help standardize and ensure quality of chiropractic education and patient safety, in 2005 the World Health Organization published the official guidelines for basic training and safety in chiropractic <ref></ref> Most commonly, chiropractors obtain a <s>doctoral-level</s> ''second entry'', ] in Chiropractic medicine. The degrees obtained include Doctor of Chiropractic (Medicine) (DC or DCM) in North America whereas a Bachelors or Masters degree in Chiropractic Sciences (BChiro, MChiro, BAppSc) degrees are granted in Australia and selected countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. {{Fact|date=April 2008}} Typically a 3 year university undergraduate education is required to apply for the chiropractic degree.<ref></ref><ref></ref> In general, the World Health Organization lists three major educational paths involving full‐time chiropractic education across the globe:
	* A four‐year full‐time programme within specifically designated colleges or universities, with suitable pre-requisite training in basic sciences at university level;
	* A five‐year bachelor integrated chiropractic degree programme offered within a public or private university
	* A two or three‐year pre‐professional Masters programme following the satisfactory completion of a specifically designed bachelor degree programme in chiropractic or a suitably adapted health science degree.
	Regardless of the model of education utilized, prospective chiropractors without relevant prior health care education or experience, must spend no less than 4200 student/teacher contact hours (or the equivalent) in four years of full‐time education. This includes a minimum of 1000 hours of supervised clinical training. <ref name=WHO-guidelines>{{cite paper |author= World Health Organization |date=2005 |title= WHO guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic |url=http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/Chiro-Guidelines.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2008-03-03}}</ref><ref>insert CCE, CCEC, ICCEC</ref> Health professionals with advanced clinical degrees, such as medical doctors, can can meet the educational and clinical requirements to practice as a chiropractor in 2200 hours, which is most commonly done in countries where the profession is in its infancy. <ref></ref> Upon meeting all clinical and didactic requirements of chiropractic school, a degree in chiropractic medicine is granted. However, in order to legally practice, chiropractors, like all ] health care professionals, must be ].
	All Chiropractic Examining Board requires all candidates to complete a 12 month clinical intership to obtain licensure. <s>Candidates must successfully pass a written cognitive skills examination to be eligible for the clinical skills examination. <ref> http://cceb.ca/english/exam/index.htm]</ref></s> Licensure is granted following successful completion of all state/provincial and national board exams so long as the DC maintains ] insurance. Nonetheless, there still some variations in educational standards internationally depending on admission and graduation requirements. For example, Canadian chiropractic accrediting standards are higher than the United States, and it's admission requirements into the Doctorate of Chiropractic Degree programme are the strictest in North America. <ref></ref> Chiropractic medicine is regulated in North America by state/provincial ]. The regulatory colleges are responsible for protecting the public, standards of practice, disciplinary issues, quality assurance and maintenance of competency.<ref></ref> <s>Each state or province has a regulatory college established by legislation in the same manner, and with the same structure and similar regulations, as the regulatory bodies for other health care professions.</s>
	=== Comments about Education, Licensing Regulation ===
	Stuff to be added could include
	<s>
	# self-regulation status</s>
	# continuing education requirements
	#sub-specialities, (common ones)
	# differentiation between straight and mixer schools (this difference is noted in the US Dept of Edu; but this problem is not so much an issue in the rest of the world)
	<s># regulatotry status globally, where it is, is not, and the in betwe</s>en
	# more? ] (]) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	Again, this is waaaay too long. I suspect nobody has read it other than its author; it's a guaranteed put-you-to-sleep text. There is duplication of material between this section and the Scope of Practice draft (both talk about licensing). How about combining the two sections and shortening the result? Also, I have similar problems with citations here. For example, there is a URL to an IP address that appears to be some sort of cache; this didn't work for me. Please use proper citation format; it's hard to review stuff that isn't properly cited. Thanks. ] (]) 08:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Nah, if there's overlap with scope of pratice we can chop out duplication. We need to cover the section adequately and it is being done so now, remember, we're talking about the profession globally and need to represent, at best, a global POV. Regardless of the length, it's the content that is most important. Do you dispute any of the content there? If so, which ones? What citations do not work? What is the proper citation format and how is it done? ] (]) 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: I think a lot of this may be found (or should be found) at ]. Perhaps we should have a brief summary of the information above and then link to ] from this main article (pretty much as we do now, but with a more solid detailed summary - perhaps just a short paragraph or two in length). Then let's strive to make sure that ] matches the excellence on the draft above. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: We definitely could move some stuff to chiropractic education; but think we should keep the types of degrees granted, self-regulation and licensure stuff here because some stuff we missing from the body but mentioned a bit in the lead. Details re: the types of common courses taken I was going to add here but would be better suited at chiropractic education and/or chiropractic school. Still, we need to add stuff about CE (it's required to maintain licensure in almost every state/province/jurisdiction. Again, we need to make sure that a global POV is respected here which is why some editors have quite rightly said it's not always a doctoral level degree (outside NA) where the term first professional degree is better used to adequately reflect the status of the degree outside the US and Canada. ] (]) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: That sounds perfectly reasonable. Perhaps start with updating ] with all of this information? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: That makes sense to me too. I still have having trouble following the citations, though, as per above discussion. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	ignored the above suggestion to start with updating ], and instead installed the proposed change directly into ]. I did not review this material carefully because I assumed that it would go into ] first, and then a shorter version would be proposed for ]. There are several problems with the proposed change: for example, it's highly duplicative with, and even to some extent contradicts, ]. So it shouldn't go in unchanged. Let's stick with the original plan to put the material into ] and put a shorter version here. For now, until the matter is resolved, I to the previous version of this section. ] (]) 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The material has been there Eubulides since April 13/08. It is now May 6/08. To say that I've been patiently waiting is an understatement. I've already pruned down the version slightly, but the meat and potatoes are there. I should note that besides yourself (as always it seems) and your trustworthy sidekick below, no one else has objected to the contents of this draft. Given the fact that education is currently shorter than safety and vaccination, both topics that have undue weight (i.e. they're too big/long) we should probably address those first now since violations of ] and ] have been there since you first installed them in February 08. Safety could easily be rectified by including the conclusions of Boyle and Cassidy so it's more neutral and balanced. Vaccination, while definitely notable, is undue weight on the Cdn DCs and I suggest we prune the sentences, not the sources (to be clear). ] (]) 17:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::* A suggestion was made by Levine2112 on April 14 to start by updating ] and then to propose a shorter version for ]. I seconded that suggestion on April 15. There was no need to patiently wait for a suggestion; the suggestion was made several weeks ago.
	:::* It is standard practice to briefly summarize a topic that has a subarticle. Such a summary should be brief; it does not need to be longer than another section lacking a subarticle, simply because the summarized topic is an important one.
	:::* So far no other editor has supported the addition of the section in anything like its current form.
	:::* Please see ] below for more.
	:::* Safety and vaccination are different topics, best discussed elsewhere. Again, please see ] below for more.
	:::] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree with . The section (recently added text) requires a lot of clean up and references too. ] 09:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Perhaps your efforts would be better off focusing on beginning a draft for history as you had deep concerns about it. We have a good list of sources to start it off. I'm going to begin working on the science of chiropractic 1895-2008. I'll highlight the major events in each decade or something like that. What do you think? ] (]) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: That would be an amazing step forward. Thanks Cortico! -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	== An appeal: Drop the "effectiveness" discussion ==
	Please, please, please!! Drop this extremely divisive and contentious discussion. It is causing an awful waste of time here, right where it doesn't belong. I repeat my previous comments and would like a response from all concerned parties:
	* I basically agree with CorticoSpinal on this one. We are spinning our wheels by attempting to discuss the "effectiveness" of a whole profession, when only individual techniques and methods can properly be the subject of an "effectiveness" discussion. It would save a whole lot of effort and avoid alot of unpleasant discussions if effectiveness was only dealt with on the article devoted to each technique. Then we can simply state that chiropractors use this, that, and another technique, and wikilink each one. Then readers can hop over to those articles and find an "effectiveness" section in each one. By simply dropping the whole line of discussion on this matter here, we can sidestep an issue that shouldn't be under discussion here. Save such discussions for each of those articles.
	* A pressing issue would be to end the discussion of "effectiveness" of chiropractic, as you (and I, and Levine2112) suggested above. That would free up everyone's minds to deal with other things.
	A whole profession can't be dealt with in this way. It's unheard of (except for things like ] and ], where the profession is synonymous with the method). Only individual techniques and methods can be dealt with in this manner. The only place where chiropractic can be dealt with in this manner is on any one of the various ] articles, especially ]. It can legitimately happen there, since that is the only thing unique about chiropractic, and where it's claims are significantly differently from those made for ]. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	: It is not at all unheard of. It's done all the time. It's done on the web (see, for example . It's done in peer-reviewed journals (see, for example, Kingston 2007, PMID 17970361). It's done by ] right now, which cites sources on this subject at length (the Manga report was titled "A Study to Examine the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Management of Low-Back Pain").
	: A summary of the effectiveness of chiropractic care is sorely needed in ]. The current summary (currently found in ]) is obsolescent and highly biased. This does not mean it should be removed: effectiveness is a core topic! It means it should be fixed. ] (]) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: I will concede that a short section dealing with the few sources that - as DigitalC mentions below - "compare the entire clinical encounter of one profession to another", might be in order. But this detailed analysis of many different techniques and methods is improper here. It should be dealt with, but is better dealt with elsewhere. -- <i><b><font
	color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: That is too selective. Most of our reviews on effectiveness refer to some studies like that, but they're relatively rare and tend to be less reliable. The reviews spend more time talking about effectiveness studies of particular treatments, because that's where most of the research has been (including most of the higher-quality research). We should not be ignoring all this research; we should be summarizing it briefly, as it's quite relevant. ] (]) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: '''Agree'''. Cost-effectiveness of care could be a fair play; and 3rd party sources should also be considered (such as Workman Compensation, integrative medicine models and recently completed and active demonstration projects. I need the sources to back me up but I'm almost positive that chiropractic care is usually significantly cheaper (>20%) and gets similar if not better results than conventional medicine for neuromusculoskeletal complaints. This is not surprising, naturally, as chiropractors are on one hand specialists in neuromusculoskeletal medicine yet offer a distinct form of health care due to their holistic heritage that relies on conservative and complementary therapies most of which are natural as DCs cannot prescribe nor perform surgery. ] (]) 06:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Cost-effectiveness is another section that should get written, and we have collected in ] a list of sources for such a section. But we should not limit ]'s discussion to ''just'' cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness is an important topic in its own right, and has been studied a lot more and has more to report. ] (]) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Actually the reasoning and application is completely invalid. Validity, as a refresher refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. How can you attempt to measure the effectiveness, risk/benefit, safety, cost-effectiveness, etc. of a profession? We're not studying a technique, a modality or a drug here where the aforementioned apply. This argument is further reinforced as even ] does not have sections on "effectiveness" "cost-effectiveness" "safety" and "risk/benefit". It's not that Medicine as an article has shortcomings (as incorrectly suggested) but rather that these sections cannot be applied readily or measured reliably to WHOLE professions. It's invalid to think so. Majority of editors agree. Please respect and accept the consensus of the majority of your fellow editors, many of whom who have far more experience editing this topic that yourself and myself combined. Thanks. ] (]) 04:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Nobody is proposing that we measure the effectiveness etc. of a ''profession''; we are just proposing that it covers effectivenss of common treatments for which research exists. The effectiveness of those techniques is a core issue of chiropractic: it's the main reason it has been controversial for so many years. The current version of ] talks about cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care at length with blatant pro-chiropractic POV; why didn't this objection that "We're not studying a technique" apply to what's in ] now? ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Do you have a reference that backs up your statement that effectiveness of, presumably, manipulation is the reason why "it has been controversial for so many years". Because I would disagree with that statement; and so does American Pain Society and American College of Physicians who recommend spinal manipulation in their clinical practice guidelines. In fact, I quote "The expert panel noted that physicians should consider the following noninvasive, nonpharmacologic therapies that have been proven effective in evidence-based trials: exercise therapy, '''spinal manipulation''', acupuncture, yoga, intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and progressive relaxation". A summary can be found . So, to be clear; is your argument that allopathic medicine is concerned about manipulation (which it now recommends) or is allopathic medicine concerned by manipulation performed by chiropractors? ] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: I don't quite follow the question, but I'll try to answer it anyway. Mainstream medicine (which you call "allopathic") is concerned both about the safety of SMT, and about its effectiveness against the wide variety of conditions that it is promoted for. Although this concern is independent of whether SMT is performed by chiropractors, it is highly relevant to chiropractic, because chiropractic is so strongly identified with SMT. I think even the harshest mainstream critics of chiropractic would concede that there's some evidence that chiropractic SMT is as effective for low back pain as anything else is (which they would say is "not much"). Of course there is a big gap between what the critics say and what most chiropractors say, and we shouldn't report only what the critics say. However, the issue should be fairly and neutrally covered in ]. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::This is getting quite ], Eubulides. A majority of editors disagree with you, and for one reason or another the argument that a reductionistic model (which I argued was core to medicine) cannot be done to analyze professions' 'effectiveness' no matter what you claim. Many editors here have already sought to compromise with you and have made alternative suggestions and wish to collaborate however it seems increasingly apparent that this feeling is not being reciprocated. Anyways, the point is moot, there is agreement by the majority of regular editors that we're not going to go down your suggested route and Fyslees recommendation is a sensible one. ] (]) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree that the discussion has been divisive and contentious. But the subject of effectiveness is an important one, and the current coverage of it in ] is biased and misleading: we cannot simply ignore the problem. ] (]) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: It should not be ignored, but for the most part (all the details) it should be dealt with elsewhere. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: One could write hundreds of pages of details, and I agree for the most part these should be elsewhere. However, ] should have a reasonable summary of the issue of chiropractic effectiveness, as that is a core question about the field. Currently ] has a highly-biased and obsolescent summary of effectiveness that should be replaced by something better. ] has been drafted and is miles better than the effectiveness discussion in ] now. Plus, it's shorter. So what's not to like? ] (]) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::See above comment. Invalid application. ] (]) 04:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Replied to above. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Fyslee, myself, DigitalC, Levine2112, the DoctorIsIn and others have never suggested 'ignoring' the problem. Please, this is the 4th time I've asked you now, do not mispresent or mischaracterize other editors statements or at least ask for clarification if you're confused. We have offerred alternative solutions to compromise and collaborate whereas your position seems to be ]. ] (]) 15:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: If we leave ] alone, and keep its current blatantly-biased treatment of effectiveness, then we are ignoring the problem of bias. Merging ] into a subarticle (the alternative solution proposed) does not solve this problem. ] (]) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: It's incorrect to say that only individual techniques can be studied for effectiveness. A research study, for example, can compare patients in chiropractic care to patients using traditional medical care. Studies like that have been done, and are cited (via reviews) in ]. Furthermore, reviewers themselves can (and do) synthesize practice guidelines and effectiveness surveys out of primary studies investigating individual techniques, and we can cite those reviews.
	::::: It certainly makes sense to do detailed discussion of effectiveness of chiropractic care into the respective detailed articles, but effectiveness of important techniques (notably, SMT) should be summarized in ] itself, and should not be ignored there. It would be extremely awkward for readers to have to go to each subarticle to see ''any'' discussion of effectiveness. ] was written partly in response to a reader's natural request to see good coverage of effectiveness here, and the reader indicated that an earlier draft was the sort of thing being sought. Misplaced Pages, in the end, is supposed to be for readers, not for editors. ] (]) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: It's those types of comparisons that can be mentioned here, since there are sources that do it, but the detailed descriptions for each method should be dealt with in their own respective articles. If you want to examine chiropractic's special relationship to SMT, then do it in the ] article, where there is place for detailed descriptions of that very special and unusual relationship, an analysis and description that would be inappropriate in the SMT article. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: ] does not contain "detailed descriptions for each method". It doesn't describe the methods at all. It merely gives known effectiveness results. This draft could be pruned, but why? I don't understand an objection based on length. ] is ''shorter'' than the text it would replace. Why object to its length, when there is no similar objection to the longer and much-lower-quality material on effectiveness that is in ] now? ] (]) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Disagreed. It's a violation of ] as argued by Levine2112 above when you insist on choosing SMT studies done by various professions (DO, PT, MD) and cite it as effective for/against the chiropratic profession. Invalid application again. ] (]) 04:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: I didn't choose the SMT studies: a reliable review by and for chiropractors chose those studies, and for good reasons, which has been explained by the experts. We should not substitute our own judgment for that of published experts in the field. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You did not address my argument: regardless of who chose the studies it is a ] violation to take studies on manipulation performed by physical therapists, osteopathic and allopathic physicians and pass it off as effectiveness of '''chiropractic'''. I would also note that you're using the same, tired argument (substitute judgement) that has already been addressed several times on several threads here on Talk. ] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: It is not synthesis to report what reliable reviewers say. Published expert reviewers are ''supposed'' to do synthesis. That's their ''job''. ] says Misplaced Pages editors are not supposed to do synthesis on their own. ] does not say that Misplaced Pages articles cannot report the results of reliable expert reviews simply because those reviews happened to do some syntheses. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Please, Eubulides, it's time to drop this now. How many times can ask you to please step back from this? It's not necessarily about length; it's about content, validity and the generalizability of the studies back to the effectiveness of 'chiropractic'. Fyslee, myself, DigitalC, Levine2112 and DoctorIsIn disagree with your stance and approach. This doesn't even take into account that no health care profession has an effectiveness section within it here at[REDACTED] (besides from acupuncture/homeopathy which was already discussed earlier) Also, it omits major findings from the CCGPP clinical practice guidelines and gives disproportionate amount of weight to allopathic sources. Nowithstanding, a lot of editors, myself included dispute the authoritativeness (which seems to be arbitrary). Regardless, this point is moot there is majority agreement that this section will not continue as currently planned and consensus is that we talk about various modalities/treatment in their respective pages. ] (]) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::First, I disagree that there is consensus. The recent edit war is evidence that there is not consensus. Second, and more important, ] currently has blatant pro-chiropractic POV in its treatment of effectiveness. I have pointed this out several times; none of the replies have addressed this issue. Blatant POV is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy and must be fixed. Third, there is a reason that CAM fields such as homeopathy require an effectiveness section more than non-CAM fields such as (say) brain surgery: their effectiveness is far more a topic of interest and dispute. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::First, look at the thread. You're the ONLY editor here who consistently opposes the consensus of the majority minus a few words occasionally from QG. The edit war in question has no bearing of what has occurred subsequently over the past 10 days where we have discussed this issue at length and have come to a conclusion. Second, where does ] have blantant POV in its treatment of effectiveness? Do you have any specific examples? Also, perhaps you can tell me why according to the '''panel of experts''' American College of Physicians '''physicians should consider the following noninvasive, nonpharmacologic therapies that have been proven effective in evidence-based trials''': exercise therapy, '''spinal manipulation''', acupuncture, yoga, intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and progressive relaxation. Remember, according to your very own words "We should not substitute our own judgment for that of published experts in the field." I would also like to note that the majority of the above nonpharmacologic therapies can and are provided by DCs and fall within its scope of practice. These should be noted as well.
	::::::::::::: I am not the only editor who thinks ] is a real improvement over the blatant POV in the current article. There is a big difference between considering chiropractic SMT for low back pain (which I suspect most physicians would agree with) and considering it for (say) vision problems (which I suspect they wouldn't). I plan to address the POV again later; it's still a major problem, and it still needs to be fixed. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Third, comparing homeopathy to brain surgery is ridiculous. To suggest that the effectiveness of homeopathic tinctures is of a greater concern or relevant in the medicine than brain surgery is laughable. Furthermore, it's hard to measure the effectiveness of brain surgery as there are different prognoses for different brain conditions. More appropriate would be the effectiveness of back or neck surgery where I last read the were less than 50% including many unncessary surgeries which is why the recent Neck Pain Task Force clearly made note of this and made a classification system (1-4) to prevent excessive surgery or invasive measures.
	:::::::::::::: The reason effectiveness is of more concern to ] is that the mainstream opinion is that it has no effect at all. That's not the case for brain surgery. The effectiveness of chiropractic is under dispute: not as much dispute as homeopathy of course, but still, it's under serious dispute, for many conditions that it is promoted for. It's entirely appropriate to cover that dispute in ]. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::In general, it seems to be like you're making up policy on the spot "there is a reason that CAM fields require an effectiveness section more than non-CAM fields their effectiveness is far more a topic of interest and dispute". First, where is the policy that states the above? Did you make it up or is there something you can quote for us? Second, CAM therapies can indeed be studied and a relative effectiveness determined, CAM professions cannot. Third, ] should not follow the exception to the rule of Homeopathy which is a non player in terms of regulation in North America and most of Europe and Australia. So, it's not comparable. ] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: It's blatant POV that violates Misplaced Pages policy, which is all that I said about policy. ] is about the effectiveness of chiropractic care, which is a notable topic of considerable interest, one that ] currently covers in a way that's blatant POV. The regulation (or absence thereof) of chiropractic is a different issue, one that is appropriate for a licensing section and inappropriate for a discussion of effectiveness. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Fyslee is right here. The most interesting and perplexing thing of it all, is I believe that adjustment belongs in the SMT article. I can tell why later; but it can be done tastefully that covers both straight and mixer interpretations. I happen to excel in this particular chiropractic legal arena and we must carefully consider as well the weight of '''mainstream chiropractic''' vs. the minority (but vocal) straight DCs who retain Palmer Philosophy and Practice Principles. For example, straight DCs would always, always, (always!) refer to manipulation as "spinal adjustment". The intent; and purpose is distinct; the correct dysfunctional vertebral segments (dubbed vertebral subluxation which is to be differentiated from VS COMPLEX) to improve neurological function (or the inverse; "remove nerve interference" (i.e. the chiropractic boogie man). In contrast, mixer DCs and all evidence-based practitioners use spinal manipulation and adjustment INTERCHANGEABLY. The focus in not necessarily the "intent" but rather than biomechanical kinematics that are involved in a HVLA manipulative protocol. Subtle, but EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, and understanding these 2 viewpoints within the profession is crucial. They're both very real, both notable but from here on in, mainstream (mixer) chiropractic view gets more weight but we're cognizant that straight chiropractic needs to be represented NPOV as well, despite the fact that we may have serious reservations about some elements of their style of practice ] (]) 06:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: These points are reasonable ones but are appropriate more for the straight-vs-mixer section than for the effectiveness section. ] (]) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::You're missing the point. We're not going to have an effectiveness section; at least not the way it's currently in place or drafted. Why are you not collaborating with your fellow editors here? ] (]) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The topic of this thread is effectiveness. Certainly changes could be made to ] before it goes in; it's not cast in stone. But the current ] is severely biased and must get fixed; ] is a vast improvement on what is there now. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::No, the topic of this thread is an APPEAL TO DROP EFFECTIVENESS. An appeal which the majority of the editors here and heeding with yourself being a notable exception. ] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: We cannot simply drop the matter, due to blatant POV in the current treatment of effectiveness. I plan to take up the issue further in a later section. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::It's incorrect to try and impose the same argument time after time despite the fact it has been rejected by a majority of editors. It's incorrect to say allopathic sources are preferred and should be weighed more than chiropractic sources especially given the fact we're talking about evidence-based literature. It's incorrect to include a section here which is not present in other health professions (for good reason, you can't measure the effectiveness of the 'medical profession' or the 'osteopathic profession' or the 'physical therapy' profession or the veterinary profession. It's incorrect to give such prominence to a chiropratic critic who has 0 expertise in the subject and not at least give equal weight to a source that refutes (soundly) Ernst's claims. It's incorrect to not use expert sources such as Haldeman and Cassidy et al when they're right there and published in Feb 2008. It's incorrect to incorrect to assume that regular editors here don't know that Misplaced Pages is for the readers not for the editors. It's incorrect to keep pursuing this and comparing the profession to a modality which is a fundamental flaw in reasoning by a few choice editors new to Chiropractic and who lack the expertise in this field. ] (]) 15:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::*I disagree that the idea of an effectiveness section has been rejected by a majority of editors.
	::::::::* 4 editors have pleaded with you and have even made an appeal section to voice their concerns. You're the only editor who disagrees with our consensus. ] (]) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::* The recent edit war indicates that there is no consensus. I agree that some editors would rather not have an effectiveness section in ] right now. However, the POV concerns that have been expressed are real, and a violation of Misplaced Pages policy of this magnitude cannot be simply ignored. ] is a good way to address these issues and is a proposal on the table. No other proposal has been made. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::* This argument has been debunked above. You have not listed any examples of violation of[REDACTED] policy. Also, you continue to misrepresent the opinion of other editors. The frequency at which this has been occuring is problematic. I have asked you no more than half a dozen times already to not do this or to ask for clarification. Several counter proposals have been made; which is another misrepresentation of editors arguments. This penchant is getting to be quite problematic and irritating. The argument is that there should not be an effectiveness section in chiropractic PERIOD, not right now. As DigitalC mentioned already, any profession that uses a given modality that is being listed here should have that listed on their page as well. ] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::* None of the counterproposals have addressed the fundamental issue here, which is the blatant POV in favor of chiropractic with respect to effectiveness. I plan to write a further section about this, as this thread is getting pretty long. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::*Sources should be given appropriate weight according to Misplaced Pages policy; as there still seems to be some dispute about what that means here, I will look into asking the experts on those policies.
	::::::::* No need, I'm already on that as well. I'm sure we'll have an interesting conversation about this. ] (]) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::*An effectiveness section ''is'' present for some professions, like homeopathy, and it would not be out of place for others; we should not let weaker articles prevent us from making ] better]].
	::::::::*Nah, red herring argument. The application of it is invalid; and no mainstream med profession has this because it's not valid to measure the effective of a profession. This is simply a double standard being pushed on CAM articles. Besides, no health profession article lists these sections. Homeopathy is not the standard; it's the exception to the rule. ] (]) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::* Homeopathy is not an exception: it's an example of how to do things well. It is far higher quality than ] is. Coverage of effectiveness and safety would be quite apropos for ] as well. But our focus in this thread is ], not ]. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::*] gives plenty of weight to sources that disagree vehemently with Ernst, and does not give undue prominence to Ernst.
	::::::::*It does not read that way. Besides, Ernst has no expertise in safety of SMT nor does he have expertise in effectiveness; he's just a mainstream critic. Experts on safety on SMT are the researchers who study it. I'd give Flynn and Childs, both PT/PhDs far more weight on expertise on SMT since they're actively studying the topic. Also, Herzog, Kawchuck et al. should be mentioned in safety. ] (]) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::* In what specific way can ] be improved so that it satisfies your concerns about weight? A specific suggestion, with specific citations, could help us improve it. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::*Cassidy ''et al.'' (PMID 18204390) is about safety and is irrelevant to effectiveness; I'm not sure what you mean by "Haldeman" (PMID 18204400, perhaps? but that wouldn't add anything to ] that isn't there already).
	:::::::::*It's about the same topic, i.e. an editor who claims superiority of allopathic sources and prevents the inclusion of notable, verifiable, high quality chiropractic sources. It's the principle being applied on this aborted section, safety and vaccination. ] (]) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::* Again, this sounds like a different thread, one about safety. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::*I have never assumed "regular editors here don't know that Misplaced Pages is for the readers not for the editors"; on the contrary, I have based some of my arguments on the assumption that editors know Misplaced Pages is for readers.
	:::::::::* Thanks for the clarification. But you have also insinuated that other editors don't know what they're doing which will result in a "mediocre" article. That kind of language is regretable under rather tense conditions. ] (]) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::*Again, my assumption has always been that editors know that the goal is to write encyclopedic articles even about controversial subjects, and to summarize those subjects, controversies and all, in a neutral way. My arguments have been based on the understanding that editors know that articles which avoid important controversies are lower-quality than articles that cover them. That is what I intended when I wrote "We should be striving for what's best for this article. Settling for a substandard article simply because the subject is contentious, or because other articles have similar problems, is a recipe for continued mediocrity." If this comment was interpreted in some other way, which hurt your feelings, then I apologize for that; it really wasn't intended. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::*] does not compare the profession to a modality: it talks about the effectiveness of chiropractic treatments, which is a core issue in chiropractic.
	:::::::] (]) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::*No it does not. It talks about the effectiveness of SMT; as performed by chiropractors, physical therapists, osteopathic doctors and medical doctors. And the section tries to pass it off under the guise of '''"chiropractic"''' effectiveness. PTs use ultrasound in clinical practice, should we generalize the effectiveness of PT based on the effectiveness of the ultrasound modality? Because that's essentially what you're suggesting here. It's an invalid application to the article and that's why it's getting the boot. ] (]) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::* The section talks about all forms of chiropractic care for which we have scientific evidence. A large fraction of this is SMT because that's where the evidence is. The section does not try to "pass off" anything: it clearly states when it's talking about SMT versus other treatments. For better or for worse, chiropractic is strongly associated with its characteristic treatment, SMT, and it's entirely appropriate for the effectiveness section to focus on SMT, just as it's entirely appropriate for the safety section to do so, or for the treatment section to list an SMT treatment first. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::You cannot determine the effectiveness of a profession. SMT is not chiropractic, and although I don't have the sources to back it up, I would believe that soft tissue therapy is used as much by chiropractors as SMT is. Now, if you want to determine the effectiveness of each treatment procedure used by chiropractors (SMT, STT, LLLT, US, IFC, Vibration therapy, etc. etc. etc.), for each condition they are used for (IE - is SMT effective for low back pain? is STT effective for lateral epicondylitis, is ultrasound effective for plantar fasciitis) then that would work, however those effectiveness sections really belong on the article for the respective treatment. That said however, the entire clinical encounter may be more effective than the sum of its parts - however, we do not have enough sources to compare the entire clinical encounter of one profession to another (although I have seen articles advocating for research encompassing the clinal encounter). ] (]) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Again, ] talks about effectiveness of treatments, not about effectiveness of a profession. ] says that the most popular treatment, in terms of % of patients receiving it, is diversified (full-spine manipulation), not soft tissue therapy. says "In the United States, more than 90% of all spinal manipulation services are provided by chiropractors, and research on spinal manipulation, like that on any other treatment method, is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it." ] already talks about the entire clinical encounter, but reliable sources say that's just part of the picture; we shouldn't limit ourselves to just one corner of it. ] (]) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::"Again, #Effectiveness 1 talks about effectiveness of treatments, not about effectiveness of a profession.". That is exactly the point. Chiropractic is a profession, and Effectiveness 1 talks about effectiveness of treatments. The effectivenss of those treatments belongs on the articles for those treatments, not on ]. ] (]) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: These treatments, and their effectiveness, are fundamental to chiropractic. One of the most natural questions about chiropractic, given its history and controversy, is "When does it work?" Any encyclopedic article on chiropractic must seriously address this issue. The current ] article spends a considerable time on this, using blatantly POV sources (and obsolescent ones to boot). What is the justification for excluding a high-quality and relatively unbiased discussion of effectiveness from ], while keeping a low-quality and blatantly biased discussion? ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::FTR, the source used for ] doesn't mention soft tissue therapy, but does suggest that trigger point therapy (a subset of soft tissue therapy) is used in 45% of patients. Electrical stimulation is used in 46% of patients, ultrasound in 30%, and LLLT not included. ] (]) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Now we're getting somewhere. Indeed, it is the whole clinical counter that is "chiropractic care" not merely the application of spinal manipulation (whereby DCs are the expert provider) whch can also be done in limited amount by ], ], ] and selected other ]. The reference that DigitalC has mentioned is PMID: 17604553, the Hawk et al found in JACM, whereby Hawk is a leading pioneer in WSR (whole systems research). This bodes well for designing better observational studies looking at the whole (holistic) clinical encounter in chiropractic medicine and should lead to good answers (and good questions) on the validity of manipulative therapy and chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal disorders (visceral). Incidentally, it is worth noting that the WSR approach is in direct contrast to the typical, allopathic reductionistic model that has stagnated and is only now begining to understand the merits of holistic and integrative medicine. ] (]) 05:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: ] cites Hawk ''et al.'' 2007 (PMID 17604553) more often than any other source. It's a good source, but it is not the whole story, and other reliable sources should be used as well. ] (]) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: I tend to agree with this argumentation that chiropractic is a career and thus cannot be measured for its effectiveness any more than we can measure the effectiveness of a dentist or veterinarian or a surgeon. We are just going in circles here discussing information which really has no place in this article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: Chiropractic is more than just a career, and this article is not just about professional qualifications and certifications. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::This is getting repetitive very fast. Besides being ] continuing this discussion doesn't make much sense; where past the point of diminishing returns. It's been a week, the majority of editors disagree with the position taken by Eubulides and that's basically as cut and dry as we can have it. I also strong recommend AGAINST doing any risk/benefit section right now; that's another contentious and heated one ready to come, especially if the trend continues were allopathic sources routinely gets to trump chiropractic sources which are being incorrectly omitted and described at times as low quality and inappropriate and misleading suggestions as "reaching down". I'm gonna take the rest of the day off from ] to sit back and unplug; I just see so many unfair and unjust standards trying to be applied here which fly in the face of precedent setting pages of other health professions. I'm also going to make sure that somewhere on Chiropractic a blurb about it being a profession and not a modality gets put it; there's far too much confusion about this still and it's at the heart we're even having this debate. ] (]) 19:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::] ''already'' has multiple risk/benefit sections. The problem is that they are blatantly POV. This must get fixed, and ] fixes them. This has nothing to do with whether chiropractic is a profession; it has everything to do with a core question on the subject, which is when and whether chiropractic care works. ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Effectiveness 1 talks about effectiveness of chiropractic treatments, which is about effectiveness of a chriopractor's profession. This is exactly the point. Chiropractic is a profession, and Effectiveness 1 talks about effectiveness of chiropractic treatments. The effectiveness of those treatments belongs on the chiropractic article. Chiropractors perform those treatments and therfore it is relevant to have the material about Chiropractic's effectiveness. ] (]) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Medical doctors, Osteopaths, Naturopaths and physical therapists can perform many of the treatments as well. Is it relevant to have the same material copied to those various pages? ] (]) 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::: Agree with DigitalC here. ] is a profession which uses ] as a treatment; yet the article for dentistry makes no mention of the effectiveness of fluoride treatments. How come? Maybe it is because the wise souls who edit these articles know that discussion about the effectiveness of specific treatments belong in articles about those specific treatments and not in the articles of the various professions that use such treatments. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Again --> <small>Effectiveness 1 talks about effectiveness of chiropractic treatments, which is about effectiveness of a chriopractor's profession. This is exactly the point. Chiropractic is a profession, and Effectiveness 1 talks about effectiveness of chiropractic treatments. The effectiveness of those treatments belongs on the chiropractic article. Chiropractors perform those treatments and therfore it is relevant to have the material about Chiropractic's effectiveness.</small> Another article's format or inclusion or lack of inclusion of information is irrelavant to NPOVing this article. It is a strawman argument to say another article's info does not contain effectiveness so therefore we should exclude it here. Homeopathy contains effectiveness info anyhow. Readers want to know it's effectiveness. We can discuss chiropractic's effectiveness when the references discuss it's effectiveness. We are following the lead of the reviewers such as Ernst. So far I do not see any valid reason for excluding relevant chiropractic's effectiveness material. Thank you. ] (]) 05:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	Agree with DigitalC above as well. The application of effectiveness to Homeopathy is also invalid. That article is the exception not the rule. The current standard one would presume would be ] and no sections are found there regarding safety, effectiveness, risk/benefit or any other proposed ones that are suitable to study a drug or a therapy/modality, but not valid to be studying a profession. Ernst is but one critic, in fact to say he represents the opinion of mainstream opinion would be highly debatable, especially when the US Surgeon General, an MD, supports Chiropractic and spoke at a recent ACA conference.
	: Homeopathy is a method and therefore it's perfectly proper to have an effectiveness section in that article. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Homeopathy is not the exception or the rule. The standard is not a Medicine article. The standard are the reviewers. We are here to follow their lead. Ernst represents a mainstream view. Thanks again. ] (]) 05:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: No thanks. QuackGuru, please stop talking down to us. If you're going to disagree, just do it without the "Thanks again" and such like tacked on at the end. It's insulting. BTW, I don't buy your argument. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::It's not insulting to say thanks to someone. It is being polite. By the way, this chiropractic article has a section on chiropractic's methods. It is called ]. <small>For example, spinal manipulation is the most common modality in chiropractic care.</small> We can discuss the treatment procedures as well as it's effectiveness. Thanks for listening. ] (]) 08:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Sure we can mention which modalities chiropractors use in this article, but then to go into each modality's effectiveness gets a tad tangential and tedious. We have an electronic encyclopdia with fancy-schmancy Wikilinks. Let's take advantage of the exciting technology and write this article in the Wonderful Wiki Way. (BTW, unless someone here is utilizing a text-to-voice reader, it is inappropriate to say, "Thanks for ''listening''." Rather, "Thanks for ''reading''," would be the more correct way to express your obviously sincere gratitude.) -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::When we can mention which modalities chiropractors use in this article, it is equally relevant to include the modaliy's effectiveness. It does not get tangential or tedious, because we have followed the sources and respected NPOV. We can take advantage of wiki technology by including the relevant effectiveness info in this article. The same can be done for the ] article. ] (]) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: This argument is well-worn territory which has been refuted in many previous exchanges. Rather than going in circles, please review the responses above and know that I still haven't changed my mind despite your repetition. If you wish to continue repeating yourself, please know that I may not respond. If you wish to move forward with some other form of ], I am happy to fascilitate. Thank you. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::A noticeboard may be another option per ]. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:DR#Ask_for_help_at_a_relevant_noticeboard ] (]) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: Sure but I am unsure which noticeboard would be applicable here. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	=== ] (a central issue) & ] (oh my) ===
	]. The main reason why ] is controversial is because of it's effectiveness. ] is a specific career. This is the same as ] is a specific career. The references discuss the resulting effectiveness of chiropractor treatments. There is no ] because we are following the sources faithfully in a measured, rationale way. We should not ignore the relevant references. We are using ]. A core issue to Chiropractic is it's Effectiveness. Some Wikipedians claim the information is not relevant to chiropractic profession or it would be better left to add to other articles. That is a strawman argument. In some matter, effectiveness can be discussed in this article. The reviewers (refs) think it is relevant. They are discussing the chiropractic profession. For example, the researchers are discussing the effectiveness of chiropractic treatments. We can do the same here. The best we can do is to continue to follow the lead of the references. Saying Ernst is bias is POV-pushing. Ernst is neutral and notable and meets the inclusion criteria. It seems a few editors may not be thrilled with what the effectiveness says. However, this would benefit the project when we include and not suspend the effectiveness bit. The argument/claim that this information is not relevant doesn't fly with me. They want to permanently suspend the section. Nah. The effectiveness is a central issue and would be an improvement for this article. I think this is a case of ] and nothing more. One of the goals of the project is to provide the most appropriate information available on each topic. The Effectiveness 1 accomplished this goal at least with respect to chiropractic's effectiveness. We can have further success/improvements by including the Effectiveness 1 which would benefit the reader and also meets the inclusion criteria.
	Of course we can mention which modalities chiropractors use in this article, and then we can go into each modality's effectiveness. This is easy because we simply follow the sources. This can be done. Wait a second. This has been already done. The Effectiveness section seems to be completed now. It is clearly ]. We have an online encyclopedia, with the vision of its founders (or at least Jimbo's vision). Consistant with that vision, we can create the sum of all knowledge about chiropractic. This article should not be the wild, wild west of wiks. Yes, the subject matter is contentious but that is not the point. The point is we have written something the meets the inclusion criteria and now we can improve this article. The modalities of chiropractic, controversy since its inception and effectiveness are all linked together. Rather than making it difficult for the reader by splitting up the well sourced text, it would be easiest and best (at least for the reader) if we included the Effectiveness 1 in this article. Irrespective of the chiropractic controversy surrounding it's effectiveness, it is reasonable to include neutrally written material (]) which is a core issue about the field, in the main chiropractic article. Respectively, ] (]) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	: I disagree with this rationale and maintain that the efficacy section should be split off under each modalities article. I think that is well aligned with the vision of Jimbo, the founder of Misplaced Pages. I actually think the efficacy section as written comes off very favourable for chiropractic; however as we can't distinguish SMT research from chiropractic specific research without a deadly ] and since chiropractic is an occupation and not any singular modality with an efficacy that can be measured overall, the inclusion of an efficacy section here seems inappropriate. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	::We have neutrally written SMT research and we should not second-geuss the reviewers. There is no ] of words. Only well sourced facts. The text is relevant to chiropractic. For example, the most common modality is chiropractic spinal manipulation. When we can discuss the ] we can discuss chiropractic's effectiveness in the same article as well. They are intimately related. Readers are curious about this kind of stuff. This is part of the mission of the project to improve this article (the sum of all human knowledge). <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font> ] (]) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::And the Oscar goes to... ;) That's a bit rich, Quack. You have not addressed any of the points made by myself, Levine2112, DigitalC and Fyslee. We, however have heard the argument and have addressed it in so many ways. I agree with Levine2112 that this is getting repetitive and tendentious. I'm not going to talk about it anymore, it's been 7 days. ] (]) 03:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	QuackGuru is essentially correct in the argument that effectiveness is a high-importance topic for chiropractic and needs to be discussed in this article. ] currently expends a significant amount of text on effectiveness, more than the proposed text (]) that would replace it. This alone casts serious doubt on any claim that effectiveness is not a proper subject for ]. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::I find it a little surprising that some editors want to completely drop "Effectiveness", when this topic, ie, the effectiveness of SMT has been studied extensively. Since approx 90% of patients of chiropractors receive SMT , I don't see why the effectiveness of this modality can't be presented. The only suggestion might be that the section could address the two or three main things chiropractors treat, low back and neck pain, or perhaps headaches, and leave off the other conditions. As for the point about some studies including PT or osteopath studies, so they are not relevant, well, doesn't Manga include those also? I haven't popped the $20 to buy the full 1993 Manga report and I can't find those details in other sources. But plenty of reviews used by chiropractors use studies of SMT not exclusively performed by chiropractors. I would say, the Effectiveness section could be shortened but not eliminated!CynRN] (]) 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Clearly, a discussion about the effectiveness of SMT belongs in the article about . I tend to agree with the logic that the effectiveness of ] can no more easily be discussed that the effectiveness of ], ] or ]. I don't feel that either of these points have been addressed and refuted in such a way to merit my changing opinions on this matter. Again, some other form of ] may be a better solution than just rehashing ineffective arguments over and over again. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: I have tried hard to resolve this issue here, and have resisted bringing in dispute resolution, but I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that you may be right, and we are not getting much closer to consensus here. ] (]) 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Trying hard to resolve an issue is not to tendentious push the same point over and over again like you've done in the Appeal section. Fyslee, myself, DigitalC, Levine2112 and DoctorisIn have at all one time or another made numerous suggestions on how to overcome this impasse whereas your proposed suggestion of keeping the status quo and violating ] in doing so is, in part, to blame why we're at this point. At least CynRN compromises and make good counter-suggestions. ] (]) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: I would not object to shortening ] somewhat, which was CynRN's countersuggestion. However, several of those editors have objected to any discussion of the effectiveness of chiropractic care, on the grounds that chiropractic is a profession and one cannot measure the effectiveness of a profession. These objections wouldn't be overcome by shortening the section. ] (]) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::I agree that the Effectiveness of medicine or nursing cannot be measured because these are way too diverse. I understand that chiropractors use many modalities, as well. However, the ''key'' thing that they do is manipulate backs for back pain. This is their unique specialty. The effectiveness of this subset of their treatment should be included in the article and if readers want to know about the effectiveness of manipulation of, say, asthma, they can go to the SMT article via a link. Sorry about beating this poor, dead horse!CynRN] (]) 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	Speaking as a DC with a spouse who is an RN. . . your assessment could not be further from the truth. . . The key thing I do is no more "manipulate for back pain" than my wife's is checking for blood pressure. . . We can no more assess the effectiveness of a DC than we can a RN. . . an MD. . . a PT. . . a DO. . . a DDS. . .] (]) 21:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Reliable sources tend to agree with CynRN. For example, "The core clinical action that all chiropractors agree upon is spinal manipulation."<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/> I can't imagine anyone seriously saying "The core clinical action that all RNs agree upon is checking for blood pressure." Chiropractic is heavily identified with SMT, and SMT with chiropractic; in this respect DCs differ greatly from RNs. ] (]) 22:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	Well I do not agree. . . there are lots of professions practicing spinal manipulation. . . and I check blood pressure during my Dx. . . is that factored into my career's effectiveness? Besides. . . your explanation requires us piecing together information from various sources. . . something which is a no-no here.] (]) 07:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Lots of professions may practice spinal manipulation, but only chiropractic is strongly identified with it, and more than 90% of the spinal manipulations in the U.S. are done by chiropractors. Reliable review papers are doing the piecing together for us: they are combining results from various professions to issue recommendations for chiropractic spinal manipulation. It is not ] to report what these sources say. ] (]) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Piecing together <u>neutrally written</u> and <u>highly relevant<u> information from various sources in known as NPOV. Vague comments of a "" is unhelpful. So that makes your argument moot. When we follow the ], we are keeping the faith with the ]. We will ] with the vision of ''Misplaced Pages''. ] (]) 08:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	Other than this statement, I will ignore Quackguru's silly statements. Eubilides. . . only DDS are strongly identified with filling cavities. . . what does that mean for the dentist wiki and its descriptions of effectiveness?] (]) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	: It means that it would be appropriate for ] to discuss effectiveness and safety of filling cavities and similar treatments. For example, a brief discussion of ] would be entirely appropriate. Currently, ] is in pretty sad shape (it's marked for expert attention) but if it were in good shape I would expect a short discussion of the topic. Mainstream opinion is more skeptical of the effectiveness of chiropractic than it is of the safety and effectiveness of dental care, so it's even more appropriate for ] to discuss effectiveness. ] (]) 18:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	Get a stable version of Effectiveness inserted at Dentistry. . . then we will talk.] (]) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Done. Now we can talk. ] 07:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: That sort of change is a really bad idea. First, it's not right that a dispute about chiropractic, which gives ] as an example, ends up in somewhat-random edits being made to ]. Second, that particular edit is low quality: it cites just a review of one relatively-minor dental treatment (ozone), which hardly constitutes a proper section on effectiveness. Third, it's not a stable edit (and I suspect it will be reverted, though I'm not the right person to do that) and ] itself is not a high-quality article. All in all, please reconsider that change; I suggest you do the right thing and self-revert. ] (]) 07:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	: This discussion is about ], not ]. The fact that ] is weak (and is marked as being weak) does not mean that ] should be weak. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Chiropractic is not weak, and to suggest it is another misrepresentation of the truth. Chiropractic, the article is rated higher than either ] or ] and have far citations to back up claims made. You are being needlessly argumentative, you're essentially arguing with every regular editor here except for QG (no surprise) and a mild endorsement from CynRN who has displayed far greater wikiquette than yourself by making reasonable compromises and making a decent effort to break the impasse. On the other hand, you're simply stonewalling the SOP section and trying to insert (again) allopathic opinions on chiropractic scope of practice. At least you're facilitating my case.
	::: The weakness comment was about ], and was intended to suggest that ] should not mimic a weak article like ] (which would tend to make ] weak). I apologize if the comment was misinterpreted. The comment about "allopathic opinions" is a bit unclear: do you mean asking for the scope-of-care section to mention the dispute over whether chiropractors are primary-care providers? What problem would there be with mentioning an important mainstream opinion on the dispute, in a neutral way? ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: TDII has a good idea for a test. Try inserting an "Efficacy" section at a "mainstream" health profession article such as Dentistry and let's see how it is received. Perhaps on an article which is less controversial than Chiropractic, we can better assess what to do in a situation such as this. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Okay. See ]. ] 07:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: That's already been tried, with ], an article that is far more controversial than ], and it seems to work there. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Stop comparing homeopathy to chiropractic, they're not even in the same ballpark. ] (]) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: It's not just ]. It's also ]. In general, CAM professions like these have (and deserve) a large section on effectiveness. ] currently devotes considerable space to effectiveness too (the Manga report, etc.); it's just that it's done in a biased way, and without an explicit ''Effectiveness'' section. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	There is consensus that the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of chiropractic medicine is of relevance to this article. Any attempt to delete it on the part of editors whose positive-inclinations toward chiropractic medicine are known should be seen for ]. ] (]) 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	: I disagree about such a consensus. I am definitely a chiroskeptic as far as the widespread continued support and promotion of quackery, the common false claims for spinal adjustments, and the tendencies to be anti-medical and anti-science, ''ad libitum'', but I still think that a discussion of the effect of "chiropractic" should be very limited here. It should mostly occur on the ] article, since that is the modality we all can agree is uniquely chiropractic, and which involves numerous controversial claims. It is the sacred cow that is intimately tied to the non-existent ], not to be confused with real, objectively verifiable, orthopedic ]s. Do it there, not here. Keep anything here to a minimum, according to the sources. Keep in mind that very, very, very!! often sources mention "effectiveness" and "chiropractic" in the same breath, when they are obviously referring to the "effectiveness" of chiropractic's use of "spinal adjustments", and aren't referring to some general effectiveness of the whole profession. Try to understand what is written, instead of getting stuck with the actual words. This only takes a bit of common sense. It's an extremely common phenomenon, and smart people shouldn't be so careless as to get caught doing superficial reading of sources that are careless with their wording. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::The ] is shorter than the . The Effectiveness 1 is written according to the sources in a ]. ] (]) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: It isn't much shorter at all really. I think we can do better. We should begin by excluding any research which isn't specifically studying the efficacy of chiropractic techniques as performed by - and only by - chiropractors. Everything else is inapplicable here other than by ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	How can someone come here a declare that there is a consensus when there is obviously none?] (]) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: It's shorter than what is there now, which means we can put it in now (to shorten things), and then improve it later as time permits. It would not be right, though, to exclude research that chiropractors themselves include when reviewing effectiveness of chiropractic care. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::This could be solved by changing the section title to ''Research'' The profession has accumulated enough evidence and research over the last 25 years now that it can stand on it's own. The shift towards evidence-based practices is definitely apparent, one needs to only look at the the quality, depth, breath of clinical practice guidelines which is *by far* the best source for "effectiveness" of '''conditions''' treated by chiropractors. Also, I'd like to know why this is such an issue as mainstream medicine now recommends spinal manipulation in their very own clinical practice guidelines. Isn't that what readers ultimately want to know? What treatments the experts recommend (and for what)?
	:::::ScienceApologist, it would be good for you to acclimatize yourself to the conversation first before making patently false declarations. ] (]) 04:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: I agree with ScienceApologist that readers want to know the strength of the scientific evidence for chiropractic treatment. It was a comment by such a reader that prompted the drafting of ], and that reader liked an earlier draft of ] precisely because it covered a topic of real concern. ] (]) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: While I think that may be a decent assumption you are making, I don't see why the reader wouldn't be opposed to clicking on the corresponding article of each modality used by the core of the chiropractic profession to learn about their relative effectiveness. ] still includes studies which include other professions performing SMT and thus are not appropriate for this article specifically about chiropractic. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: First, readers wouldn't know that clicking on the links would give them the effectiveness information they're looking for. Second, it would be quite inconvenient for readers to keep doing the clicky-clicky even if they knew it would give them the information they're looking for. A summary of effectiveness information here is a far better way to present the information to the average reader. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::Stop assuming what readers can and cannot do and the click argument has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard since this discussion began. Eubulides, you're grasping for straws and your arguments while being completely repetitive and tendentious have grown incredibly weak as late. You also have failed to address, for over 2 weeks, any of the concerns raised by myself, Levine2112, DigitalC, Fyslee and DoctorIsIn. A classic case of ]. ] (]) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: I have answered the comments as best I can. We have several remaining disagreements, true. The click argument is a valid one; we want things to be easy to find on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::While I commend our allopathic editors here for trying to get to the bottom of this, there is a fundamental flaw in their reasoning which is why that a majority of '''regular''' editors rejected the effectiveness proposal outright. The flaw is, chiropractic treatment, is not limited to a single modality, and the effectiveness of a treatment is specific to a given diagnosis. Lastly, research done by MDs, PTs and DOs is being passed off as effectiveness of '''chiropractic''' is a non-starter. We've also omitted the majority important documents in clinical chiropractic history (directly valid) which is somewhat of a problem. ] (]) 19:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Nothing is being passed off; ] clearly states when it's talking about SMT as opposed to chiropractic care. ] can talk about history; ''Effectiveness'' should stick with what's known now. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::"clearly states when it's talking about SMT as opposed to chiropractic care." Thank you for proving our point, i.e. this is better off in SMT article. Also, by passing off 99% of the most thorough evidence-based review of chiropractic care, it completely invalidates the section, in its current form. ] (]) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: A longer discussion of SMT effectiveness would be appropriate for the SMT article, but given the heavy identification of chiropractic care with SMT, a brief summary is appropriate here. Sorry, I don't know what the "passing off 99%" refers to. ] (]) 08:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::I have to agree that a brief summary of 'Effectiveness of SMT' should be inserted. SMT is the 'core procedure' and one of the 'most studied forms of conservative tx for spinal pain'.(Meeker?) Why should the reader have to dig to see a summary of the effectiveness of the treatment with SMT of back pain?CynRN] (]) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Efficacy of SMT belongs in the SMT article. Efficacy of SMT with back pain belongs in the SMT and the ] article. If there are studies specifically about chiropractic care (and not SMT as performed by other professions) then perhaps there is an argument to include that in this article. I feel like we are going in circles here with our argumentation and the net result is that we are not getting anywhere. Meanwhile, I don't see any disagreement that the efficacy of SMT should not be in the SMT article. Perhaps, in the meantime, someone should just take the SMT efficacy material and place it in the SMT article. (And take the efficacy material of the other modalities and place them in their respective modality's article.) Is that a reasonable way to at least take a step forward out of this circular quagmire that we are in? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::There are a lot of old and obsolete studies that have no historical impact. We will be adding the newer studies and then we can delete the older studies. We are essentially removing duplication. See here. --> ]. ] 07:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: It would be reasonable to add effectiveness sections to those other articles too. That'd be a lot of work, though. There are a lot of other articles. I quail at editing them all (just as I would quail at reading them all, if I were a reader interested in the topic of the effectiveness of chiropractic care). If somebody wants to volunteer to do that, though, all power to them. ] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::There is more discussion below. See ]. ] 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	== CfI: Scope of Practice ==
	Chiropractors are considered ] providers who emphasize the conservative management of the neuromusculoskeletal systems without the use of medicines or surgery.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/> The practice of chiropractic medicine involves the restricted acts of ] and ] and involves a range of diagnostic methods including skeletal imaging, observational and tactile assessments, orthopedic and neurological evaluation, laboratory tests, as well as other specialized tests as required.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/><ref name=ccestandards>{{cite web |url=http://cce-usa.org/uploads/File/2007%20January%20STANDARDS.pdf |format=PDF |title= Standards for Doctor of Chiropractic programs and requirements for institutional status |author= ] |date=2007 |accessdate=2008-02-14}}</ref> A chiropractor may also refer a patient to an appropriate specialist, or co-manage with another health care provider.<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/> Common patient management involves:
	*spinal manipulation and/or other manual and/or soft tissue therapies
	*rehabilitative exercises
	*health promotion
	*physiological therapeutic modalities
	*conservative and complementary procedures.
	*health and lifestyle counseling
	<ref>{{cite book|last=Haldeman |first=Scott|coauthors=Chapman-Smith, David, Petersen, Donald, Jr.|title=Guidelines for Chiropractic Quality and Practice Parameters|publisher=Jones and Bartlett|location=Sudbury, MA|pages=111-113|isbn=0-7437-2921-3|url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=MHqo1ngXtkoC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=&source=web&ots=lPUzIAEwfM&sig=2JZUNBxP4KNjwSuz_EvqIP5gzoY&hl=en#PPA111,M1|accessdate=2008-04-16|language=English}}</ref>
	Chiropractors generally cannot write medical (pharmaceutical) prescriptions; however there has been a gradual shift within the profession with a slight majority of North American DCs favouring an expansion of scope of practice to include limited prescription rights.<ref>{{cite book |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M ''et al.'' |date=2003 |title= How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors |location= Ada, OH |publisher= Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University |isbn=0972805559}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Semin Integr Med |date=2004 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=92–8 |title= How chiropractors think and practice: the survey of North American chiropractors |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M |doi=10.1016/j.sigm.2004.07.002 |laydate=2003-06-02 |laysummary=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/21/12/19.html |laysource= Dynamic Chiropractic}}</ref> A notable exception is the state of ] which is considered to have an "expansive" scope of practice of chiropractic, which allows chiropractors with additional qualifications to prescribe over-the-counter drugs. With additional training and certification licensed chiropractors (DCs) and ] (DVMs) can expand their scope of practice and practice ] which includes assessment, diagnosis and treatment of biomechanical disorders of animals that may be amenable to manual therapy. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.veterinarychiropractic.ca/|title=Canadian Animal Chiropractic Certification Program|language=English|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.animalchiropractic.org/animal_chiropractic_certification.htm|title=Animal Veterinary Chiropractic Association|language=English|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref> Chiropractors are also generally permitted to use adjunctive therapeutic modalities such as ] and manipulation under ] with additional training from accredited universities/colleges.
	Currently, chiropractic is a regulated health care profession with licensure requirements in over 50 countries globally although chiropractic medicine is most established in North America, ] as well as a few ]. <ref name="CDC">{{cite web |url=http://www.chiropracticdiplomatic.com/strategies/global_strategy.pdf |title=Chiropractic Global Professional Strategy|author=Tetrault, Michael |publisher=Chiropractic Diplomatic Corps |accessdate=2008-04-18}}</ref> Similar to other primary contact health providers, licensed chiropractors can continue their education and specialize in different areas of chiropractic medicine. The most common post-graduate diplomate programs include ], ], clinical sciences, ] sciences, ] and ] which generally require 2-3 additional years of study following completion of chiropractic school and passing all state, provincial and national board exams to obtain the necessary license to practice chiropractic. <ref name="AHPCred">{{cite book|last=Pybus|first=Beverly, E.|coauthors=Cairns, Carol, S.|others=C|title=A Guide to AHP Credentialing |publisher=hcPro |pages=241-243 |isbn=1-57839-478-3 |accessdate=2008-04-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/ahcpr/chapter3.htm|title=CHIROPRACTIC TRAINING|coauthors=Ian D. Coulter, PhD Alan H. Adams, DC; Ruth Sandefur, DC, PhD|publisher=AHCPR|language=English|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|coauthors=Michael A. Mestan DC, John A.M. Taylor DC, G. Lansing Blackshaw PhD, and J. Clay McDonald JD, DC|date=June 2006|title=Establishing an Accredited Master of Science in Diagnostic Imaging Degree at a Chiropractic College |journal=Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics|volume=29, |issue=5|pages=410-413 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK1-4K4DFWG-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2f2a8802530a8e3ae4d8de4a3feaee80|accessdate=2008-04-16}}</ref>
	Final thoughts? ] (]) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* Sorry, what does "Cfl" mean?
	:* The first sentence contains a serious POV problem, discussed in ], which has not been addressed.
	:* <s>The first two sentences are incoherent; the first says chiropractors have more of the attributes of a specialty, whereas the second says they are primary care providers. This is an important point. The current draft seems to contain leftover text from the POV problem discussed in ]. Let's fix the problem by changing ". Chiropractors are considered ] providers who" to "; they". The alternative approach of removing the first sentence would not fix the POV problem.</s>
	:* The cited sources do not support the <s>3rd</s> 2nd sentence's claim that diagnosis and spinal manipulation are restricted acts. <s>Nor do they use the phrase "chiropractic medicine".</s> On the other hand, they do say that SMT is the primary therapeutic procedure, an important point that should be mentioned. These issues were raised in ] but have not been followed up on. They need to be fixed.
	::*Legal and or peer-reviewed sources will be found to verify that DCs, where regulated, are legally allowed to diagnose and adjust (perform spinal manipulative therapy). ] (]) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* There should be no problem finding such sources. However, that is not what the text currently says. The text currently says that diagnosis and spinal manipulation are restricted acts. Restricted to whom? And in what jurisdictions is it restricted, and where isn't it restricted? The article needs a reliable source on this subject if it is to cover the issue. ] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* The bullet list contains the jargon "physiological therapeutic modalities" that should be rephrased using words that ordinary readers will understand. The Google Books URL should go, as it's not reliable. The bullets themselves are not needed; an inline list should suffice. These topics were discussed in ] but have not been followed up on.
	::*Therapeutic modalities and adjunctive therapies/techniques is another section we shall add. I insist on the bullets for aesthetic purposes, improved readibility and syle. If you would like Scope of Practice in ] not to have bullets then I respect your professional judgment. ] (]) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* There is already a section ] on that subject. The section is very weak, though (most of its text is about history!) and can be greatly improved. ] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* The cited source does not support the claim that there has been a "gradual shift". The shift was from opposition to drugs, but the text doesn't say that. Since it's just one survey, it'd be better to say that, and give its date. There's no need for the (pharmaceutical) and the text should wikilink to ]. There is no need to repeat the phrase "scope of practice" here. T<s>he two citations about surveys are really just the same citation, and should be combined. All these problems would be fixed by the wording proposed in ], which has not been followed up on.</s>
	<s>::*If the term 'shift' is preferred to 'gradual shift' as noted above; then that's fine but no need to mention the survey but should look for another source to help strengthen the claim. Agree it should link to medical prescription, pharmaceutical can go. If you feel the article is better if the citation is combined then so be it.</s> ] (]) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	<s>:::* of the article (just before the edit war) mentioned the survey and its date. It is standard practice when there's just a single survey (as opposed to a review) to give the date and mention that it's just a survey. It took only 4 words in the article "in a 2003 survey" and that's a small price to pay. ] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)</s>
	:* The claim about Oregon is unsourced and requires a source. See ].
	:* The material on veterinary chiropractic is poorly sourced and is not notable. It'd be OK to mention it in one phrase, but it's way overkill to go on and on about it. This was discussed in ].
	:* The claim about acupuncture and MUA is unsourced and its "generally permitted" is misleading. See ].
	::I suggest you take a look at ] for notability purposes. If anything, we will be adding more due to the fact its virtually mainstream (according to the AVMA), it provides a new method of assessment, treatment and diagnosis (according to DVMs), the fact the only legal providers of animal/veterinary chiropractor are licensed DCs and DVMsinterprofessional collaboration between chiropractors and veterinarians, amazingly practical and good research by DCs, DVMs, PhDs, DVM/DC/PhD (it's true!). We can add a qualifying statement if you wish for acupuncture (in the Scope of 60% and rising in the US alone...) and we can get better sources on MUA. I do know its use is increasing too and it's DCs and MDs ''collaborating''.
	::* Veterinary chiropractic is notable at the level of the ] article. It's not notable here to be worth spending 40 words and two citations on. That's more than the 18 words ] currently expends on explaining spinal manipulation ("involves directed thrust to move a joint past its physiological range of motion without exceeding the anatomical limit" is all it says)! A brief wikilinked phrase ("]") should suffice. The topic is controversial, as the of the ] ] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* The claim about "50 countries" disagrees with the cited source, which says there are only 3 countries with a fully established profession. See ].
	::* Surely you don't suggest that there are '''far''' more than 3 countries where the profession is regulated and/or that have accredited schools of chiropractic medicine? If you would like a list of the "chiropractic top 10" we can do that as well, but I would insist, again, on bullets. ] (]) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* The text should accurately reflect the source. Currently it does not. This must be fixed. I am not objecting to the source, just the draft's incorrect characterization of what the source says. It would not be appropriate to list the "20 or so" countries where "there is yet much to be done before the profession can claim to be fully established"; for one thing, the "20 or so" means the list isn't precise. ] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* The section on specialties contains way too many words. A first cut at fixing this is in ].
	::* The wording is appropriate given the weight, notability and verifiability of the subject. ] (]) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* The wording contains much duplication, which can be improved regardless of the notability of the subsection. ] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* The quality of sources can be improved, as suggested in ].
	Overall, almost none of the comments made in ] have been addressed; even most of the undisputed comments remain unaddressed. Most important, the draft takes a particular POV on the scope-of-practice controversy described in ]; it should cover the controversy neutrally. ] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::*The quality of the sources are not in dispute nor necessarily is the content (until closer examination) what is disputed is the appropriateness of inserting opinion and making comment on legal matters. It's a precedent that it would set across all article's This is kinda like cherry picking the sources to support or refute a given POV and an example of malfeasant source mining. Let's go with ] here that my intent, the tone, the notability and factuality have been adequately captured of the profession, in a global POV. ] (]) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* The quality of sources are indeed in dispute. That is what "The quality of sources can be improved" means. It is not "cherry-picking" to supply higher-quality sources and ask that the text reflect their contents. ] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::The sources suggested will be used for the criticisms and controversy section. Please do not take advantage of my good faith here. Criticisms and controversies must be NPOV and carry the right weight. Perhaps you can make a list of the controversies and then we can collect citations. ] (]) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::: It would not be right for ] to take one side of the controversy, and to banish alternative viewpoints to a new ''Controversy'' section. That would give the ''Scope of practice'' reader the mistaken impression that there's a unified mainstream opinion about scope of practice, and that this opinion is that chiropractors are and should be primary contact providers for neuromusculoskeletal conditions. The topic is not so cut-and-dried, with debate both within and without chiropractic, and the various viewpoints should be mentioned when this topic comes up in ]. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The first sentence was struck out. CynRN suggested primary contact. That is fair. Scope of practice is a legal right; editorial comments from allopaths can be placed in another section, perhaps medical opposition. Ironically enough, the proposed edits in question further support the conclusions by Theberge (2008) which orthodox medicine continuously tries to marginalize chiropractic. This is in action here. There was no "opposition" to drugs as implied; I know, I'm a DC. They were not favoured. There is a difference. The bullets stay; it improves readability and you even suggested it. More nitpicking. 50 countries is accurately according to the WFC, moreso the article goes out of its way to say it's primarily established in a in a CONTINENT (North America) as well as Australia and selected Euro counties. This is factual and it stays. Chiropractic medicine as a phrase is routinely used in both the literature and routinely in public. It stays as well; more stalling over trivial stuff noted though. The specialties is fine as is, in fact you are the only editor who has disputed any of the aforementioned. Time to cut bait, Eubulides. DigitalC provided a source for Oregon. The act of communicating a diagnosis and utilizing spinal manipulation are not within the public domain (i.e. anyone can do them) unlike say, exercise-prescription or soft tissue therapy. This is common knowledge. You are being extremely tendentious with this section and everyone involved has tried to appease you in some form. So, please bring better arguments because the regular editors have already addressed these concerns. Thanks. ] (]) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::* Sorry (again); what does "Cfl" mean?
	::* A Misplaced Pages article cannot cite an editor's expertise. It must cite reliable sources. "I know, I'm a DC" does not suffice.
	::* It is not common knowledge that "The act of communicating a diagnosis and utilizing spinal manipulation are not within the public domain". (Walk up to the average person on the street and say that sentence, and see what happens....)
	::* Not that this should matter, but the main source I suggested (MH2002<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/>) is by DCs. It is not "editorial comment by allopaths". And (again) it is more reliable than the sources given above.
	::* I did not suggest these bullets.
	::* The cited source does not say 50 countries; it says 3 for fully established profession, and 20 where much work needs to be done. Again, claims must be sourced; this claim ''disagrees'' with its source.
	<s>::* I will concede the "chiropractic medicine" point, though I still prefer using the terminology of the source.</s>
	::* There is no source for Oregon in the text. If one gets added, that would remove that objection.
	::* There is a serious POV issue about scope of practice, which has not been addressed.
	::* Several other minor points remain unaddressed in the list above. I have struck out the addressed points.
	::* No other editor has addressed the concerns mentioned above.
	:] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::CfI=candidate for insertion. So, to be clear, you want me to track down a reference that supports that DCs can diagnose and manipulate? This would be a legal document, as it is a legal matter. I know the Meeker is a DC and Haldeman a dual registrant. Their paper could easily go in medical opposition or a controversy section that I'm pondering of writing up but fear will be abused and gamed by a certain few editors thereby resulting is severe WP:WEIGHT or POV issues. It's a question of trust; I would be inclined to nominate CynRN to objectively oversee my writing of that section to make sure that it's adequate and represents orthodox concerns but doesn't come off as a condemnation hit piece. Controversial elements of safety and vaccination could be rolled into there as well. I shall provide the WFC document which lists 60 countries where there is some kind of regulation and perhaps include a blurb about it being practiced in an additional 40 with no formal regulation as of yet although that's probably not relevant to scope of practice necessarily but could be used in a practice demographics section I've working on offline. Thank you for the concession on chiropractic medicine. If DigitalC could supply the Oregon ref that would be helpful, I think it got carted away in the archive. How do you propose we resolve the purported serious POV issue? I argue that SOP should reflect the legal common scope of practice whereas you'd like to include some lit regarding some discussion re: scope of practice which I feel belongs in a separate section, even below scope if you'd like. Unfortunately I'm rather tied up this weekend and won't be able to contribute much and a breather would probably be OK anyways. I hope to chip away at these concerns; and if we achieve a consensus version, we can always ask an admin to add that section whilst keeping the article locked until we have resolved the other sections that need rewrites (education, safety, research (aka effectiveness) contemporary (to contrast with history), practice styles/schools of thought, etc. If we can continue what seems to be a slight thawing of relations here, it should bode well for the article. Please to realize that I don't want chiropractic to read as a promo piece, but I don't want it to read as a controversial allopathic criticism piece either. If it would be OK, I propose that I take a bit of the lead and draft some proposals and your discerning eye can pick apart the MAJOR content disputes and we can iron out the details in the future. Thoughts? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::*Yes, please track down a reference. I suspect there's no single legal document, as each state/province has its own legal definition. The ideal reference, if one exists, would be a reliable summary of the legal statuses in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, along with the other countries with less-well-developed, all published in high quality a peer-reviewed journal. Most likely there won't be anything matching that ideal, but let's see what can be found. I suspect that it will be appropriate to briefly cite MH2002 on this, as it is a high-quality source of what the status is in practice (as opposed to what it is in law), but again, let's see what other sources say. Haldeman is a DC/MD yes, but he's the lead editor of a leading textbook on chiropractic, and is a source friendly to chiropractic.
	::::*The Oregon reference and the other asked-for references (WFC? it's not clear to me what they would be) also need to be tracked down and checked against the text.
	::::*The evidence-based section (''Scientific investigation'', which by the way I wouldn't mind retitling to ''Evidence-based medicine'' or ''Evidence-based health care'') should focus on evidence, not controversy. To some extent it's impossible to ignore the controversy entirely, of course, but it would not do to put all controversial material off into a ''Controversy'' section, because then almost all of ] would go into the ''Controversy'' section. Instead, the controversy section should be reserved for political issues (AMA opposition, etc), leaving the technical issues (effectiveness, etc) for the technical sections.
	::::*Similarly, a brief mention (one sentence, say) of the various possibilities for scope of practice should be mentioned in the scope of practice section, reserving any heavy-duty political stuff for the controversy section. Perhaps the legal review source will have this, or perhaps we can just use MH2002.
	::::*I like your proposal for taking time to chip away at the various sections that are needed. There is no rush. I suggest doing one section at a time rather than trying to do them all at once. I do ask for progress on drafting ''Effectiveness'' first, as it was proposed a while ago (April 1) and it attempts to fix a serious POV problem in the existing text. As you know, my concerns are high-quality supporting citations (even for stuff that is obvious to practitioners), along with a careful (that is, neither dismissive nor subservient) coverage of skeptical sources.
	::::Thanks, and good luck. ] (]) 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::There are still POV problems with this Scope of practice. The problems may seem trivial but they are still problems. When it is up to Misplaced Pages's standard it can be restored. Until then, it is a no go. I want to see the Scope of practice section in the article as soon as the POV issues are fixed. ] 02:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::This recent added unsourced material to the article. ] 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Another added unsourced material to the article. ] 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::You are calling the scope of practice section unsourced? ] (]) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, he is saying that both changes added unsourced material. And that is correct: both changes added material with "citation needed" fact tags, indicating that the added material has verifiability issues. It reasonable to ask that material be properly sourced before it goes in. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	== RfC: Effectiveness of chiropractic care ==
	{{RFCsci| section=RfC: Effectiveness of chiropractic care !! reason=Is the discussion of effectiveness biased, and if so, what should it be replaced with? !! time= 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC) }}
	Is ]'s discussion of effectiveness biased, and if so, what should it be replaced with?
	=== Claim of bias and proposal for fix ===
	This subsection addresses a serious POV problem with the of ], namely, heavy bias in its discussion of the effectiveness of chiropractic care. Much of the problem has been discussed extensively on this talk page for weeks, so far with no consensus. This subsection is an attempt to gather the issues together in one spot and propose a solution. This is a controversial issue that may require some work to resolve; please bear with the following exposition as it covers many issues. ] (]) 08:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	''To help other editors follow this discussion better, please place comments ], after the the proposal.''
	==== POV in existing coverage ====
	There is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of chiropractic care, and ] should present the evidence fairly without giving ] to minority views. Unfortunately ] currently falls seriously short of this goal. Here is a summary of POV problems in ]'s treatment of effectiveness:
	* ] gives a ] to the Manga report, a 1993 effectiveness paper highly favorable to chiropractic that was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. ] does not mention the widespread peer-reviewed criticism of the Manga report (for example, "The Manga report was not a controlled clinical trial but a review of the literature that offered an opinion that has not been experimentally established." in Grod ''et al.'' 2001, PMID 11677551). In any event, the Manga report was long ago superseded by higher-quality work and is not now a reliable source for effectiveness.
	* ] gives a ] to worker's compensation studies that, like the Manga report, are old, disputed, and strongly pro-chiropractic. Contrary evidence is widely available in peer-reviewed journals, e.g., Hess & Mootz 1999 (PMID 10395430), , but ] does not mention it. Again, this material is obsolescent and low quality by today's standards, and is not now a reliable source.
	* ] gives two sections (] and ]) that mention old endorsements about effectiveness and referrals. This material might be worth putting into the ] subpage here, but it is way too much detail here, and it gives the mistaken impression that the old AMA statement reflects the best current science on effectiveness.
	* ] repeats material from ] that (aside from being redundant) has little to do with scientific investigation: it approvingly describes some antiscientific components of chiropractic philosophy, which is POV. The section's second paragraph is highly dated (it talks about grant funding in 1994 and 1995, which again is material suitable for ] but not here) and talks with almost entirely approving note about chiropractic research (again, POV coverage of a controversial subject). The section's third paragraph is entirely unsourced; that is not POV in itself, but it is a worrisome sign.
	In short, ]'s coverage of effectiveness (a core topic) is currently weak and is heavily biased in favor of chiropractic. ] (]) 08:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	''(Again, please place further comments ].)''
	==== Criticisms of earlier proposed fix ====
	To help fix this I proposed ], a draft section on effectiveness that relies on recent high-quality scientific sources, along with a proposal to remove the obsolescent material. This draft has been discussed extensively in ] and ], so far with no consensus. To help move matters forward I have drafted a new section below, ], which attempts to respond to some (but not all) the concerns expressed about ]. These concerns (''italicized'' below) included the following:
	* ''Ernst is biased.'' (] is a prominent critic of chiropractic, cited by ].) However, all the sources for ] are biased to some extent. This includes Ernst (an MD/PhD/]/FRCPEd who is critical of chiropractic) along with (say) Cheryl Hawk (a ]/PhD who is supportive). Misplaced Pages should not omit critics of chiropractic, any more than it should omit supporters. Ernst's work is well known and widely cited; for example, Google Scholar lists Ernst as one of the five key authors for the search "chiropractic effectiveness". The work of critics like Ernst should be summarized fairly and with due weight.
	* ''The draft cites Ernst too often.'' To help address this problem, ] cites Ernst just twice.
	* ''The draft is too long.'' It's shorter than what is in there now. By my count the entire proposed change, including removal of obsolescent material, would replace 928 words of text with 621 words, a 33% savings.
	* ''Chiropractic is a profession, not a treatment, so this material should be moved to articles about each particular treatment.''
	**This objection has not been raised against longstanding effectiveness-related text in the current article (] through ]), text which is heavily biased in favor of chiropractic. Why raise the objection now that a much-better-sourced and much-less-biased alternative has become available?
	**The effectiveness of chiropractic care is a core question of controversy in chiropractic, and should be summarized in ] even if the details are so voluminous that they need to be in a subpage.
	**The effectiveness question is already raised in ], for example, which discusses allegations that chiropractic is "an unscientific cult". The answer to this charge should be addressed in ], not in some subpage.
	**There is a reader-expressed need for coverage of effectiveness here. ] is derived from material written in response to a reader request for effectiveness, and the reader approved of an earlier draft.
	* ''Other articles (], for example), don't have effectiveness sections.'' Effectiveness is a core issue in ] because of the profession's controversial history. The fallout from that history is still with us, so the topic needs coverage in ] far more than in ]. The text of ] is considerably shorter than (for example) ], ], and ], so the size of ] is not at all out of line for this sort of ] article. Again, ] has had substantial material about effectiveness for quite some time, so why raise this criticism now?
	* ''The draft includes research on spinal manipulation performed by non-chiropractors, which is not relevant.'' It is standard practice include such research in high-quality reviews and practice guidelines, written by and for chiropractors (for example, ; or Bronfort ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18164469). We should not use a more-selective research standard than the published experts in the field; instead, we should defer to the experts' judgment. To help assuage concerns on this point, the revised draft (in ] below discusses the issue, citing Villanueva-Russell 2005 (PMID 15550303).
	* ''The draft should emphasize sources written by chiropractic researchers, as they are the experts on chiropractic.'' Misplaced Pages should give the most-detailed coverage to reliable mainstream scientific and medical views on effectiveness of chiropractic care, while of course also fairly representing minority viewpoints. This is as per the usual ] policy.
	] (]) 08:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	''(Again, please place further comments ].)''
	==== Revised proposal for fix ====
	The revised proposed fix is to replace the sections ] through ] with the following text (between the horizontal lines), and to change ] from a section (with two "=="s) to a subsection (with three "==="s), so that it becomes a subsection of the new ] section. Please see for details.
	''(Again, please place further comments ].)''
	----
	==== Scientific investigation 2 ====
	The principles of ] have been used to review research studies and generate practice guidelines outlining professional standards that specify which chiropractic treatments are legitimate and perhaps reimbursable under ].<ref name=Villanueva-Russell/> This work has focused on ] therapy (SMT) independently from the underlying philosophy of chiropractic, with little consensus as to who should administer the SMT, raising concerns by chiropractors that orthodox medical physicians could "steal" SMT procedures from chiropractors; the focus on SMT has also raised concerns that the resulting practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks.<ref name=Villanueva-Russell>{{cite journal |journal= Soc Sci Med |date=2005 |volume=60 |issue=3 |pages=545–61 |title= Evidence-based medicine and its implications for the profession of chiropractic |author= Villanueva-Russell Y |doi=10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.05.017 |pmid=15550303}}</ref>
	===== Effectiveness 2 =====
	The ] of chiropractic treatment depends on the medical condition and the type of chiropractic treatment. Like many other medical procedures, chiropractic treatment has not been rigorously proven to be effective.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Clin Orthop Relat Res |date=2006 |volume=444 |pages=243–9 |title= History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint |author= DeVocht JW |doi=10.1097/01.blo.0000203460.89887.8d |pmid=16523145}}</ref> Chiropractic care, like all medical treatment, benefits from the ],<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2002 |volume=136 |issue=11 |pages=817–25 |title= The placebo effect in alternative medicine: can the performance of a healing ritual have clinical significance? |author= Kaptchuk TJ |pmid=12044130 |url=http://annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/11/817.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref> and it is hard to construct a trustworthy placebo for clinical trials of SMT, as experts often disagree whether a proposed placebo actually has no effect.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Aust J Physiother |date=2006 |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=135–8 |title= Selecting an appropriate placebo for a trial of spinal manipulative therapy |author= Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, McAuley JH |pmid=16764551 |url=http://www.physiotherapy.asn.au/AJP/52-2/AustJPhysiotherv52i2Hancock.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref> Many controlled clinical studies of SMT are available, but their results disagree,<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J R Soc Med |date=2006 |volume=99 |issue=4 |pages=192–6 |title= A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation |author= Ernst E, Canter PH |doi=10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192 |pmid=16574972 |url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192}}</ref> and they are typically of low quality.<ref name=Hawk/><ref>
	Quality of SMT studies:
	*{{cite journal |journal= J Orthop Sports Phys Ther |date=2006 |volume=36 |issue=3 |pages=160–9 |title= Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation and mobilization in tension-type headache, migraine, and cervicogenic headache |author= Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, San-Roman J, Miangolarra-Page JC |pmid=16596892}}
	*{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue=8 |pages=914–8 |title= The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review |author= Johnston BC, da Costa BR, Devereaux PJ, Akl EA, Busse JW; Expertise-Based RCT Working Group |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b4be4 |pmid=18404113}}
	</ref>Although a 2008 critical review found that with the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic SMT has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition, and suggested that many guidelines recommend chiropractic care for low back pain because no therapy has been shown to make a real difference,<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Pain Symptom Manage |date=2008 |volume=35 |issue=5 |pages=544–62 |title= Chiropractic: a critical evaluation |author= Ernst E |doi=10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004 |pmid=18280103}}</ref> a 2008 supportive review found serious flaws in the critical approach, and found that SMT and ] are at least as effective for chronic low back pain as other efficacious and commonly used treatments.<ref name=Bronfort-2008/>
	Available evidence covers the following conditions:
	* ''']'''. Opinions differ on the efficacy of SMT for nonspecific or uncomplicated low back pain.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2006 |volume=29 |issue=7 |pages=576–81, 581.e1–2 |title= Inconsistent grading of evidence across countries: a review of low back pain guidelines |author= Murphy AY, van Teijlingen ER, Gobbi MO |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.07.005 |pmid=16949948}}</ref> An authoritative 2004 review found that SMT or mobilization is no more or less effective than other interventions.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2004 |issue=1 |pages=CD000447 |title= Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain |author= Assendelft WJJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000447.pub2 |pmid=14973958}}</ref> A 2008 review found strong evidence that SMT is similar in effect to medical care with exercise, and moderate evidence that SMT is similar to ] and other forms of conventional care.<ref name=Bronfort-2008>{{cite journal |journal= Spine J |date=2008 |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=213–25 |title= Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization |author= Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans R, Kawchuk G, Dagenais S |doi=10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.023 |pmid=18164469}}</ref>
	* '''] and other ]'''. There is no overall consensus on manual therapies for neck pain.<ref name=Vernon>{{cite journal |journal= Eura Medicophys |date=2007 |volume=43 |issue=1 |pages=91–118 |title= Manual therapy for neck pain: an overview of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews |author= Vernon H, Humphreys BK |pmid=17369783 |url=http://www.minervamedica.it/pdf/R33Y2007/R33Y2007N01A0091.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref> An authoritative 2004 review found that SMT/mobilization is effective only when combined with other interventions such as exercise.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2004 |issue=1 |pages=CD004249 |title= Manipulation and mobilisation for mechanical neck disorders |author= Gross AR, Hoving JL, Haines TA ''et al.'' |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004249.pub2 |pmid=14974063}}</ref> A 2008 review found that educational videos, mobilization, and exercises appear more beneficial for whiplash than alternatives; that SMT, mobilization, supervised exercise, ] and perhaps ] are more effective for non-whiplash neck pain than alternatives but none of these treatments is clearly superior; and that there is no evidence that any intervention improves ].<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S123–52 |title= Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders |author= Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181644b1d |pmid=18204386}}</ref> A 2007 review found that SMT and mobilization are effective for neck pain.<ref name=Vernon/>
	* ''']'''. An authoritative 2004 review found that SMT may be effective for migraine and tension headache, and SMT and neck exercises may be effective for cervicogenic headache.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2004 |issue=3 |pages=CD001878 |title= Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache |author= Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M ''et al.'' |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001878.pub2 |pmid=15266458}}</ref> A 2006 review found no rigorous evidence supporting SMT or other manual therapies for ].<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Clin J Pain |date=2006 |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=278–85 |title= Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review |author= Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA |doi=10.1097/01.ajp.0000173017.64741.86 |pmid=16514329}}</ref>
	* '''Other'''. There is a small amount of research into the efficacy of chiropractic treatment for ]s,<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2008 |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=146–59 |title= Chiropractic treatment of upper extremity conditions: a systematic review |author= McHardy A, Hoskins W, Pollard H, Onley R, Windsham R |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.12.004 |pmid=18328941}}</ref> and a lack of higher-quality publications supporting chiropractic management of ] conditions.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2006 |volume=29 |issue=8 |pages=658–71 |title= Chiropractic treatment of lower extremity conditions: a literature review |author= Hoskins W, McHardy A, Pollard H, Windsham R, Onley R |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.08.004 |pmid=17045100}}</ref> There is very weak evidence for chiropractic care for adult ] (curved or rotated spine)<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2007 |volume=32 |issue= 19 Suppl |pages=S130–4 |title= A systematic literature review of nonsurgical treatment in adult scoliosis |author= Everett CR, Patel RK |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e318134ea88 |pmid=17728680}}</ref> and no scientific data for ] adolescent scoliosis.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Scoliosis |date=2008 |volume=3 |pages=2 |title= Manual therapy as a conservative treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review |author= Romano M, Negrini S |doi=10.1186/1748-7161-3-2 |pmid=18211702 |url=http://scoliosisjournal.com/content/3/1/2}}</ref> A 2007 systematic review found that the entire clinical encounter of chiropractic care (as opposed to just SMT) provides benefit to patients with ], cervicogenic dizziness, and ], and that the evidence from reviews is negative, or too weak to draw conclusions, for a wide variety of other nonmusculoskeletal conditions, including ]/], ]s, and ] conditions.<ref name=Hawk>{{cite journal |journal= J Altern Complement Med |date=2007 |volume=13 |issue=5 |pages=491–512 |title= Chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review with implications for whole systems research |author= Hawk C, Khorsan R, Lisi AJ, Ferrance RJ, Evans MW |doi=10.1089/acm.2007.7088 |pmid=17604553}}</ref> Other reviews have found no evidence of benefit for baby colic,<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Paediatr Nurs |date=2007 |volume=19 |issue=8 |pages=26 |title= Effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for infantile colic |author= Kingston H |pmid=17970361}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2005 |issue=2 |pages=CD005230 |title= Complementary and miscellaneous interventions for nocturnal enuresis in children |author= Glazener CM, Evans JH, Cheuk DK |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD005230 |pmid=15846744}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Curr Pharm Des |date=2006 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=47–57 |title= Complementary and alternative medical therapies in fibromyalgia |author= Sarac AJ, Gur A |pmid=16454724}}</ref> or ].<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2006 |issue=3 |pages=CD002119 |title= Spinal manipulation for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea |author= Proctor ML, Hing W, Johnson TC, Murphy PA |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD002119.pub3 |pmid=16855988}}</ref>
	----
	''(End of proposed replacement text.)''
	''(Please place further comments ].)''
	=== Comments on claim of bias and proposal for fix ===
	''(Please put comments here.)''
	*Thank you for starting the RfC Eubulides, there was no consensus to proceed and this was the best step forward. However, in my opinion, Effectivenes 2 suffers the same problems that were raised with Effectiveness 1. That is, undue weight is given to SMT. SMT and Chiropractic are not the same. Effectiveness of a particular procedure belongs on the article for that procedure. Chiropractic care consists of much more than SMT. For example, from the ] article, trigger point therapy is used in 45% of patients; Electrical stimulation is used in 46% of patients; Ultrasound is used in 30% of patients. None of these therapies are mentioned in effectivess 2. The problem with addressing the question of "What is the effectiveness of Chiropractic" is that it is too broad. Chiropractic is a profession, and not a treatment modality. As such, the question should be "What is the effectiveness of TREATMENT X". However, even that is too broad. We need to know what condition we are determining the effectiveness of the treatment for - for example, Therapeutic ultrasound may be effective in treating plantar fasciitis, but not in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc disease. So, the question must be "What is the effectiveness of TREATMENT X for condition Y". Effectiveness 2 spends the majority of the time talking about SMT (a treatment procedure that is performed by Physical Therapists, Osteopathic Doctors, Naturopathic Doctors, and some Medical Doctors), without giving due ] to other treatment modalities. The entire clinical encounter of a Chiropractic visit is more than just SMT, and therefore unless there are enough sources that discuss the effectiveness of CHIROPRACTIC, then the effectiveness of SMT belongs on the article for SMT.] (]) 09:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Interesting, but I think that there is very good cause to discuss the effectiveness of principal treatments. Certainly these should not go into great depths (expect in their individual articles). But a sentence or two on what evidence there is, or lack therof, would not go amiss, especially if they are primarily associated with the proffession. ] (]) 09:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree, there is good cause to discuss the effectiveness of treatments. However, that belongs on the page for the treatment (whatever treatment modality that may be).] (]) 11:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::I argue for nothing more than a sentence or two giving the positive and/or negative reviews for a few of the major treatments. There's no reason why even the briefest of discussions have to be entirely banished to the specialised articles. ] (]) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: DigitalC has summed up my thoughts perfectly, so no need to repeat them. Suffice it to say that the research we include in this article about chiropractic should be research specifically about chiropractic and not research about DOs and PTs performing SMT which we can only apply to chiropractic by means of a ]/] violation. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::As far as I see it, there are 2 main issues. 1) the validity of PT, MD, DO research on SMT to determine the effectiveness of '''chiropractic care''' and b) the omission of expert, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines findings (such as the CCCGPP, for example). I myself have no objection to having a quick discussion of effectiveness of x treatment for y condition, as per DigitalC's recommendations and CynRNs suggestion. ] (]) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: The above remarks essentially repeat comments in ]. ] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Exactly, criticisms and concerns that YOU have not addressed since YOU insist in being the primary author of the science of chiropractic. Perhaps if chiropractors would be allowed to include research about chiropractic science and the development of chiropractic research things would flow better, no?
	::::: These comments are addressed in ]. I have never insisted on being the primary author. ] contains extensive references to research reviews written by chiropractors. ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Agreed that that information is dated, could be pared and moved to history. I don't think that was really ever the issue; and as far as I can remember no one disputed that the info was dated. For example, that info was already moved to History without any peep from any regular editor here. ] (]) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: Clearly it (coverage of the Manga report etc.) should be pruned back severely. The current suggestion is to simply remove it. However, it addresses an important issue (namely effectiveness), which should be covered. ] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::There is absolutely no reason why Manga, which even Jefffire acknowledged read neutral needs to be pruned from 4 lines. It's already been moved to history. What's next, suggesting to remove Manga altogether? ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Yes, the current proposal is to remove Manga altogether. The Manga report is not neutral, and the coverage of it in ] is heavily biased. This is discussed in ]. I would not object to replacing it with neutral coverage, but that would be more work. The simplest thing is to remove it. That obsolete report is not that relevant now anyway. ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* No one had ever suggested of omitting Ernst. How an MD/PhD can be '''more''' "expert" in chiropractic effectiveness than a DC/PhD is beyond me, and the effectiveness, along with safety has omitted key papers that soundly refute Ernst. I am not proposing to delete Ernst, I am proposing to include strong DC/PhD papers. This is a reasonable suggestion, no?
	:::* for ] was to remove the sentence supported by Ernst 2008. Clearly there is some sentiment to omit Ernst's criticisms; but we can't really do that and remain NPOV.
	::::Ernst represents the fringe of mainstream medicine, first and foremost. It is up to you to provide proof that he represents mainstream opinion on the subject, because mainstream medicine has pretty much acknowledged that a)chiropractic medicine is mainstream and b)chiropractic manipulation is safe. Ernst, IMO is a garbage POV pusher who blantantly mispresents large segments of the profession in an attempt to marginalize the profession. Looking at all CAM articles, it seems the good professor has a disproportionate amount of say. Good thing that his "conclusions" have been rebuked. We shall include this to remain NPOV. ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Ernst is a mainstream medical researcher. I just typed the query "effective of chiropractic" into Google Scholar, and it responded with a page that contained "Key authors: E Ernst - W Assendelft - E Skargren - L Bouter - D Cherkin". He's first on the list. He's been a coauthor with Assendelft. It is true that he is critical of chiropractic, but he is a mainstream researcher and his work gets cited a lot. In no way is Ernst a "fringe" researcher. ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* ] already follows the suggestion of including strong DC/PhD papers. For example, it immediately follows the Ernst-2008 sentence with a sentence citing a strong DC/PhD paper that "found serious flaws" with Ernst's approach, and which gives that paper's conclusions as the final word in that paragraph. This is being pretty hard on Ernst already; it verges on being unfair to him. And this is not the only strong DC/PhD paper mentioned; there are lots of others, many more than there are citations to Ernst. I don't offhand see how the text could be any harder on Ernst without becoming POV.
	:::] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::When we are discussing the science of chiropractic, naturally DC/PhDs and those engaged in high quality research get highlited. It just happens that most, if not all disagree with Ernst. ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Ernst gets highlighted. The other guys get highlighted too. Both sides deserve coverage. Ernst should not be ignored. ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*length is irrelevant to me so long as it covers all the salient points, provides proper context and is written in NPOV and has neutral tone. ] (]) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::* Yes, I agree. I have tried hard to keep ] short, while satisfying those other constraints. It is not an easy task. ] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: And I appreciate your efforts. There is some good research done here, definitely, but there are major topic omissions if we're going to do this section properly. I shall attempt a rewrite over the weekend which we can pick apart vociferously next week. ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Thank you. ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	It seems to me obvious that medical doctors are the most authoritative source on medical matters. They killed smallpox after all. One would not consider a homeopath an authoritative source on the effectiveness of his speciality, or a Ted Haggard on the age of the Earth.
	:::::Or to put it another way; there is no such thing as an authority on something that does not exist--] (]) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't for a second doubt the authoritativeness of MDs on medical matters. But, the research has shown that MDs routinely a) do poorly at MSK medicine and b) DCs perform superiorly to MDs in MSK medicine; which is not surprising since it is their core focus. Which brings us to the argument at hand. Who is the authoratitive source on chiropratic matters? Traditionally, prior to the establishment of a literature base, it was MDs by default who at least had scientific research. That is no longer the case. The profession, really since 1983, or 25 years (who's counting?) has seen it's literature base grow to the point where we no longer need to rely on "medical" research from MDs to define the profession.
	DC/PhDs, or chiropractic scientists are very real, have been integrated in various aspects in mainstream health care and research agencies, etc. So, let's cut to the chase. Why is Haldeman et al and Cassidy et al. (who are the experts in manipulation and stroke) not be given equal weight (at the very least) to Ernst? This argument is important to resolve because the same tactics have been applied to vaccination and now effectiveness. That is, treating Chiropractic as WP:FRINGE. Let's get to the bottom of this and then everything else will proceed a lot smoother. Thoughts? ] (]) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: Cassidy ''et al.'' (PMID 18204390) is about safety, not effectiveness; it's irrelevant here. Haldeman ''et al.'' (PMID 18204400) says nothing about effectiveness that is not already reported in ] (it cites the underlying review that Haldeman ''et al.'' cite). ] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: ]. Please read my statement above and address my concerns; they're the same one in effectiveness, safety and vaccination. ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I started a new thread (] below) to address those concerns. ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	] (]) 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* Perhaps one should mindful that the "effectiveness" controversy is kinda overblown and dated based on the various endorsements of SMT from mainstream practitioners. For example, SMT is now part of the American Physicians clinical practice guidelines for low back pain. So, I'm a bit confused how come the editor is citing a "effectiveness" controversy when an '''expert panel''' has recommended SMT as an effective, conservative approach to NMS problems and spinal issues specifically. ] (]) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Nah, not really, there was one bypasser (DelvinKelvin) who want some clarification, but other than that it's been moreso hardcore skeptics and orthodox practitioners. It should be noted than no other health care profession has an effectiveness section; and the orthodox practitioners here are treating chiropractic care like ] when it's practically mainstream for all intents and purposes. Even the literature (orthodox sources to boot) say this. This is a fundamental flaw in the approach of certain editors here; treating ] more like homeopathy rather than ], ] or even ]. ] (]) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* Almost all of the comments on this talk page are by editors, but editors are not the best sources for what readers need, because editors know too much. It is quite valuable when a reader stops by and makes a helpful comment as to material that may be obvious to editors but is not obvious to the typical reader.
	::::An admin once said "If you struggled with passing calculus, don't go mucking about with the ] article." That seems to be occuring here, to a large extent. You have not addressed my fringe concerns. Please do so. ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Chiropractic is closer to ] or to ] than it is to ]. Like chiropractic (and unlike homeopathy), acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine have plausible scientific mechanisms. I would not call acupuncture fringe medicine, any more than I would call chiropractic fringe medicine. That being said, all three professions have serious questions about effectiveness, questions that need to be addressed in their respective articles. ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* Other health care professions have effectiveness sections, as noted in ]. One example is ].
	:::* ] should not be treated just like ] (it is not nearly as fringe as homeopathy is) but it does have aspects that require careful coverage. A closer (albeit still imperfect) analogy would be ].
	:::] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Acupuncture is a modality. Chiropractic is a profession. The comparison ends there unless you can point to me that acupuncturists are licensed and regulated in all 50 states and are indeed a profession. ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Acupuncture is also a profession. It is one of the four largest CAM professions in the U.S. (the others are chiropractic, massage therapy, and naturopathy; my source is Cherkin ''et al.' 2002, PMID 12463292). ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::It should go then, if that would solve issues. ] (]) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:*Vehemently disagree on 2 fronts. 1) It still treats chiropractic as ] when it's clearly not, 2)given allopathic views greater weight even within Chiropractic's own article which is a separate, distinct and autonomous branch of health care and 3)is used as a tactic to subvert the inclusion of research by DC/PhDs on chiropractic in chiropractic's own article! ] (]) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Effectiveness 2 is scholarly and comprehensive. It addresses the fact that SMT is not the only treatment modality, but is an important one; as well as acknowledging the fact that other professions practice it. The 'total patient encounter' is also discussed. I agree that Manga and the worker's comp stuff must be taken out for the reasons given.Perhaps some stuff from CCCGPP can be worked in? I hope we can agree on the new Effectiveness, but I'm not optimistic!CynRN] (]) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::When commenting, please don't insert comments into a draft. Copy a phrase and take it down here to comment on it. Chopping up a draft with commments makes things very confusing.CynRN <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::I think I did that and I apologize. Effectiveness 2 is a step in the right direction, if can narrow the focus to the big 3, (back pain, neck pain, HA) that would be helpful. I'm going to include and track down clinical practice guidelines recommendations; after all that is directly related to practice. ] (]) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Where effectiveness 2 and its predecessor fails is looking at the effectiveness of the various types of treatments used by DCs. The most common ones would be soft tissue tx, exercise-rehab, ergo advice/ and some kind of education/counseling/reassurance. Let's broaden it a bit and not make contemporary practice and the mainstream of chiropractic (i.e. mixers) look like one trick ponies. A good ref would also be Theberge(2008) that is used at the sports chiropractic article as well as the conclusions from the CCCGPP ] (]) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I agree that the reader should know that DCs do a lot of different things. The article already goes into these quite a bit, however. I don't think there is the volume of studies on the other treatments that there is on SMT. Maybe a qualifier in Effectiveness 2 that chiropractors use many other modalities?CynRN] (]) 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	(outdent) I like the suggestion of mentioning other modalities; even if the evidence is lacking, we can just say it's lacking. Also, I could put the CCGPP stuff back in (it was in ] but I took it out in the interests of brevity). Do these suggestions sound OK? ] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:We're moving in the right direction at least. I will attempt to make a hybrid proposal this weekend that addresses the main concerns raised by myself and other editors. Productive dialogue is good; but a qualifying statement hardly does justice to the various other common clinical things DCs do. Remember, the whole clinical encounter, not just a reductionistic approach that focuses on SMT. An analogy is sorta like sex; you just don't go "in there" and start thrusting away! The adjustment takes 10s to deliver; yet the average appointment runs 18 min. There is a beautiful example in Theberge (2008) where a DC illustrates this point when a PT attempted to marginalize the DCs role (they can't assess core dysfunction). Misunderstandings and miseducation are common in dealing with chiropractic medicine. I'm here to help clean that up, clear the air and foster better inteprofessional relations, just like I'm doing IRL. ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	=====Comments on scientific investigaton=====
	:Highly inappropriate to base scientific investigation on 1 source, even more is the "fear" tone implied by it. "Steal SMT procedures" "raise concerns that scope would be reduced"; I mean; it's this kind of writing, tone and source selection that has turned off a majority of regular editors here. Where are sources from Coulter? He's THE expert in sociological development in chiropractic. Also, where any mention of the scientific journals in chiropractic that are at least indexed? Where is the mention of the FCRE, the establishment of DCconsult (evidence-based resource), mention of the ICL (index to chiropractic literature), the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines? I mean, this article is about chiropractic and this is about the science of chiropractic. To skeptics, they will say this in an oxymoron or patently untrue; but anybody who is objective and moral will see that the science of the profession is very real, and it's not limited to just SMT. But, outsiders, and orthodox practitioners wouldn't know (or possibly care to know) about these things. So, let's fix this massive oversight right now. ] (]) 22:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: More sources would be welcome. This was by far the best peer-reviewed source I found on the sociology of evidence-based medicine and chiropractic. I am unaware of any recent work that Coulter has published on the subject. I do know of Mootz, Coulter & Hansen 1997 (PMID 9127258) but it's pretty dated; it's an old proposal of what to do, not a description of what's been done. The text does briefly mention the development of evidence-based guidelines. The other evidence-based stuff would be worth a brief mention, though that'd need a reliable source (preferably a peer-reviewed paper; not ICL or DCconsult itself). ] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I know of much more recent lit that Coulter has done; it's just not on PubMed. The humanities must have their own lit base indexed somewhere, anybody know what it's called? ICL and DCconsult are important in the fact that they are clear cut examples of the movement towards science and developing and implementing evidence-based practice. They're both very notable; in particular the ICL. I haven't even attempted to bring a source from there yet; but I won't be overlooking it much longer; the allopathic database is predominantly allopathic; and ICL focuses predominantly on chiropractic. DC/PhDs are also writing article in journals such as Journal of Chiropractic Education. We need to include those as well to get a full picture. ] (]) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Please cite the more recent literature; that would be helpful. ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Dammit Eubulides, please stop reverting the struck out text. We've been doing this now for 3 months, just look above at Education as an example. I'll give you time to respond before reinseting my edit, but I do find you 2 reversions to be in bad taste and you haven't even bothered to respond to any of my concerns. To be clear: don't delete struck out material; those are points being contested. Thanks. ] (]) 23:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: The intent of that long comment was to provide a single, complete summary of the problem and proposed solution. Jefffire had earlier expressed frustration when trying to follow commentary inserted within other commentary, so with that in mind the long comment asked for followups to come after, rather than being interspersed within it. If this idea doesn't work well we can go back to doing things the old way, but for this particular comment let's try it the way Jefffire suggested. If we want to come up with an improved draft, I suggest starting a new section for it, ] say. I will respond to followup comments soon, but would like to wait a few hours to give things a chance to settle down. ] (]) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::The best approach is to combine the best of effectiveness 1 and 2. ] 22:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Let's give that a try on the talk page and see how it looks. I just want to make sure that the following concerns are addressed in the newest draft:
	:::: * Chiropractic is a profession. And like Dentistry, measuring the overall effectiveness of a profession is difficult or at least seemingly odd. If there are studies/reviews which discuss the efficacy of the entire clinical encounter with a chiropractor, I feel that would be best.
	:::: * Therefore, if we are limiting ourselves to discussion about the effectiveness of certain chiropractic techniques, then the studies/reviews cited should be measuring chiropractic techniques as performed by chiropractors specifically and not include similar techniques performed by other practitioners (unless the results of each profession is kept separate somehow).
	:::: * Detailed discussion about specific modalities should be saved for the corresponding modality's article and not be included in this article.
	:::: That's really my only concerns. As long as they are addressed, I'll be satisfied. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::* ] is not just about the profession; it is also about chiropractic care, just as ] is not just about the profession but is also about the techniques used. Large chunks of ] are about chiropractic care, not about the profession; this includes ], ], ], ], ], and ]. And there's good reason for this: when people think "chiropractic"; they are typically thinking of the care, not just of the profession. It would be odd to rip all these sections out of ] on the grounds that ] should only be about the profession. It would be very odd to exclude from Misplaced Pages common usage such as is found in the ACA's web page .
	::::::* We should follow our reliable sources, which include data from studies of spinal manipulation performed by non-chiropractors. This is standard practice now. It's not controversial among recent reliable reviews. We should not second-guess the expert reviewers in the field.
	::::::* I agree that detailed discussion about particular spinal manipulation techniques, or other techniques used in chiropractic care, belong in their respective articles. However, an overall discussion belongs in ], due to its strong association with particular treatments, notably spinal manipulation.
	::::::* ] has long discussed the effectiveness of chiropractic care at quite some length; why stop now?
	::::::] (]) 09:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It is easy to write about chiropractic. The controversial nature of chiropractic does not make it difficult to write about it when we follow the sources in a neutral way. This has been done already. Minor adjustments can be done in mainspace. Taking the best from each effectiveness draft will create something wonderful called NPOV. ] 02:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Chiropractic is a healthcare profession like Dentistry. ] describes some of the procedures chiropractors use. ], ], and ] describe studies specifically about chiropractic. ] and ] are two disputed sections of this article and should not be used as cause to move forward on something with similar problems. It remains intellectually disingenuous to use studies involving other kinds of practitioners to make an assessment about the efficacy of chiropractic care. Sure, you can use these studies to assess the efficacy of spinal manipulation in general and that would be good info for the ] article. But unless a study makes conclusions about chiropractic specifically, we shouldn't be using it on this article because it would create a ] violation. So let's create some version 3 of the efficacy section which addresses these concerns and let's see what we have. Perhaps it will be a version which we can all live with -- the very definition of ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::There is no SYN when the text is written according to the sources in a neutral way. This is the definition of NPOV. ] 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: The problem here is that we have sources which study SMT as performed by a host of practitioners and don't conclude anything specific about chiropractic. Then we are taking these sources and we are making a conclusion about chiropractic specifically (if only by including these non-chiropractic specific studies in our article about chiropractic). That's the definition of a ] violation. As it stands, a host of editors here are against including this section for this very reason. Remove all of the source which do this, and then we can continue discussing this topic. Otherwise, we are stuck and can't move forward. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::The proposed rewrite is severely biased in the representation of research. This is typical of Eubulides' drafts. Notwithstanding; it seems like the edits go out of their way to drum up more fear or controversy
	*afraid they might steal
	*limit their scope
	*the most authoritative (2004 Cochrane?) sorry, it's the 2008 WHO Neck Pain Task Force
	*no benefit of manual therapy for neck pain (false)
	*no mention of any additional treatments provided by DCs
	*Does not consider recent WSIB stats
	*Does not reference the effectiveness of SMT which has been included in allopathic physicians' clinical practice guidelines
	*Violations of ], ], ], ], ] amongst others. This is old new. Until we get representation from the chiropractic profession, this is just a blantant marginalization and subversion of DC/PhD research. It's the same old, same old "shouldn't reach down argument" which SmithBlue has debunked. As I mentioned before, I think it's time to apply ] and get past this stalemate. Scope of practice needs to be finished and education is dangling. Those are by far less contentious than this and we need to make progress. Once we can include the needed DC/PhD research to attain NPOV we can tweak safety and move onto the science of chiropractic. That means science of manual therapies and conservative care; in case someone out there needs a translation.
	(outdent)
	* The quotes are supported by reliable sources.
	:**Every single source ever brought here is a condemnation of chiropractic. There is a severe lack of balance in the sources brought to the table here and major omissions (Coulter is THE expert in sociology and chiropractic).
	:::*Not true. ] cites many sources that are quite supportive of chiropractic. Examples include DeVocht 2006 (PMID 16523145), Bronfort ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18164469), Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18204386), and Hawk ''et al.'' 2007 (PMID 17604553). There are other examples. Coulter is certainly a leading expert on the sociology of chiropractic, and recent citations from his work would certainly be welcome if someone can dig up some; in the meantime the current draft cites reliable sources (just one example: one of the coauthors of Hawk ''et al.'' is Rahelah Khorsan, one of Coulter's colleagues at the Samueli Institute) and there is no reason to reject it simply because it does not cite Coulter. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:*"raising concerns by chiropractors that orthodox medical physicians could 'steal' SMT procedures from chiropractors" is supported by the following paragraph:
	:::"Anderson (2002) noted that the ‘‘Fugelli Tactic,’’ or the idea that ‘‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’’ ideology, might very well apply to orthodox medical physicians faced with mounting evidence that manipulation primarily performed by alternative medical practitioners had proved a valuable and effective treatment (p. 197). The Fugelli Tactic might better be described as ‘‘if you can’t beat ‘em, steal from ‘em,’’ instead, as the practice involved the dominant actor learning and becoming proficient in the practice so that they could better compete and maintain their monopoly share of the market. Anderson discussed the possibility that manipulation might become permanently ‘‘borrowed’’ by orthodox medical physicians if they saw it as beneficial and easily learned at continuing education weekend seminars. (Villanueva-Russell 2005, PMID 15550303; this is citing Anderson 2002, PMID 12006128)
	:::::Relevance to the science of chiropractic (besides it being needlessly inflammatory)? ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::It's not inflammatory. It's highly relevant to concerns about evidence-based chiropractic. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Please provide link to this much discussed draft. Material quoted ("Anderson (2002) noted...) will need a source saying its relavant to "concerns about evidence-based chiropractic". Out of context it appears WP:OR, in context? ] (]) 11:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:*"the focus on SMT has also raised concerns that the resulting practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks" is supported by the following paragraph:
	::::::::The draft is in ]. The above quotation about Anderson (2002) is taken from Villanueva-Russell 2005 (PMID 15550303), a reliable source cited by the draft. This source's subject is evidence-based medicine and its implications for chiropractic, which is directly on-topic. ] (]) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::"If positivistic science was the means to achieve an ‘‘established’’ rating for a technique and if the only scientific studies evaluated for the rating were done by non-chiropractors on ‘‘manipulation’’ for lower back pain, the result was an overly narrow standard of care that reinforced the neuromusculoskeletal, limited professional status of chiropractic. Clinical practice guidelines would serve to further institutionalize chiropractic’s marginal structural position and circumscribe the scope and range of practice to lower back pain doctors, or those that addressed ‘‘sprains and strains.’’" (Villanueva-Russell 2005, PMID 15550303) There are two more paragraphs in the same vein, which I am loath to copy for concerns of copyright violation, but the last paragraph ends, "Had chiropractic become a victim of its own rhetoric—trapped as a limited-scope back and neck doctor?".
	::::We should not milk the same source to ]. Where is the DC POV on this, incidentally? I thought so. ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Other highly-reliable sources are welcome. For now, the draft is based on a reliable source. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	* Cochrane reviews are widely regarded as the gold standard in evidence-based medicine. We have a reliable source (Ernst 2006, PMID 16574972) which says that the two Cochrane reviews in question are authoritative. No reliable source has been presented to the contrary. The proposed draft in ] does not say "most authoritative" (even though Ernst does); it merely says "authoritative", which is inarguable.
	::This is supplanted by the Feb 2008 issue of Spine and the WHO Task Force report. ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: It's not supplanted. We have no reliable saying it's supplanted. The Cochrane reviews are very high quality. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	* The proposed draft in ] does not say "no benefit of manual therapy for neck pain".
	::It omits the proven benefit as highlighted by the task force report. ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::No, it doesn't omit that. It says "SMT, mobilization, supervised exercise, ] and perhaps ] are more effective for non-whiplash neck pain than alternatives". ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	* ] does mention other treatments provided by DCs, including educational videos, mobilization, and exercises.
	::One sentence on all the other "mixes" is insufficient to be NPOV. ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::There is more than one sentence on that. Multiple sentences talk about mobilization. Multiple sentences talk about exercise. If there is something missing, please suggest some additions that are based on reliable sources. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	* Every attempt has been made to use the best sources published in peer-reviewed journals. If those sources base their results on WSIB stats, they have been used. If not, they haven't. Given the amount of reviews in this area, it is not really our job to dive down into the WSIB stats ourselves.
	::]. You have used this argument to keep good literature and findings out. ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Generally speaking, we should rely on high-quality reviews to decide whether literature and findings are good. This is standard practice in medical articles, as per ], and is quite helpful in avoiding bias. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	* The criticism that allopathic physicians' clinical practice guidelines have been ignored is a curious one. On the one side, we're supposed to ignore traditional medical sources when they publish extensive critical reviews about effectiveness in refereed high-quality journals; on the other hand, we're supposed to pull out short sentences that appear in clinical practice guidelines on some other subject? I'm not opposed to all citation of practice guidelines, but let's not put the cart before the horse: the section on effectiveness should primarily use sources on effectiveness, not little bits taken from sources that are primarily about other things and for which effectiveness of chiropractic care is not a central concern.
	::This is another misrepresentation of my argument (#16 now). ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: The argument you made was "Does not reference the effectiveness of SMT which has been included in allopathic physicians' clinical practice guidelines". The comment directly responded to that argument. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	* It is not right to omit all controversial material, simply because it is controversial. The controversial side of chiropractic must be covered, as well as the not-so-controversial side. Omitting the central points of controversy results in the strongly-biased article that we have today.
	19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	::(#17). No one has ever said to omit controversial material. The article is not as biased as you think; however your attempts to keep out scope of practice and education (both relatively non-controversial) sections is duly noted. It would be nice if your edits and proposals were not always controversial and you stopped arguing with the majority of the regular editors here. ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: Certainly there have been attempts to strike out controversial material from critics of chiropractic, and arguments that we should focus on "less contentious" sections. This would continue leave important gaping holes in the article and (more important) would leave the article strongly biased. Bias like that is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. I'm sorry that it is so controversial, but violations of policy need to get fixed. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:What does "" mean? ] 02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	:''In chiropractic's early years, influences from both straight and mixer concepts were incorporated into its construct. Chiropractic has both materialistic qualities that lend themselves to scientific investigation and vitalistic qualities that do not.'' This info is about philosophy and not scientific investigation. It is duplication and should be deleted. ] 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== Asking for informal mediation ===
	Discussion seems to have died down in this thread without consensus. The bias in the current article continues to be a problem, so I am asking for informal mediation. ] (]) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	== History ==
	The history section is way too long and covers ''effectiveness'' using ''outdated'' studies. We need to discuss the ] problems with the huge and oudated history section. ] 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Um, how can ''history'' be outdated? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Because the studies are too old. We have newer studies available. ] 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: They are too old for ''history''? Sorry, this doesn't seem to compute. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Isn't it discussing effectiveness that's the problem? ] (]) 18:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I don't see any problem with talking about historically important research. My issue there would be that the study should be discussed for its historical importances. Manga, for instance, was landmark research in helping to establish the scientific legitimacy of the profession. I read that somewhere. I'm sure we can dig up the source. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::If studies are presented for their historical impact then there is no issue. If they are presented as "establishing scientific legitimacy", then there is an issue since that's PoV. ] (]) 18:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Historically, establishing chiropractic scientific legitimacy for treating low back pain is exactly what the Manga Report (and the second Manga Report) did. It also showed the cost-effectiveness of such treatments. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::That's PoV. Providing ''evidence'' for it would be a more neutral wording. Also, nudge you again on this - published =/= truth. ] (]) 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: Oh, sure. I see your point. Manga was one of the first of a few big scientific studies (such as the AHCPR) to come out after the Wilks case ended (and the AMA had been found guilty of suppressing supportive chiropractic research). Certainly Manga provided evidence which has helped to establish a growing trend towards scientific acceptance. Nudge to you... Misplaced Pages isn't about truth, it is about verifiability. Published information helps to establish verifiability. I encourage you to read ] when you have a moment. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::OK, since you agree with, we can work toward a neutral phrasing. Also, I think you've misinterprated my comment about published material. It's a common misconception that a published study must be true "true", which is not neccasery correct. Your wording missed that subtle point. Offtopic-Science isn't decided by trials. ] (]) 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: I would love to help work on that. I am heading out for the night right now, but if you draft something up, I will be back in the morning to review. I don't think that published studies are necessarily true. Science isn't a decision, but rather a process by which a decision can be made. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I actually consider that current wording section on the Manga report to be presented in a generally neutral manner. ] (]) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::The history section can definitely be tweaked; for example it neglects to cover important topics like the straight vs mixer evolution, the fight for licensure/regulation, the important steps in getting reimbursement under Medicaid/Medicare (US) and the expansion of the profession globally (what about history of the profession in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere?)
	:::::::::::::That's for another day though and we do not to resolve Scope of Practice first. ] (]) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	:The history section has outdated effectiveness studies. When newer studies are available we can easily replace them with the newer studies. The oudated studies are mostly about effectiveness. Our goal is to replace the oudated studies with the newer studies. Makes sense? ] 03:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::New studies of effectiveness are irrelevant unless they comment on the impact of the Manga report. ] (]) 04:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Recent effectiveness reviews do not cite the Manga report because it is of such low quality that it is not worth citing. The most recent mention I found of the Manga report in peer-reviewed literature is Grod ''et al.'' 2001 (PMID 11677551), and they dismiss it as an example of a low-quality study that they found cited in unreliable patient brochures. Any mention that ] makes of the Manga report should also describe its sad fate. ] (]) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I do not see any impact of the Manga report. ] 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Hmm, yes, that's an important factor I missed. A reference from a medical textbook or something authoritative on it's impact on American medicine would be nice. ] (]) 07:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::If any editor wants to include the Manga report it must be rewritten using a newer ref (PMID 11677551) and also it should be explained why the need to keep the report in this or any article. This has not been done yet. Please propose a draft with your explanation and we can review it. Agreed? ] 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Not agreed, why are you making demands that the Manga report(s) are suddenly crap and need to be taken out? The report is notable because professor Pran Manga (PhD) in economics, I believe, has made a strong and notable argument that chiropractic services should be integrated into mainstream health care, specifically in the public system. Are you disputing the verifiability of the report? It has stood the test of time here and no one has proposed at removing it until yourself. ] (]) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: The Manga report is not "suddenly crap". It was always low quality; see for example, Grod ''et al.'' 2001 (PMID 11677551), which says "The Manga report was not a controlled clinical trial but a review of the literature that offered an opinion that has not been experimentally established." Regardless of its initial quality, though, it is long obsolete and no longer deserves much (if any) coverage in ]. ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::The report is outdated. We have much newer studies available. ] 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::If the Manga report is notable in the history of chiropractic then its place in the history section should be assured. I ask that material in the history section be explicitly dated so that the reader can understand the timeline offered. ] (]) 07:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::The Manga report has zero historical impact and is an obsolete study. ] 07:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	=== out with the old and in with the new (duplication) ===
	There is a lot of oudated studies and sections that have very little or no impact on Chiropractic history. This includes The Manga Report, Workers' compensation studies, American Medical Association (AMA), and the British Medical Association.
	The best approach is to delete the old studies and replace them with the newer studies. The old studies discuss mainly effectiveness. We are essentially removing duplication. ] 07:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	: I would greatly appreciate it if you would show us how these studies and positions (which I have found in nearly every historical account of chiropractic) have had - as you say - little or no impact on the history of the Chiropractic profession. I personally don't see it and further think we should also include a mention of the AHCPR, which has been described as a "landmark" study. . -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 08:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::The is an . No evidence has been presented that the had any "landmark" impact. ] 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	I do want to make explicit that a "History" section will usually refer to events and material that is dated. Hopefully QuackGuru will cite some RS sources on Chiropractic history that neglect to mention Manga. And at the same time some RS chiropractic histories that do include it would bolster its continued inclusion. ] (]) 11:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Some mainstream medical sources would be pretty welcome. History of medicine textbooks, medical textbook etc. ] (]) 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Hopefully History of chiropractic articles, chiropractic textbooks, perhaps health policy articles such as "Chiropractic in the United States: Trends and Issues" as well. Doubtless there will be multiple POVs on chiro history. ] (]) 12:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::There are indeed a plethora of chiropractic history sources, most notably Dr. Joseph Keating, PhD. He is "the" chiropractic historian. The article is about chiropractic, so let's talk about chiropractic, shall we? Mainstream, of course, can have their 2c, but let's tell the story of the art, science and philosophy of chiropractic. ] (]) 17:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::A useful source, but one must bear in mind not a neutral one. ] (]) 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::When these have no impact to Chiropractic history they should be deleted. We have newer studies available such as the proposed Effectiveness section. ] 17:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::For chiropractic history, we can include studies that are specifically about chiropractic history and not old or obsolete studies. ] 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: Precisely, and these studies (Manga, etc.) are important to chiropractic history as per their mention in many chiropractic history sources (Keating, etc.). -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	Unlike science, history is of necessity subjective, POV based, filtered information producing a story. And not surprisingly who is telling the story and who is listening makes a great deal of difference in what is considred relevant. Unlike medical research, which (we hope) reduces human failings to a minimum, the medical view of chiropractic history can only be just another POV on chiro history. In the "History" section we will of necessity be presenting multiple POVs given the disparate views that exist on chiro history - if in one POV Manga is not important that does not in any way reduce its notability in another POV. ] (]) 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Levine, if a reference exists that discussed the Manga report in a historical context then provide the reference. We would use the reference that discusses the Manga report and not the Manga report itself anyhow. The Manga report itself does not qualify for the history section. If another source mentions older studies (Manga, etc.) then provide all those references to replace the older and obsolete studies. ] 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:No specific references have been provided to show that any of the older or obselete studies have any historical impact. If references are provided, we would use those references and not the original older studies. ] 04:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Man I remember learning Manga in school. . . it represents a critical piece of research in chiropractic history. I am sure there are dozens of references out there discussing chiropractic history which detail the significance of Manga.] (]) 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::It represents a critical piece of research in chiropractic history? Please provide a reference discussing chiropractic history which details the significance of Manga. At the moment, no reference has been provided. These studies (Manga, etc.) have no impact to chiropractic history unless a reference is provided. ] 07:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Levine wrote: <small>Precisely, and these studies (Manga, etc.) are important to chiropractic history as per their mention in many chiropractic history sources (Keating, etc.).</small> <-- This comment implies Keating mentions the Manga report in a historical perspective. I do not see any evidence of that. Please provide a reference to support this claim. Got it? ] 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: For starters, how about from Keating? Get it? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you for the ref. The ref by Keating mentions the Manga report. We can replace the Manga report with the Keating ref. The Manga report itself is not specifically about chiropractic history but Keating seems to have some historical context. We can add the Keating ref and text. ] 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: I also added which discusses Manga in terms of history. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Oh, and describes Manga historically as having "caused ripples throughout the traditional medical community when it concluded that chiropractic management of low-back pain is both more effective and cost-effective than traditional medical treatment." -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::As previously explained all of the obsolete and outdated studies will be deleted. No argument has been made to keep these dated studies. ], ], ], and the ] are clearly obsolete when newer sources are available. For the Manga report there are newer studies that describe the report. We can use these newer studies as long as they have historical impact. We will remove the and replace them with the newer effectiveness studies. This is essentially removing duplication and will make this article one step closer to a GA status. ] 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You do not get to determine what has had historical impact on the chiropractic profession. Chiropractic historians do. Keating and others have mentioned it numerous times. You don't delete history QG because it doesn't conform to our personal POV. Effectiveness is not even on the horizon given that there is a clear lack of consensus (with majority opposed, I might add). Scope of Practice is sitting there ready to go in (despite a tendentious and stonewalling attempt by a certain editor to drag the process out over trivial points) ] (]) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::No evidence or reason has been provided to keep the obsolete studies. Removing outdated studies and replacing them with newer studies is common sense. We can add the Keating reference about the Manga report if it has historical impact. ] 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::For example, the ] are outdated. Newer studies are available. Anyone can search PUBMED and retrieve newer studies (<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Occup Environ Med |date=2007 |volume=49|issue=10|pages=1124-34|title=The association between timing and duration of chiropractic care in work-related low back pain and work-disability outcomes |author= Wasiak R, Kim J, Pransky GS |doi= |pmid=18000417 |url=http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-200710000-00013.htm;jsessionid=LX7JcGYHTnKLptdqnyJT6qQ5TNFcvDLHhpT9nnVVj2cjHgWtBLVh!1379360954!181195629!8091!-1}}</ref>). I hope this answered . ] 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: In this case, I disagree. This newer study isn't nearly as comprehensive. I would perhaps use both, but not remove the older, more comprehensive ones. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::The newer study is recent. I think it would be best to delete obsolete studies. If you want to find and and add more recent studies that is fine. ] 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::: I still disagree. You are providing no new argument to change my position. I don't think that one newer but less comprehensive study trumps all the studies before it. This for instance, provides excellent summaries of much of the research at hand, and perhaps would serve as the best source we currently have on the matter. It is a review of the literature and serves as the most comprehensive study we have found too date, in my opinion. Take a look and let me know your thoughts. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::: I agree that we should be referring to recent reviews instead of to primary studies. Expert reviewers should be able to let us know which primary studies are with summarizing. We shouldn't be doing the reviewing ourselves, if reviews are available. ] (]) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::No specific argument has been made to keep the outdated studies. If anything is worth keeping it should be put in the proper section. The obsolete studies have no historical impact. ] 22:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::: You said the same thing about Manga, and that proved to be incorrect. Let's just cool down and discuss rationally before we go and remove/add anything to the article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::The Manga report itself is not a historical reference and the section should be deleted. If editors prefer, they can use the references that describe the Manga report if those references are reliable and show historical impact. I said the Manga report should be deleted and I was correct. No argument has been presented for keeping the Manga report. We should not use the Manga report in the history section when the report is not a historical reference. There may be historical references decribing the Manga report and that is a different matter. We have newer references that discuss effectiveness that can replace the Manga report. The history section is about chiropractic history and not a place for outdated studies. Agreed? ] 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	=== older references are obsolete when newer references are currently available (common sense) ===
	No specific argument has been made for keeping outdated and obsolete studies in the history section. The studies are not about chiropractic history and the studies themselves have no historical impact. We have newer effectiveness/cost-benefit studies anyhow. In any event, it would be best to delete all the obsolte studies.
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Chiropractic#The_Manga_Report
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Chiropractic#Workers.27_compensation_studies
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Chiropractic#American_Medical_Association_.28AMA.29
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Chiropractic#British_Medical_Association
	All the above sections contain old studies. They are obsolete. This has been discussed long enough. Going once... going twice... and it will be deleted if no specific objections are made. Please provide a specific reason if you disagree. ] 06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	: Specific objections have been made, including "old does not equal obsolete". Further, don't remove anything without consensus. This conversation spans several area. Let's start a new section in which we propose specific revisions. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 06:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	: P.S. As far as I know, the policies of the AMA and BMA with regards to chiropractic have not changed. Thus, those sections are clearly not obsolete. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	: P.S.S. Where is the Misplaced Pages policy which supports: "older references are obsolete when newer references are currently available"? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 06:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	::When newer references are available the older ones are obsolete. We have newer references that discuss the same or similar topics as the AMA and BMA does (examples,<ref>{{cite journal |journal=J Ambul Care Manage |year=2007 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=347-54 |title=Facilitators and barriers to improving interprofessional referral relationships between primary care physicians and chiropractors |author=Allareddy V, Greene BR, Smith M, Haas M, Liao J |pmid=17873667 |url=http://www.ambulatorycaremanagement.com/pt/re/jacm/abstract.00004479-200710000-00011.htm;jsessionid=LhKG7YVGK1DSXG4mpPCYKJ8JyLvGhztJWsXG2VyQXmFdHt3ZhSmr!1167962659!181195628!8091!-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Headache |date=2005 |volume=45 |issue=6 |pages=738–46 |title= Physical treatments for headache: a structured review |doi=10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x |author= Biondi DM |pmid=15953306}}</ref>). P.S., it is common sense to delete older studies and replace them when newer studies are available. Currently, the history section contains unrelated information that is not specifically about chiropractic history. Why should we keep older studies when newer studies are current and up to date? ] 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	Two things here Quack Guru -
	# I support your push for the re-writing of the History section. At present Manga and the WC studies can too easily be read as providing information on effectiveness. We need RS sources naming the important events/studies/laws/milestones - (these will be Chiro and Medical and other sources). I have no doubt that Manga and WC studies will feature in the future History section but they will be described in terms of their effects in relation to Chiropractic with only a brief description of their actual findings. A fuller explanation of the findings and and effects would probably be better placed in a separate article on the Manga report if sufficient material is available.
	# I find your claim that these sources<ref>{{cite journal |journal=J Ambul Care Manage |year=2007 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=347-54 |title=Facilitators and barriers to improving interprofessional referral relationships between primary care physicians and chiropractors |author=Allareddy V, Greene BR, Smith M, Haas M, Liao J |pmid=17873667 |url=http://www.ambulatorycaremanagement.com/pt/re/jacm/abstract.00004479-200710000-00011.htm;jsessionid=LhKG7YVGK1DSXG4mpPCYKJ8JyLvGhztJWsXG2VyQXmFdHt3ZhSmr!1167962659!181195628!8091!-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Headache |date=2005 |volume=45 |issue=6 |pages=738–46 |title= Physical treatments for headache: a structured review |doi=10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x |author= Biondi DM |pmid=15953306}}</ref> cover similar territory as the current History/AMA or History/BMA sub-sections incomprehensible. Please explain your claim. ] (]) 08:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	:These recent studies (<ref>{{cite journal |journal=J Ambul Care Manage |year=2007 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=347-54 |title=Facilitators and barriers to improving interprofessional referral relationships between primary care physicians and chiropractors |author=Allareddy V, Greene BR, Smith M, Haas M, Liao J |pmid=17873667 |url=http://www.ambulatorycaremanagement.com/pt/re/jacm/abstract.00004479-200710000-00011.htm;jsessionid=LhKG7YVGK1DSXG4mpPCYKJ8JyLvGhztJWsXG2VyQXmFdHt3ZhSmr!1167962659!181195628!8091!-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Headache |date=2005 |volume=45 |issue=6 |pages=738–46 |title= Physical treatments for headache: a structured review |doi=10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x |author= Biondi DM |pmid=15953306}}</ref>) cover a similar topic that AMA and BMA covers. AMA is about efficacy. We have newer source available. The BMA is is about referring patients to practitioners which we have newer sources available. These studies (AMA and BMA) are not about history. That is a separate issue. We have newer sources available for efficacy/benefit and references for historical content (<ref name=Keating-Manga>{{cite paper |author= Keating JC Jr |url=http://www.sherman.edu/research/rsch510/FaultyLogic-in-Chiro.pdf |format=PDF |title= Faulty logic & non-skeptical arguments in chiropractic |date=1997 |accessdate=2008-03-15}}</ref><ref name=Grod>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2001 |volume=24|issue=8|pages=514-9|title= Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest state, provincial, and national chiropractic associations and research agencies |author= Grod JP, Sikorski D, Keating JC Jr |doi= 10.1067/mmt.2001.118205|pmid=11677551}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/13/15/06.html|title=Canada Celebrates 100 Years of Chiropractic|accessdate=2008-05-01 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date=July 17, 1995 |volume=13|issue=15|publisher=Dynamic Chiropractic}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= JCCA J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2008 |volume=52 |issue=1 |pages=38-66 |title= William D. Harper, Jr, MS, DC: Anything Can Cause Anything |author= Keating JC|url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18327301 |pmid=18327301}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Clin Orthop Relat Res |date=2006 |volume=444 |issue= |pages=236-42 |title= Chiropractic: history and overview of theories and methods |author=Homola S |url= |pmid=16446588}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2002 |volume= 136 |issue=3 |pages=216-27 |title= Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine |author= Meeker WC, Haldeman S |url= http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/3/216.pdf |pmid=11827498}}</ref>). The more recent studies about effectiveness/cost-benefit can replace the older studies. For the history section, the older obsolete studies should be deleted. The content is unrelated to history. There is no need to replace those obsolete studies in the history. We can replace those obsolete studies in new sections such as cost-benefit. The first step is to delete all the unrelated content to chiropractic history. I reviewed each and every source that is unrelated to chiropractic history. Those old sources are absolete. Newer sources covering similar topics exist.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=J Ambul Care Manage |year=2007 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=347-54 |title=Facilitators and barriers to improving interprofessional referral relationships between primary care physicians and chiropractors |author=Allareddy V, Greene BR, Smith M, Haas M, Liao J |pmid=17873667 |url=http://www.ambulatorycaremanagement.com/pt/re/jacm/abstract.00004479-200710000-00011.htm;jsessionid=LhKG7YVGK1DSXG4mpPCYKJ8JyLvGhztJWsXG2VyQXmFdHt3ZhSmr!1167962659!181195628!8091!-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Headache |date=2005 |volume=45 |issue=6 |pages=738–46 |title= Physical treatments for headache: a structured review |doi=10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x |author= Biondi DM |pmid=15953306}}</ref> The unrelated content to history should be deleted. If editors find specific references for the history section then those can be used but not the obsolete studies. If anyone thinks any of the obsolete studies are still current I would like that explained or we can delete the obsolete studies. There are a lot of newer sources available that cover effectiveness<ref>{{cite journal |journal=J Manipulative Physiol Ther |year=2007 |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=109-15 |title=How important is research-based practice to chiropractors and massage therapists? |author= Suter E, Vanderheyden LC, Trojan LS, Verhoef MJ, Armitage GD |pmid=17320731 |url=http://www.jmptonline.org/article/S0161-4754(06)00337-X/abstract}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=J Ambul Care Manage |year=2007 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=347-54 |title=Facilitators and barriers to improving interprofessional referral relationships between primary care physicians and chiropractors |author=Allareddy V, Greene BR, Smith M, Haas M, Liao J |pmid=17873667 |url=http://www.ambulatorycaremanagement.com/pt/re/jacm/abstract.00004479-200710000-00011.htm;jsessionid=LhKG7YVGK1DSXG4mpPCYKJ8JyLvGhztJWsXG2VyQXmFdHt3ZhSmr!1167962659!181195628!8091!-1}}</ref><ref name=Villanueva-Russell/><ref name=Villanueva-Russell>{{cite journal |journal= Soc Sci Med |date=2005 |volume=60 |issue=3 |pages=545–61 |title= Evidence-based medicine and its implications for the profession of chiropractic |author= Villanueva-Russell Y |doi=10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.05.017 |pmid=15550303}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Clin Orthop Relat Res |date=2006 |volume=444 |pages=243–9 |title= History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint |author= DeVocht JW |doi=10.1097/01.blo.0000203460.89887.8d |pmid=16523145}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2002 |volume=136 |issue=11 |pages=817–25 |title= The placebo effect in alternative medicine: can the performance of a healing ritual have clinical significance? |author= Kaptchuk TJ |pmid=12044130 |url=http://annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/11/817.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Aust J Physiother |date=2006 |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=135–8 |title= Selecting an appropriate placebo for a trial of spinal manipulative therapy |author= Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, McAuley JH |pmid=16764551 |url=http://www.physiotherapy.asn.au/AJP/52-2/AustJPhysiotherv52i2Hancock.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref><ref name=Ernst-Canter>{{cite journal |journal= J R Soc Med |date=2006 |volume=99 |issue=4 |pages=192–6 |title= A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation |author= Ernst E, Canter PH |doi=10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192 |pmid=16574972 |url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Orthop Sports Phys Ther |date=2006 |volume=36 |issue=3 |pages=160–9 |title= Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation and mobilization in tension-type headache, migraine, and cervicogenic headache |author= Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, San-Roman J, Miangolarra-Page JC |pmid=16596892}}{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue=8 |pages=914–8 |title= The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review |author= Johnston BC, da Costa BR, Devereaux PJ, Akl EA, Busse JW; Expertise-Based RCT Working Group |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b4be4 |pmid=18404113}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2006 |volume=29 |issue=7 |pages=576–81, 581.e1–2 |title= Inconsistent grading of evidence across countries: a review of low back pain guidelines |author= Murphy AY, van Teijlingen ER, Gobbi MO |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.07.005 |pmid=16949948}}</ref><ref name=Bronfort-2008>{{cite journal |journal= Spine J |date=2008 |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=213–25 |title= Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization |author= Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans R, Kawchuk G, Dagenais S |doi=10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.023 |pmid=18164469}}</ref><ref name=Meeker-2007>{{cite web |title= Chiropractic management of low back pain and low back related leg complaints |author= Meeker W, Branson R, Bronfort G ''et al.'' |url=http://ccgpp.org/lowbackliterature.pdf |format=PDF |date=2007 |accessdate=2008-03-13 |publisher= Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2004 |issue=1 |pages=CD000447 |title= Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain |author= Assendelft WJJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000447.pub2 |pmid=14973958}}</ref><ref name=Vernon>{{cite journal |journal= Eura Medicophys |date=2007 |volume=43 |issue=1 |pages=91–118 |title= Manual therapy for neck pain: an overview of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews |author= Vernon H, Humphreys BK |pmid=17369783 |url=http://www.minervamedica.it/pdf/R33Y2007/R33Y2007N01A0091.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S123–52 |title= Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders |author= Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181644b1d |pmid=18204386}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2004 |issue=1 |pages=CD004249 |title= Manipulation and mobilisation for mechanical neck disorders |author= Gross AR, Hoving JL, Haines TA ''et al.'' |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004249.pub2 |pmid=14974063}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Pain Res Manag |date=2005 |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=21–32 |title= Treatment of whiplash-associated disorders—part I: non-invasive interventions |author= Conlin A, Bhogal S, Sequeira K, Teasell R |pmid=15782244}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Clin J Pain |date=2006 |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=278–85 |title= Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review |author= Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA |doi=10.1097/01.ajp.0000173017.64741.86 |pmid=16514329}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Headache |date=2005 |volume=45 |issue=6 |pages=738–46 |title= Physical treatments for headache: a structured review |doi=10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x |author= Biondi DM |pmid=15953306}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2004 |issue=3 |pages=CD001878 |title= Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache |author= Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M ''et al.'' |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001878.pub2 |pmid=15266458}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2008 |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=146–59 |title= Chiropractic treatment of upper extremity conditions: a systematic review |author= McHardy A, Hoskins W, Pollard H, Onley R, Windsham R |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.12.004 |pmid=18328941}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2006 |volume=29 |issue=8 |pages=658–71 |title= Chiropractic treatment of lower extremity conditions: a literature review |author= Hoskins W, McHardy A, Pollard H, Windsham R, Onley R |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.08.004 |pmid=17045100}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2007 |volume=32 |issue= 19 Suppl |pages=S130–4 |title= A systematic literature review of nonsurgical treatment in adult scoliosis |author= Everett CR, Patel RK |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e318134ea88 |pmid=17728680}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Scoliosis |date=2008 |volume=3 |pages=2 |title= Manual therapy as a conservative treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review |author= Romano M, Negrini S |doi=10.1186/1748-7161-3-2 |pmid=18211702 |url=http://scoliosisjournal.com/content/3/1/2}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Paediatr Nurs |date=2007 |volume=19 |issue=8 |pages=26 |title= Effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for infantile colic |author= Kingston H |pmid=17970361}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2005 |issue=2 |pages=CD005230 |title= Complementary and miscellaneous interventions for nocturnal enuresis in children |author= Glazener CM, Evans JH, Cheuk DK |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD005230 |pmid=15846744}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Curr Pharm Des |date=2006 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=47–57 |title= Complementary and alternative medical therapies in fibromyalgia |author= Sarac AJ, Gur A |pmid=16454724}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2006 |issue=3 |pages=CD002119 |title= Spinal manipulation for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea |author= Proctor ML, Hing W, Johnson TC, Murphy PA |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD002119.pub3 |pmid=16855988}}</ref><ref name=Ernst-crit>{{cite journal |journal= J Pain Symptom Manage |date=2008 |title= Chiropractic: a critical evaluation |author= Ernst E |doi=10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004 |pmid=18280103}}</ref><ref name=Hawk>{{cite journal |journal= J Altern Complement Med |date=2007 |volume=13 |issue=5 |pages=491–512 |title= Chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review with implications for whole systems research |author= Hawk C, Khorsan R, Lisi AJ, Ferrance RJ, Evans MW |doi=10.1089/acm.2007.7088 |pmid=17604553}}</ref>/cost-benefit<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2005 |volume=28 |issue=8 |pages=555-63 |title= Cost-effectiveness of medical and chiropractic care for acute and chronic low back pain |author= Haas M, Sharma R, Stano M |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.08.006 |pmid=16226622}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol |date=2005 |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=671–84 |title= What is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with low back pain? A systematic review |author= van der Roer N, Goossens ME, Evers SM, van Tulder MW |doi=10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.007 |pmid=15949783}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2007 |volume=30 |issue=6 |pages=408–18 |title= The benefits outweigh the risks for patients undergoing chiropractic care for neck pain: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study |author= Rubinstein SM, Leboeuf-Yde C, Knol DL, de Koekkoek TE, Pfeifle CE, van Tulder MW |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.04.013 |pmid=17693331}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Occup Environ Med |date=2007 |volume=49|issue=10|pages=1124-34|title=The association between timing and duration of chiropractic care in work-related low back pain and work-disability outcomes |author= Wasiak R, Kim J, Pransky GS |doi= |pmid=18000417 |url=http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-200710000-00013.htm;jsessionid=LX7JcGYHTnKLptdqnyJT6qQ5TNFcvDLHhpT9nnVVj2cjHgWtBLVh!1379360954!181195629!8091!-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Evid Based Complement Alternat Med |date=2006 |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=425–32 |title= Cost-effectiveness of complementary therapies in the United kingdom—a systematic review |author= Canter PH, Coon JT, Ernst E |doi=10.1093/ecam/nel044 |pmid=17173105 |url=http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/425}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= J R Soc Med |date=2006 |volume=99 |issue=4 |pages=192–6 |title= A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation |author= Ernst E, Canter PH |pmid=16574972 |url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Pain Symptom Manage |date=2008 |title= Chiropractic: a critical evaluation |author= Ernst E |doi=10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004 |pmid=18280103}}</ref><ref>
	{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1998 |volume=158 |issue=12 |pages=1625-31 |title=Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain. New evidence gives new hope--if we can just get all the players onside |author=Frank J, Sinclair S, Hogg-Johnson S, Shannon H, Bombardier C, Beaton D, Cole D |pmid=9645178 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9645178}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=1998 |volume=23 |issue=17 |pages=1875–83 |title= One-year follow-up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain: subgroup analysis, recurrence, and additional health care utilization |author= Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Öberg BE |pmid=9762745}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Phys Ther |year=1999 |volume=79 |issue=1 |pages=50-65 |title= Manipulation of the Cervical Spine Risks and Benefits |author= Di Fabio RP |pmid=9920191 |url=http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Stroke |year=2001 |volume=32 |issue=5 |pages=1054–60 |title= Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study |author= Rothwell DM, Bondy SJ, Williams JI |pmid=11340209 |url=http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/5/1054}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2003 |volume=138 |issue=11 |pages=871–81 |title= Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies |author= Assendelft WJJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG |pmid=12779297 |url=http://annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/11/871}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=June 3, 2003 |volume= 138 |issue= 11 |pages= 898-906 |title= A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain |author= Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Deyo RA, Shekelle PG. |pmid= 12779300 |url= http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/11/898.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref> that can replace AMA and BMA among other things with newer sections such as Effectiveness and Cost-benefit. Anyone is free to rewrite the history section but that is not the point of this discussion. If no rewrite happens then I still think we should delete the unrelated content. It is important for editors to realize there is unrelated content in chiropractic history section. Those older studies are obsolete when we have plenty of newer studies available. I am saying we can delete the unrelated content to chiropractic history and to also use newer sources for new sections. I could update the history section with information about the Manga report from a historical perspective. But I think some editors want to take it slow or reject a rewrite. They want to keep the most if not all of the outdated studies and reject the newer studies. BTY, I have already rewritten part of the history section and finished the effectiveness section and started a new cost-benefit section. The newer sources about effectiveness are current and the older references on the same topic are obsolete. It's time to move the ]. ] will be an improvement IMHO. ] 18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: For what it's worth, I agree with SmithBlue and QuackGuru that ] needs to be rewritten, and that the Manga and WC studies should be supported by reliable sources on chiropractic history rather than by the studies themselves. I have not had time to read all those sources that QuackGuru mentions, but if QuackGuru has read them all then I suggest that QuackGuru draft a new ''History'' section based on them. I encourange the draft to cover the entire sweep of chiropractic history, not just on a few events. ] (]) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	Quack Guru your appreciation of Chiropractic history, like mine, needs to expand, Chiropractic is a profession which we show, in Wilks etc, has been ostracised and conspired against by a very powerful profession (the medical profession) The AMS and BMA subsections address '''steps in Chiropractic gaining professional recognition'''. Removing them makes as much sense as removing a section on the ] from a "History of English law".
	The single reference you supply for chiropractic history (Cooper 2003) is fine as far it goes. However it is just one POV - in history we are dealing with multiple POVs. We need to present all notable ones ]. We need to present the Chiropractic profession's view of its own history as well as other views. We are dealing with the history of a profession here - '''professional recognition''' is rather central. ] (]) 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	On further surfing I find ]. So a detailed presentation of Chiro/History is not required here. Which leaves us to reach concensus on what is better included here. Have started new section below for this dicussion. (The layout of this page at present makes it very difficult to use.) ] (]) 02:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	:It would be best to use references that describe the AMA (<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Am J Public Health |date=1989 |volume=79 |issue=11 |pages= 1569-70 |title= AMA policy on chiropractic |author=Cherkin D |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=2817179 |pmid=2817179}}</ref>) and BMA (<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Med Law |date=1997 |volume= 16 |issue=3 |pages=437-49 |title= Legislative approaches to the regulation of the chiropractic profession |author=Chapman-Smith DA |url= |pmid=9409129}}</ref>) in a historical perspective instead of the references themselves.
	:The as well as sections are unrelated to chiropractic history and no specific reason has been given for keeping them. We have newer sources describing the Manga report (<ref name=Keating-Manga>{{cite paper |author= Keating JC Jr |url=http://www.sherman.edu/research/rsch510/FaultyLogic-in-Chiro.pdf |format=PDF |title= Faulty logic & non-skeptical arguments in chiropractic |date=1997 |accessdate=2008-03-15}}</ref><ref name=Grod>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2001 |volume=24|issue=8|pages=514-9|title= Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest state, provincial, and national chiropractic associations and research agencies |author= Grod JP, Sikorski D, Keating JC Jr |doi= 10.1067/mmt.2001.118205|pmid=11677551}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/13/15/06.html|title=Canada Celebrates 100 Years of Chiropractic|accessdate=2008-05-01 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date=July 17, 1995 |volume=13|issue=15|publisher=Dynamic Chiropractic}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=150 |issue=11 |pages=1878–81 |title= Orthopedists have bone to pick with economist over report on chiropractic |author= Lowry F |pmid=7802764 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7802764}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1107–8 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Manga P, Angus D |pmid=7922936 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7922936}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1108 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Chapman-Smith DA |pmid=7802806 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7802806}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1110 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Hoaken PC |pmid=7922937 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7922937}}<</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=9 |pages=1247–9 |title= Is the chiropractic management of low-back pain the solution? What can physicians learn from the Manga report? |author= Tardif GS |pmid=7954171 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7954171}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=9 |pages=1250–1 |title= Defending the Manga report on the chiropractic management of low-back pain |author= Manga P |pmid=7954172 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7954172}}</ref>) and newer sources on Workers' compensation (<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Occup Environ Med |date=2007 |volume=49|issue=10|pages=1124-34|title=The association between timing and duration of chiropractic care in work-related low back pain and work-disability outcomes |author= Wasiak R, Kim J, Pransky GS |doi= |pmid=18000417 |url=http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-200710000-00013.htm;jsessionid=LX7JcGYHTnKLptdqnyJT6qQ5TNFcvDLHhpT9nnVVj2cjHgWtBLVh!1379360954!181195629!8091!-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1998 |volume=158 |issue=12 |pages=1625-31 |title=Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain. New evidence gives new hope--if we can just get all the players onside |author=Frank J, Sinclair S, Hogg-Johnson S, Shannon H, Bombardier C, Beaton D, Cole D |pmid=9645178 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9645178}}</ref>). ] 04:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	:The obsolete sources are old and newer sources exist. For the time being, we can delete the Manga report section and the Workers' coompensation studies section. Theses dated studies are unrelated to chiropractic history. We can use newer studies available that have historical interest. For example, we have newer sources availble that discuss the Manga report. And we have newer sources available for the workers' compensation studies for a new section under cost-benefit. My specific revision is to delete both of obsolete sections (Manga and WC studies) and editors can improve the article where appropriate. Going one... going twice... ] 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:We . But has been given for keeping POV material in the article. This misleads the reader to readd obsolete studies to mainspace. The did not benefit the project. Please provide evidence if any of the obsolete studies should be reworked in a rewrite. If no evidence is provided to rework any of the oudated studies it will be deleted again. Going once... going twice... ] 23:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: There are several sources already given on this talk page (such as ) which discuss the historical significance of the studies such as Manga. I don't understand why you keep ignoring these. Further, there is no consensus to remove any of the content discussing these studies until a rewrite of the history section which incorporates these studies meets consensual agreement. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::The sources on the talk page (such as ) differ from the sources in the article. I added many of the sources to the talk page. The claim of me ignoring them is false. There is no consensus for keeping a misrepresention of chiropractic information (misleading to the reader) in mainspace. No evidence has been provided for keeping any of the POV material or the obsolete sources in the article. Please provide any evidence that these should be worked into a rewrite. ] 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::This added unsourced POV material to the article and added unrelated content to the history section. The Manga report and the Workers' compensation studies contains obsolete studies. We have newer sources available on both topics. For the Manga report, we have references that describe the Manga report. For the workers' compensation studies, we have newer sources available. Both sections should be deleted. This should be reverted. The oudated workers' compensation studies are not current and the Manga report is not properly sourced. ] 04:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::This added a link to a promotional advocacy group called ''''. The link fails ]. ] 08:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::: The report is a reliable source. That is is hosted by the Chiropractic Resource Organization in it's entirely doesn't turn it unreliable. Oh, here's which discusses the historical impact of Manga. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::The report is unreliable and has no historical impact. Other sources should be used and not the Manga report itself. This is common sense. Further, according to this , Levine2112 acknowledged the current Manga text has no historical relevancy by stating in part: No clear explanation has been provided for keeping oudated studies in the history section. Sources that describe the Manga report in a historical manner should be used rather than the sources themselves. As for the workers' comp studies we have newer sources available for a cost-benefit section. The workers' comp studies have no historical relevancy. ] 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== Medical opposition ===
	:The AMA and BMA information (along with a possible rewrite of AMA and BMA) should be under the ] section and not its own sections. ] 18:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	:My specific revision is to merge AMA and BMA sections into the medical opposition section. Going one... going twice... ] 20:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Merge it and find other notable medical associations (i.e. Australia) and get their take on intedisciplinary collaboration with DCs. Not sure if it's appropriate under "opposition" per se; but we can always move the merged material later on if need be. ] (]) 20:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::I prefer peer reviewed journals if available. Here is AMA's on complementary medicine as of 2002. ] 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::Glad to see you prefer peer-reviewed sources, as do I. It would be preferred to get the official stance on 'chiropractic care/medicine' as CAM is large umbrella. ] (]) 21:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I prefer peer reviewed but if we can't find any peer reviewed sources we can always use the sources that are presently available. ] 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::We will go ahead and merge the content into the appropriate section. ] 04:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== sources for chiropractic history ===
	* {{cite journal |journal= Arch Intern Med |date=1998 |volume=158 |issue=20 |pages=2215–24 |title= Chiropractic: origins, controversies, and contributions |author= Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM |pmid=9818801 |url=http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/158/20/2215}}
	* {{cite journal |journal= JCCA J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2008 |volume=52 |issue=1 |pages=38-66 |title= William D. Harper, Jr, MS, DC: ''Anything Can Cause Anything'' |author= Keating JC Jr |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18327301 |pmid=18327301}}
	* {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2003 |volume=26 |issue=5 |pages=300-21 |title= Several pathways in the evolution of chiropractic manipulation |author= Keating JC Jr |doi=10.1016/S0161-4754(02)54125-7 |pmid=12819626}}
	* {{cite journal |journal= Clin Orthop Relat Res |date=2006 |volume=444 |pages=236–42 |title= Chiropractic: history and overview of theories and methods |author= Homola S |doi=10.1097/01.blo.0000200258.95865.87 |pmid=16446588}}
	* {{cite journal |journal= Clin Orthop Relat Res |date=2006 |volume=444 |pages=243–9 |title= History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint |author= DeVocht JW |doi=10.1097/01.blo.0000203460.89887.8d |pmid=16523145}}
	* {{cite journal |journal=Isis |date=1994 |volume=85 |issue=2 |pages=206–27 |title= 'The only truly scientific method of healing'. Chiropractic and American science, 1895–1990 |author= Martin SC |doi=10.1086/356807 |pmid=8071054}}
	* {{cite journal |journal= Technol Cult |date=1993 |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=808–34 |title= Chiropractic and the social context of medical technology, 1895–1925 |author= Martin SC |pmid=11623404}}
	* {{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2002 |volume=136 |issue=3 |pages=216–27 |title= Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine |author= Meeker WC, Haldeman S |pmid=11827498 |url=http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/3/216.pdf |format=PDF}}
	* {{cite book|coauthors=Peterson, D, Wiese, G.|title=Chiropractic: An Illustrative History|publisher=Mosby|date=1994|pages= 528 pages |isbn=0801677351 }} ''correct title: Chiropractic: An Illustrated History''
	* {{cite book |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M ''et al.'' |date=2003 |title= How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors |location= Ada, OH |publisher= Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University |isbn=0972805559}} Summarized in: {{cite journal |journal= Semin Integr Med |date=2004 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=92–8 |title= How chiropractors think and practice: the survey of North American chiropractors |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M |doi=10.1016/j.sigm.2004.07.002 |laydate=2003-06-02 |laysummary=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/21/12/19.html |laysource= Dynamic Chiropractic}}
	* ''Chapter I: A Brief History of Chiropractic'' by Reed B. Phillips, DC, PhD
	* ACA
	*{{cite book |last= Keating |first= Joseph C. |coauthors= Carl S. Cleveland, Michael Menke |title="Chiropractic History: a Primer" |publisher= Association For The History Of Chiropractic |year= 2004 |url=http://www.philosophyofchiropractic.com/primerall72.pdf}}
	*{{cite journal |author = Martin, S. |year = 1993 |title = The Limits of Medicine: A Social History of Chiropractic, 1893--1930 |journal = Chiropractic History |volume = 13 |issue = 1 |pages = 43 }} (Yes, there is a journal, Chiropractic History)
	* Haldeman 2000 ''evolution of Chiro theory''
	* {{cite paper |author= Keating JC Jr |url=http://www.sherman.edu/research/rsch510/FaultyLogic-in-Chiro.pdf |format=PDF |title= Faulty logic & non-skeptical arguments in chiropractic |date=1997 |accessdate=2008-03-15}}
	* {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2001 |volume=24|issue=8|pages=514-9|title= Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest state, provincial, and national chiropractic associations and research agencies |author= Grod JP, Sikorski D, Keating JC Jr |doi= 10.1067/mmt.2001.118205|pmid=11677551}}
	* {{cite web |url=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/13/15/06.html|title=Canada Celebrates 100 Years of Chiropractic|accessdate=2008-05-01 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date=July 17, 1995 |volume=13|issue=15|publisher=Dynamic Chiropractic}}
	* {{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=150 |issue=11 |pages=1878–81 |title= Orthopedists have bone to pick with economist over report on chiropractic |author= Lowry F |pmid=7802764 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7802764}}
	* {{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1107–8 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Manga P, Angus D |pmid=7922936 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7922936}}
	* {{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1108 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Chapman-Smith DA |pmid=7802806 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7802806}}
	* {{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1110 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Hoaken PC |pmid=7922937 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7922937}}
	* {{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=9 |pages=1247–9 |title= Is the chiropractic management of low-back pain the solution? What can physicians learn from the Manga report? |author= Tardif GS |pmid=7954171 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7954171}}
	* {{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=9 |pages=1250–1 |title= Defending the Manga report on the chiropractic management of low-back pain |author= Manga P |pmid=7954172 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7954172}}
	=== commentary on sources for chiropractic history ===
	<s>:Quack Guru, let's discuss one of the sources you have given to show that Manga is not a notable part of the history of chiropractic; "Anything Can Cause Anything" by Keating. This appears to me to be a biography/memoriam of an individual who died in 1990. Not surprisingly the only sources includued for material after that date are directly connected to historical material on Harper himself.
	:The Manga reports you seek to remove from the History section was released in 1998.
	:Please explain how you see the absence of Manga from this article] on some-one deceased in 1990 as bearing on the importance of Manga (1998) to chiropractic history. ] (]) 02:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:If you'll do the same for another source you give "Chiropractic: An Illustrated History isbn=0801677351" cause again I'll need you to explain how a book published in 1994 could reflect on the Manga(1998) report. </s> Am now hoping these references are adressing Chiro history in a far broader way and are not adressing Manga inclusion/exclusion. ] (]) 03:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	We can add relevant studies and articles and chiropractic history. The most notable chiropractic historian is . ] 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	I'm not sure I get the point of the chiropractic history sources section. Is it about a rewrite for ]? If so, that's a big project; there's a lot wrong with that section (for one thing, it has serious bias problems aside from its presentation of the Manga and other obsolete reports). But if this is just about the Manga reports, then that's a different story. For example, Meeker & Haldeman 2002 cites multiple sources on cost but does not cite Manga; it cites more-recent sources that are far more reliable than Manga. Perhaps there is a reliable source somewhere that Manga is an important part of chiropractic history, but so far we haven't seen it cited here. ] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:The chiropractic history needs a bit more information. The older studies (including the Manga report) that have no impact to chiropractic history will be deleted. If editors are willing, they can add new information using references that are specifically about chiropractic history. This is not a rewrite proposal. This is a suggestion for anyone to work on to add more info to the history section if anyone is interested. ] 09:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::In a research paper from 1997 criticizing the unscientific and uncritical culture of chiropractic, Keating mentions the Manga study approvingly as a recent (at the time) study on cost-effectiveness.
	::“A cost-effectiveness study of chiropractic services commissioned by the Ministry of Health for the Canadian province of Ontario strongly endorsed chiropractic management of low back pain (Manga et al., 1993)” Manga is part of history and should be in this article. However, Manga has problems and these should be mentioned, as well. Look at how many DC websites still use The Manga Report as advertising.CynRN] (]) 15:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	I have added 2 more sources to the list above. I highly recommend the book Chiropractic History - a Primer to anyone editing this page. (It does not mention Manga, but would also be a good source for integrative medicine, wouldn't it?) ] (]) 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	== Straight v. mixer ==
	State laws to regulate and protect chiropractic practice were eventually introduced in all fifty states in the US, but it was a hard-fought struggle. Medical Examining Boards worked to keep all healthcare practices under their legal control, but an internal struggle among DCs on how to structure the laws significantly complicated the process. Initially, the UCA, led by BJ Palmer and armed with his philosophy, opposed state licensure altogether. Palmer feared that such regulation would lead to allopathic control of the profession.<ref name="Chiro Educ">Phillips R (1998), , Dynamic Chiropractic</ref> The UCA eventually caved in, but BJ remained strong in the opinion that examining boards should be composed exclusively of chiropractors (not those who mixed chiropractic with other remedies). Mixers campaigned to alter education standards toward those of medical schools and consistent with the tenets of the medical profession while Palmer resisted any alteration in standards away from his conceptualization of the chiropractic profession.
	=== Comments for Straight v. mixer ===
	Here is some old info. Is this too old for the history section? ] 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	This is the kind of quality that is fitting of encyclopaedic content. Annals of Int Med has a few reliable and verifiable statements about the straight vs. mixer debate. Interestingly enough, I've been reading some of the research activities of the straight wing. The most notable thing is that they're not even really straight anymore because most of them do counseling, exercise prescription and ergo/postural correction as well. The sophistication of the research designs using a qualitative, whole system research yields compelling preliminary evidence in a few notable non-nms conditions, including recently a study on chiropractic care and addiction which showed demonstrable increases in quality of life and function as well as a pretty plausible theoretical model. In short, there is beginning to be the buds of decent subluxation-based (i.e. mechanical joint dysfunction as described by Gatterman) research which comes from better clinical questions from DCs and DC/PhDs. I'm going to check out some of the non-chiropractic peer-reviewed journals that apparently published subluxation-based chiropractic care interventions. The abstract was good but I'll try reading the article and see if it's worthy of consideration for inclusion. With big claims requires big evidence. We shall see. ] (]) 05:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:If we want to cover history encyclopaedically we need to bring more Keating (PhD) and Coulter (PhD) are considered chiropractic history and sociology experts, respectively. This is going to be a damn fine article when we get done with it. Featured article material, fo shizzle!
	::The ''straight v. mixer'' proposal needs a lot of work. First of all, it needs a lot more refs to verifiy the facts. Or maybe we can ]. ] 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::If you keep up the same good work as demonstrated above, I see no problem with you running with the ball. Important stuff does need to be noted 1) straights are the minority 2)straights are evolving to include more than just adjustment for vert sub correction (use their terms) 3) mixers are the majority 4)mixers and the EBM movement. Those are 4 key things which jumped out right off the bat. The Annals of Int Med piece (i forget the author) has some good points which I can personally attest to being truthful and correct (even though[REDACTED] isn't about truth it's always easier if it takes that into strong consideration). So, if it's OK, and you have the time, tighten up straight vs. mixer, but please be fair, use references from both sides of the fence (MD, DC) and make the tone right. Give it a shot and hopefully you can continue to surprise like above. ] (]) 17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Safety sources again ==
	This is a response to the question "Why is Haldeman et al and Cassidy et al. (who are the experts in manipulation and stroke) not be given equal weight (at the very least) to Ernst?" in ] above. As I understand it, the question is why ] does not give Cassidy ''et al.'' (PMID 18204390) and Haldeman ''et al.'' (PMID 18204400) at least equal weight as Ernst 2007 (PMID 17606755). This topic was previously discussed in ] and this section continues that old thread.
	To summarize the issue: in ], Haldeman ''et al.'' is used to support the claim "Vertebrobasilar artery stroke is statistically associated with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions". Ernst is used to support the claim "The incidence of these complications is unknown, due to rarity, high levels of underreporting, and difficulty of linking manipulation to adverse effects such as stroke, a particular concern", which I believe is the point of controversy here.
	Cassidy ''et al.'' is a primary study that is reviewed by Hurwitz ''et al.'' (PMID 18204386). Hurwitz ''et al.'' have this to say on the subject:
	:"There are, however, a number of case reports and case series which show temporal associations between interventions and potentially serious complications (''e.g.'', Martienssen and Nilsson, 1989; Haldeman, 1999). These temporal relationships do raise the question about the potential of side effects from most noninvasive interventions. This is a field that deserves considerable further study and, as part of its mandate, the Neck Pain Task Force studied the relationship between chiropractic treatment and vertebrobasilar artery (VBA) strokes (these findings are summarized below).
	:"In a population-based case-control study, Rothwell ''et al'' showed an increased risk of VBA dissection within a week of a chiropractic visit among persons under age 45 years (odds ratio = 5.03, 95% CI = 1.32, 43.87). As part of the Neck Pain Task Force mandate, Cassidy ''et al'' extended these findings using both a case-control and case-crossover research design (a research design in which cases serve as their own controls until the event). This study confirmed an increased risk of VBA, but found a similar increase in risk of this form of stroke after visiting a primary care physician for neck pain. These findings suggest that the increased risk of VBA stroke associated with chiropractic and primary care physician visits is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection (in the prodromal stage) seeking care before their stroke. Thus, although cervical spine manipulation cannot be ruled out as a potential cause of some VBA strokes, any potential risk is very small."
	As per ] it is better to use a reliable review when one is available, as is the case here. I think the Misplaced Pages summary of the situation matches the union of Hurwitz ''et al.'' and Haldeman ''et al.'' and Ernst fairly closely. However, if you'd like to propose better wording based on Hurwitz ''et al.'''s review, please feel free. For example, it would be fine to say "risk is very small" instead of "rare". ] (]) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	=== Suggested change re stroke wording ===
	:Suggest change to "Vertebrobasilar artery stroke has similar statistical associations with both chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, and with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions." I see no reason for us to be contrasting the safety of DC and GP services by using "but" when the reference says that in this mmeasure they are similar.
	:I also note that the sentence whichs follows "Vertebrobasilar artery stroke is statistically associated..." appears to be a ''non sequitur'' - "These strokes after manipulation appear to be unpredictable and are an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication of cervical spine manipulation." - appears to refer to the strokes that have in the previous sentence described as likely due to "pre-existing conditions". If we are presenting a separate view/model of VBA with this latter sentence we need to let the reader know this. ] (]) 06:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::* The cited source uses "but"; it says:
	::::: "There was an association between chiropractic services and subsequent vertebrobasilar artery stroke in persons under 45 years of age, but a similar association was also observed among patients receiving general practitioner services. This is likely explained by patients with vertebrobasilar artery dissection-related neck pain or headache seeking care before having their stroke." (Haldeman ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204400)
	:::: Given that the cited source is contrasting the two services, shouldn't we be doing something similar?
	:::* Thanks for noticing and mentioning the confusion with the "These strokes" sentence. We can fix that by replacing this:
	::::: "These strokes after manipulation appear to be unpredictable and are an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication of cervical spine manipulation."
	::::with this:
	::::: "Strokes after cervical spine manipulation appear to be unpredictable and are an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication."
	::::which should clear up the confusion (and is shorter to boot).
	:::] (]) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::I am unconvinced that we benefit the reader by continuing the "surprise of similar risk" of GP and chiro services here. What do you wish to communicate to the reader by using "but" instead of "and"? If you think communicating "surprise!" here is helpful I can live with that.
	::::: The "but" is there for the same reason it's there in the source. There's a finding that manipulation of the cervical spine is slightly risky, ''but'' there's a similar risk in GP care for the same sorts of problems, suggesting that the risk is caused by the underlying problems and not by the care. ] (]) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::The problem with the juxtaposition of the sentences remains, whether as they are at present, or as you suggest.
	::::#"Vertebrobasilar artery stroke is statistically associated with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions. Strokes after cervical spine manipulation appear to be unpredictable and are an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication.[64}"
	::::They take the form:
	::::#"A is similarly associated with B and C, likely that A is related to pre-existing D. A is caused by E."
	::::2nd sentence contradicts 1st sentence. If we are shifting explanation/model/source then we must make explicit that these statements are reflecting differing explanations/models/sources.
	::::The '''serious''' problem with these sentences is that they reflect works by the same researcher; Haldeman - the first source is published in 2008, the second is published in 2002. Normally in such situations the older source might be presented 1st as history and then the new source presented as the current understanding. Why is this development being presented as a contradiction? ] (]) 11:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: There is no contradiction between these two sentences. The first sentence talks about a statistical association. The second sentence talks about causation. They are not the same thing. It is possible for A to cause B even though A is not statistically associated with B; this can happen if B is also caused by other factors with much greater statistical association, which swamps the statistical association between A and B so that we cannot measure it. If you would prefer putting the second sentence first, to reflect the historical order of the sources, that would be fine. Also, since this subject seems likely to come up again, it would help to mention the distinction between association and causation. In other words, how about if we replace this:
	:::::::"] is ] with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions.<ref name=BJD-ES>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S5–7 |title= The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: executive summary |author= Haldeman S, Carroll L, Cassidy JD, Schubert J, Nygren Å |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181643f40 |pmid=18204400 |url=http://spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200802151-00004.htm}}</ref> These strokes after manipulation appear to be unpredictable and are an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication of cervical spine manipulation.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2002 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=49–55 |title= Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy: a review of sixty-four cases after cervical spine manipulation |author= Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M |pmid=11805635 |url=http://spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200201010-00012.htm}}</ref>"
	:::::: with this:
	:::::::"Strokes after cervical spine manipulation appear to be unpredictable and are an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2002 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=49–55 |title= Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy: a review of sixty-four cases after cervical spine manipulation |author= Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M |pmid=11805635 |url=http://spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200201010-00012.htm}}</ref> ] is ] with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions.<ref name=BJD-ES>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S5–7 |title= The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: executive summary |author= Haldeman S, Carroll L, Cassidy JD, Schubert J, Nygren Å |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181643f40 |pmid=18204400 |url=http://spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200802151-00004.htm}}</ref> Weak to moderately strong evidence supports causation (as opposed to statistical association) between cervical manipulative therapy and vertebrobasilar artery stroke.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Neurologist |date=2008 |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=66–73 |title= Does cervical manipulative therapy cause vertebral artery dissection and stroke? |author= Miley ML, Wellik KE, Wingerchuk DM, Demaerschalk BM |doi=10.1097/NRL.0b013e318164e53d |pmid=18195663}}</ref>"
	::::::? ] (]) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::#Haldeman (2002) says its '''inherent'''.
	:::::::#Haldeman(2008) says evidence suggests the likely explanation is common '''pre-existing''' condition.
	:::::::These are contradictions. Given that both are Haldeman, presenting them as a development of understanding of VA stroke would be common practice. To present them as you suggest (or as at present) is misleading and confusing. ] (]) 08:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::They are not contradictions, for the reasons explained: the first is about causation, the second is about statistical association. The third reference (Miley ''et al.'' 2008) cited in the proposed rewrite is also about causation. This is not a case of "development of understanding": Miley ''et al.'' is the most recent citation. It is a case of the difference between statistical association and causation. ] (]) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Haldeman 2002 is a study on 64 cases of cerebrovascular accidents '''temporally associated''' with cervical spine manipulation. Haldemans suggested explanation of risk to patients, for these '''temporal associations''', was, "It is, however, possible to inform the patient of this risk, to discuss the relative risk ..., and to explain that according to '''the current understanding''' of this problem, cerebrovascular symptoms are unpredictable, inherent, and rare complications of cervical manipulation."
	:::::::::Haldeman 2008 clearly states that the most likely explanation for the '''associations''' is a pre-existing conditions. Associations here refers to the statistically significant temporal assocition between either GP or DC service and VA stroke.
	:::::::::Haldeman 2002 is no more relevant to causation than Haldeman 2008. Haldeman 2002 did not research the mechanism of the stroke - only statistical correlates such as putative risk factors, symptoms after stroke, treatment, outcome etc. To cherry pick the presently used quote from an outdated 2002 study on statistical associations is misleading. The presently used 2002 quote was expressedly "the current understanding" for patient education. The other expression of this point stated in the article "These complications appear to be unpredictable, and should be considered as inherent and idiosyncratic" is in far less definite language. ANd is superceded by Haldeman 2008 as his view of the current understanding. The material we include about this supercession will need to clearly tell the reader that we are discussing a changing view. ] (]) 01:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: That's a good point. ] is about the current understanding, not about history (that's for ]), so let's drop Haldeman 2002 entirely, then, since it's superseded by more-recent material. Also, as noted below, the current text somewhat-confusingly refers to the executive summary of the review, rather than the review itself; it'd be better to just cite the review and summarize what it says. Combining all these suggestions, how about if we replace this:
	:::::::::::"] is ] with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions.<ref name=BJD-ES>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S5–7 |title= The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: executive summary |author= Haldeman S, Carroll L, Cassidy JD, Schubert J, Nygren Å |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181643f40 |pmid=18204400 |url=http://spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200802151-00004.htm}}</ref> These strokes after manipulation appear to be unpredictable and are an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication of cervical spine manipulation.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2002 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=49–55 |title= Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy: a review of sixty-four cases after cervical spine manipulation |author= Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M |pmid=11805635 |url=http://spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200201010-00012.htm}}</ref>"
	:::::::::: with this:
	:::::::::::"Several case reports show temporal associations between interventions and potentially serious complications.<ref name=Hurwitz-2008/> ] is ] with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions.<ref name=Hurwitz-2008>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S123–52 |title= Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders |author= Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181644b1d |pmid=18204386}}</ref> Weak to moderately strong evidence supports causation (as opposed to statistical association) between cervical manipulative therapy and vertebrobasilar artery stroke.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Neurologist |date=2008 |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=66–73 |title= Does cervical manipulative therapy cause vertebral artery dissection and stroke? |author= Miley ML, Wellik KE, Wingerchuk DM, Demaerschalk BM |doi=10.1097/NRL.0b013e318164e53d |pmid=18195663}}</ref>" (*)
	::::::::::? ] (]) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Unfortunately I do not have online journal access and am unable to read more than the abstract which precludes me giving a useful reply at present. ] (]) 08:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Excellent point, SmithBlue. I also question why the full findings of the Task Force, which has been described as the "one of the most important research and policy documents ever published for the chiropractic profession" gets exactly 1 sentence. Undue weight? Surely. Time to fix this. ] (]) 22:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: SmithBlue's point is discussed above. The safety findings of the Task Force on Neck Pain, as expressed in its executive summary (Haldeman ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204400), are fully summarized in ]. ] (]) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I think working from full documents, not summaries, allows for a better distillation of the source. Who's got access? ] (]) 08:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: When there are a reliable review sources, as is the case here, it is not our job to reach down into primary studies and distill them ourselves. There are thousands of primary studies, and it would be all too easy for us to introduce bias by distilling studies, or parts of studies, whose results we happen to prefer. In cases like this, as per ], we should be relying on reliable secondary reviews to do the distillation for us: we should not substitute our judgment for the judgment of experts in the field. ] (]) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::If Eubulides would be kind enough to show a cite stating that exectutive summaries of reports are considered reliable review sources? ] (]) 01:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: The executive summary summarizes the review in Hurwitz et al. (PMID 18204386), whose findings about the primary study in question are quoted in ] above. The primary study, the review, and the executive summary are all by the Task Force on Neck Pain. ] says everything about the primary study that the review and the executive summary says. ] (]) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::And if that source could also state that the existence of an executive summ absolutely preludes the use of the full paper? ] (]) 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: ] does not absolutely preclude anything. It is guideline, not policy. However, it is a guideline that works well and makes a lot of sense. Without that guideline, it's all too tempting for Misplaced Pages editors to reach down into primary studies to pick out tidbits that agree with their personal opinions. It's far better to rely on the opinions of published experts in the field instead, and to use the experts' reviews when available. ] (]) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::If such sources are not to be found I will ask Eubulides to remember that we are here to further develop WP and that seeking to prevent even the exploration on the talk page of the full document, as Eubulides has done above, is not congruent with our purpose (or the primary WP:IAR). ] (]) 02:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: First, there seems to be some confusion here about the executive summary and the review it summarizes, which I have attempted to fix in the latest draft wording. Second, I have not attempted to prevent the exploration on the talk page of the full document. Please feel free to talk about the full document here. ] (]) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::For the record, this is the same kind of argument and wikilawyering Eubulides has used to prevent the inclusion of high quality "primary studies" whilst keeping weak "secondary" studies. It's always "reaching down" and "substituting judgment". This is '''the''' tactic used to keep out high quality, peer-reviewed, scientific chiropractic research by DC/PhDs out of chiropractic and, especially, out of safety. There is a huge weight violation by neutering and spaying the WHO Joint Task Force Neck Pain report conclusions and mentioning one tiny line that Eubulides' later rebuts with a dated study. Not cool. ] (]) 23:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: All of the the executive summary's and the corresponding review's conclusions about chiropractic safety have been presented in the revised wording. It would not be right to override these experts by reaching down into primary studies that they have reviewed, and to present our own, differing opinions of those studies. ] (]) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Thank you for your detailed reply. On reviews - my understanding is that reviews are conducted to draw out specific and relevant finding for a specific purpose. The purposes of a reviewer may or may not accord with WP needs for documenting evidence on a specific topic. If we need to reach down into these reviewed studies, which may well have been conducted for purposes not wholely aligned with our article topic, there is nothing in WP:RS or WP:MEDRS that prevents us doing so. If we do reach down we will need to excercise far greater caution than usual to ensure that we are not presenting WP:OR. Hopefully all editors here would contribute to that caution. ] (]) 09:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::The presentation of these safety studies does not attain WP:NPOV "representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." ] (]) 02:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: I have proposed a change in wording, marked (*) above, that attempts to address the issues you raised. ] (]) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	No objection was made to the proposed change marked (*), so I that change. ] (]) 19:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	: What does SmithBlue's objection just above refer to: "The presentation of these safety studies does not attain WP:NPOV 'representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias'"? Further, I think that any of the studies which confound general SMT with that performed by a chiropractor specifically should be removed. This is the chiropractic article and thus if safety is to be discussed, it should be discussed as the "Safety of Chiropractic" and not as the "Safety of SMT". -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: I believe SmithBlue's objection refers to the old wording, which was replaced by the change. The change did not address the other issue that you mention, as the old and the new versions both cite studies which talk about SMT (as opposed to chiropractic care). So that issue is orthogonal to this change, though obviously it is an issue that might be a subject of future changes. ] (]) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	These strokes after manipulation appear to be unpredictable and are an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication of cervical spine manipulation.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2002 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=49–55 |title= Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy: a review of sixty-four cases after cervical spine manipulation |author= Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M |pmid=11805635 |url=http://spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200201010-00012.htm}}</ref> This sentence was deleted. I think it added something to the article. Or was it duplication. ] 21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	: That was removed because SmithBlue objected that the cited source (Haldeman ''et al.'' 2002, PMID 11805635) was to some extent obsoleted by the more-recent source (Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204386; Haldeman was part of the same Task Force as Hurwitz). To some extent the removed text was duplicative of the newly added sentence that is supported by Miley ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18195663). ] (]) 06:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	===Significant (Deliberate?) Omissions from Safety ===
	Examining Vertebrobasilar Artery Stroke in Two Canadian Provinces.
	Spine. 33(4S) Supplement:S170-S175, February 15, 2008.
	Boyle, Eleanor PhD *+; Cote, Pierre DC, PhD *+++; Grier, Alexander R. DC, MBA ; Cassidy, J David DC, PhD, DrMedSc *+++
	Abstract:
	Study Design. Ecological study.
	Objectives. To determine the annual incidence of hospitalized vertebrobasilar artery (VBA) stroke and chiropractic utilization in Saskatchewan and Ontario between 1993 and 2004. To determine whether at an ecological level, the incidence of VBA stroke parallels the incidence of chiropractic utilization.
	Summary of Background Data. Little is known about the incidence and time trends of VBA stroke diagnoses in the population. Chiropractic manipulation to the neck is believed to be a risk factor for VBA stroke. No study has yet found an association between chiropractic utilization and VBA diagnoses at the population level.
	Methods. All hospitalizations with discharge diagnoses of VBA stroke were extracted from administrative databases for Saskatchewan and Ontario. We included incident cases that were diagnosed between January 1993 and December 2004 for Saskatchewan and from April 1993 to March 2002 for Ontario. VBA cases that had previously been hospitalized for any stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) were excluded. Chiropractic utilization was measured using billing data from Saskatchewan Health and Ontario Health Insurance Plan. Denominators were derived from Statistics Canada's annual population estimates.
	Results. The incidence rate of VBA stroke was 0.855 per 100,000 person-years for Saskatchewan and 0.750 per 100,000 person-years for Ontario. The annual incidence rate spiked dramatically with a 360% increase for Saskatchewan in 2000. There was a 38% increase for the 2000 incidence rate in Ontario. The rate of chiropractic utilization did not increase significantly during the study period.
	Conclusion.''' In Saskatchewan, we observed a dramatic increase in the incidence rate in 2000 and there was a corresponding relatively small increase in chiropractic utilization. In Ontario, there was a small increase in the incidence rate; however, chiropractic utilization decreased. At the ecological level, the increase in VBA stroke does not seem to be associated with an increase in the rate of chiropractic utilization.'''
	Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control and Case-Crossover Study.
	Spine. 33(4S) Supplement:S176-S183, February 15, 2008.
	Cassidy, J David DC, PhD, DrMedSc *+++; Boyle, Eleanor PhD *; Cote, Pierre DC, PhD *+++; He, Yaohua MD, PhD *; Hogg-Johnson, Sheilah PhD +; Silver, Frank L. MD, FRCPC ; Bondy, Susan J. PhD +
	Abstract:
	Study Design. Population-based, case-control and case-crossover study.
	Objective. To investigate associations between chiropractic visits and vertebrobasilar artery (VBA) stroke and to contrast this with primary care physician (PCP) visits and VBA stroke.
	Summary of Background Data. Chiropractic care is popular for neck pain and headache, but may increase the risk for VBA dissection and stroke. Neck pain and headache are common symptoms of VBA dissection, which commonly precedes VBA stroke.
	Methods. Cases included eligible incident VBA strokes admitted to Ontario hospitals from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 2002. Four controls were age and gender matched to each case. Case and control exposures to chiropractors and PCPs were determined from health billing records in the year before the stroke date. In the case-crossover analysis, cases acted as their own controls.
	Results. There were 818 VBA strokes hospitalized in a population of more than 100 million person-years. In those aged <45 years, cases were about three times more likely to see a chiropractor or a PCP before their stroke than controls. Results were similar in the case control and case crossover analyses. '''There was no increased association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke in those older than 45 years. Positive associations were found between PCP visits and VBA stroke in all age groups.''' Practitioner visits billed for headache and neck complaints were highly associated with subsequent VBA stroke.
	Conclusion. '''VBA stroke is a very rare event in the population. The increased risks of VBA stroke associated with chiropractic and PCP visits is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke. We found no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care compared to primary care.'''
	Treatment of Neck Pain: Noninvasive Interventions: Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders.
	Best Evidence on Assessment and Intervention for Neck Pain
	Spine. 33(4S) Supplement:S123-S152, February 15, 2008.
	Hurwitz, Eric L. DC, PhD *; Carragee, Eugene J. MD, FACS +++; van der Velde, Gabrielle DC **; Carroll, Linda J. PhD ++; Nordin, Margareta PT, DrMedSc ++++; Guzman, Jaime MD, MSc, FRCP(C) ; Peloso, Paul M. MD, MSc, FRCP(C) ***; Holm, Lena W. DrMedSc +++; Cote, Pierre DC, PhD **; Hogg-Johnson, Sheilah PhD ; Cassidy, J David DC, PhD, DrMedSc **; Haldeman, Scott DC, MD, PhD ****
	Abstract:
	Study Design. Best evidence synthesis.
	Objective. To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize literature from 1980 through 2006 on noninvasive interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders.
	Summary of Background Data. No comprehensive systematic literature reviews have been published on interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders in the past decade.
	Methods. We systematically searched Medline and screened for relevance literature published from 1980 through 2006 on the use, effectiveness, and safety of noninvasive interventions for neck pain and associated disorders. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis.
	Results. Of the 359 invasive and noninvasive intervention articles deemed relevant, 170 (47%) were accepted as scientifically admissible, and 139 of these related to noninvasive interventions (including health care utilization, costs, and safety). For whiplash-associated disorders, there is evidence that educational videos, mobilization, and exercises appear more beneficial than usual care or physical modalities. For other neck pain, the evidence suggests that manual and supervised exercise interventions, low-level laser therapy, and perhaps acupuncture are more effective than no treatment, sham, or alternative interventions; however, none of the active treatments was clearly superior to any other in either the short- or long-term. For both whiplash-associated disorders and other neck pain without radicular symptoms, interventions that focused on regaining function as soon as possible are relatively more effective than interventions that do not have such a focus.
	Conclusion.''' Our best evidence synthesis suggests that therapies involving manual therapy and exercise are more effective than alternative strategies for patients with neck pain; this was also true of therapies which include educational interventions addressing self-efficacy.''' Future efforts should focus on the study of noninvasive interventions for patients with radicular symptoms and on the design and evaluation of neck pain prevention strategies.
	These omissions don't even take into account the negative tone as implied by Eubulides' drafts (going on 4 now). A casual reader will leave with the impression that manual therapy (predominantly manipulation) is riddled with "minor and adverse side effects" and listed tons of contraindications. Safety ignores that manual therapy has been proven to be effective in grades I, II non-traumatic neck pain. There are other major omissions but I'd like to get feedback first. For the record, SB, I now have full access to journals once again, so if you ever need me to reproduce a certain subsection I can do so, as long as I'm not violating some kind of copyright. ] (]) 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::* Of the three sources mentioned, the review (Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204386) is already cited by the most-recent proposed safety rewrite. The other two sources are primary studies and we don't need to mention them directly. There are dozens of primary studies on all sides of the safety issue: reaching down and citing just the ones we like, which is what seems to be proposed here (it's not exactly clear), is a recipe for introducing editorial bias.
	::* Minor adverse side effects are common and are worth mentioning briefly.
	::* Effectiveness is a different issue; this is the safety section, not the effectiveness section.
	::] (]) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Please propose a suggestion (such a written sentence) for review using a ref (<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages= S170-5|title= Examining vertebrobasilar artery stroke in two Canadian provinces |author= Boyle E, Côté P, Grier AR, Cassidy JD |doi= |pmid= 18204389 |url=http://www.spinejournal.org/pt/re/spine/abstract.00007632-200802151-00018.htm;jsessionid=LX4pP7T660CpF6ffQGLpLsxJFVDrg0yJQpQ9QhC1lM3NQqVjz6tb!1167962659!181195628!8091!-1}}</ref>). ] 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Use a direct quote from the conclusion "At the ecological level, the increase in VBA stroke does not seem to be associated with an increase in the rate of chiropractic utilization.". Simple, consise, clear, relevant and factual. ] (]) 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: That primary source (Boyle ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204389) was reviewed by Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18204386), which is already cited in the proposed safety text. It would not be right to reach down and highlight a primary source that reliable reviewers have already deemed not worth notice. If that were allowed, skeptics of chiropractic would rightly ask why they couldn't also add "simple, concise, clear, relevant, and factual" statements like these: "Chiropractic by not being a drug nor a medical device has not been submitted to formal evaluation by the medicinal agencies. Similarly, its safety profile escapes to the pharmacovigilance networks." and "The described serious adverse events promptly recommend the implementation of a risk alert system." These are quotes from a primary source, namely Gouveia ''et al.'' 2007 (PMID 17904731), which is an example of dozens of critical primary sources that one could easily add to ] if standards were so low as to include that quote from Boyle ''et al.'' 2008. ] (]) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: That sound simple and reasonable. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::It is a bad idea. Per ]. ] 04:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::A single line quoted from an article is NOT a copyright violation. It is covered by fair use. ] (]) 05:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: I agree it's not a copyright issue. An entire sentence taken unchanged should be quoted and attributed, or (better) paraphrased carefully; either way, it would not be a copyright violation. The problem with the proposed addition is not copyright violation, it is that it highlights a primary study that our expert reviewers cite but do not highlight. We should not override the opinion of the published expert reviewers. ] (]) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Quack Guru, you seem to be working with a very unusual interpretation of WP policy. Unfortunately your interpretation, at least in this instance, could have the effect of disrupting editing. Quoting sentences, and paragraphs, is accepted and standard practice on WP. ] gives details on how to quote multiple paragraphs. I suggest you retract your above comment suggesting that quotes are copyright violations. ] (]) 06:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I have rewritten the sentence hours ago without using any quotes. ] 07:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::With increased chiropractic utilization, the increase in VBA stroke does not seem to be associated.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages= S170-5|title= Examining vertebrobasilar artery stroke in two Canadian provinces |author= Boyle E, Côté P, Grier AR, Cassidy JD |doi= |pmid= 18204389 |url=http://www.spinejournal.org/pt/re/spine/abstract.00007632-200802151-00018.htm;jsessionid=LX4pP7T660CpF6ffQGLpLsxJFVDrg0yJQpQ9QhC1lM3NQqVjz6tb!1167962659!181195628!8091!-1}}</ref> This is a primary study. ] 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== Relevant papers ===
	::I will the relevant passages from relevant papers to help bring the tone to more NPOV. We simply cannot pass over high quality lit by stroke and manipulation experts because of an arbitrary interpretation of a guideline. Invoking ] on this one. ] (]) 17:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I do not understand what arbitrary interpretation of a guideline should be avoided in order to invoke ]. ] 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Well, here is the issue, as I understand it, from the orthodox med perspective on SMT and safety: 1) DCs and stroke are related and potentially causative 2) SMT is inherently dangerous with serious safety risks which results, at worst, in death 3) SMT is not a proven treatment for neck pain. So, when I find and present literature that tackles these 3 subjects and very soundly refutes it, it is argued that the studies don't belong. Well, I'm sorry, but I completely disagree and in order to preserve the reliablity of the project, I need to invoke ] so that the whole story is presented. Because as it stands, we don't even have 1 peep from the experts in stroke and manipulation, namely, Haldeman, Cassidy and Cote. ] (]) 18:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Please provide the references along with proposed text on the talk page for review. Keep in mind that when newer studies review older studies, we should use the newer studies. Makes sense? ] 19:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::QG, it's getting very tiring of hearing your demands and condescending tone. No, it doesn't make sense; the quality of the study, not the "recentness" matters in advacing the evidence in either direction. Clearly your knowledge of research and evidence-based methods is tenuous, at best, right now, but you can improve by reading up on Sacketts levels of evidence ; it will help you better appraise the quality, notability, reliability, validity and applicability of the sources you bring to the table. We are in the evidence-based era now (should be evidence-informed, but that's a separate matter) and research is the currency when staking claims. I hope you keep this in mind when you are editing other chiropractic medicine related articles; there's no point in having the same discussion 5+ times elsewhere. Cheers. ] (]) 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::The quality of a study is obvious. For example, a primary study is weaker than a more recent review of the primary study. That said, a recent review study is much stronger and holds more weight. Sacketts lack of evidence ; is outdated and very old. It is clearly obsolete (unreliable). For example, Sacketts mostly uses references that are older than a decade. We have higher quality sources that are already in this article. ] 03:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::That simply isn't true. ] would have us believe that a review is higher quality than a primary study, but that is not the truth. A poorly designed systematic review, or a biased editorial review, should not hold more weight than a high quality, well designed primary study. ] (]) 22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: It is true that a high-quality primary study is a better source than a bad review. But that is not what is happening here. The review in question (Haldeman ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204400) is high quality and is put out by the same group (the Task Force on Neck Pain) that sponsored the primary study in question (Cassidy ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204390). It would make little sense to reject the Task Force's own review of its own study. ] (]) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: This doesn't appear to be a review, it appears to be an executive summary of the findings. ] (]) 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: The review is Hurwitz ''et al.'' (PMID 18204386). The executive summary summarizes this review. The review's coverage of this issue is quoted above, in ]. As far as I am concerned, either the review or the executive summary could be cited in ]; the main reason the executive summary is cited in ] is that it's freely readable (the review is not). However, given the resulting confusion the latest draft (marked (*) above) cites the review instead. ] (]) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I've already mentioned this to him and it seemed to more of the same with his editing here ]. He also completely refuses to include the results of Cote et al. (2008) published in Spine. Coincidence? I don't think so anymore, it's his attempt to not only to get allopathic med POV here, but it's to treat chiropractic like and marginalize the profession (just like the whole "dispute" over chiropractic scope of practice. The trend is unmistakingly clear now... ] (]) 00:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: This is the first I recall hearing of Cote ''et al.'', although so many studies have been mentioned in this thread over the past couple of months that it's quite possible I forgot it. Shouldn't that be Boyle ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18204389), not Cote ''et al.''? Anyway, that is a primary study that doesn't add much. Hurwitz ''et al.'' briefly mention Boyle ''et al.'' as being one of the task force studies, but they seem to think little of it, and do not mention it anywhere else that I can see. Unlike Cassidy ''et al.'', they mention it neither in their discussion of chiropractic safety nor in their conclusion. Let's stick with what the review (Hurwitz ''et al.'') has to say here, since they already reviewed this primary study. ] (]) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	. It's this type of editorial arrogance (Anyway, that is a primary study that doesn't add much) that prolongs this dispute. How many editors is it now that disagree with your stance? 5-6? This is a violation of ], ] and a violation of ]. This is getting out of hand. ] (]) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Hurwitz ''et al.'' (PMID 18204386) review the source in question (Boyle ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204389), and don't think much of it. In contrast, they highlight the results of Cassidy ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18204390). We should follow the lead of the reliable reviewers and highlight Cassidy ''et al.'''s result; we should n not substitute our own judgment for that of published experts in the field. It is not "arrogance" to prefer summaries of the opinion of expert reviewers; on the contrary, it is humility to avoid one's own opinion as much as possible, and to instead simply summarize the opinions of published experts. ] (]) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I have heard this same, tired argument time and time again and the majority of editors disagree with you here. I'm going to add the conclusions of the Boyle study as it is appropriate. ] (]) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: This is an incorrect summary of what the other editors have said on this subject. On the contrary, there is considerable sentiment that we should defer to reliable reviews in the area. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::This added text from a primary study. We should not second-geuss the reviewers. ] 17:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::This added text to the article. Where in the source does it say that. Hmm. ] 17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Just adding clarity for the review, lest the readers think that the reviewers were only discussing CMT as performed by chiropractors. They were not. The reason why clarification is needed, because in an article about chiropractic, a reader might assume that CMT refers to a procedure only performed by chiropractors. This is not the case in this review. The alternative to clarifying this would be to remove mention of the study entirely. Take you pick. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Your edit . Again, where in the source did it say that. ] 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Where in the source does it say that the researchers were specifically studying CMT as only performed by chiropractors? If it doesn't say that, technically it shouldn't be in this article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Please instead of ignoring them.
	::::::::We should not second geuss the latest state of the art reviews. ] 18:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: I have addressed your comment in the form of a counter-question. Please feel free to respond to it if you would like to continue this conversation. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::Please provide a reference or the will be deleted. Irrespective of the it is still unreferenced. ] 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: As the whole text doesn't seem to be specific to the subject at hand - cheifly, Chiropractic - the <nowiki>{{nonspecific}}</nowiki> is more appropriate. And I agree in that if the entire reference cannot be shown to be specific to chiropractic, it should be deleted. If it is just about CMT in general (as performed by any number of practitioners and non-practitioners), it would be better suited for the ] article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Do you think this edit is ? If so, where in the source does it say that. ] 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: You have asked this before and once again, I address your comment in the form of the same counter-question which you haven't answered: Where in the source does it say that the researchers were specifically studying CMT as only performed by chiropractors? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::This is about safety issues. The has been . Please provide a reference or delete it. ] 20:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::: Yes, this is about safety issues and chiropractic. The text which we are currently discussing doesn't seem to be about chiropractic specifically. Please provide a reference which shows it does or delete it. Essentially, why discuss a minor parenthetical portion when we should be discussing the relevance of the whole statement? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	(outdent) Miley ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18195663) covers evidence from both chiropractic and non-chiropractic sources. Briefly reviewing it, the strongest evidence comes either from chiropractic data (e.g., Rothewell ''et al.'' 2001) or from criteria that are independent of whether the data was generated from chiropractic or non-chiropractic care (e.g., our understanding of the mechanism of disease). It is standard practice nowadays, in both chiropractic and non-chiropractic reviews, to consider sources from both chiropractors (the main source of data for spinal manipulation) and non-chiropractors (a relatively minor source) when evaluating safety and effectiveness of SMT. Please see ] below for more. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	== Wilks v. AMA ==
	Is there a reason that this section in the ] article doesn't link to the main article, ? ] (]) 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	: I think it does link there. However, since it may be lost in the Wikilink, we may consider adding a ''Main article'' link such as the one at the top of the "Treatment procedures" section. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Chester A. Wilk, DC from Chicago initiated an ] suit against the AMA and other medical associations in 1976 - ] Here is the current sentence with the wikilink and it clearly works. ] 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: Totally. I think in addition to that we should add a ''Main article'' link such as the one at the top of the "Treatment procedures" section. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::What would be the purpose for having duplicate links. ] 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: The same as the History section does with ]. Making sure that the main article is easy to find for the casual reader. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The section is too short to have a main article link. I can easily spot the main article link in that short section. ] 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Disagree. It's a vital landmark in the profession. Another article which needs definite attention is ]. Skeptics have had field day with this and regular use it as a ] to marginalize the profession and destabilize the main chiropractic article. Rightly or wrongly (I'm in the latter) the profession has chosen to retain this term. Hence it needs to be given the scientific treatment; as per the texts by Gatterman, Leach, Haldeman, Beck and Lederman. That will cool off the jets of more edit wars, reliable sources citing the experts in the field. ] (]) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: I don't think it is a big deal either way in terms of adding the Wilk main article link. But even DigitalC - a frequent contributor - overlooked the Wikilink and that is significant. As adding the main article link doesn't advance or detract from any specific viewpoint, I don't see the harm in adding it per DigitalC's request. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	I think the 1st sentence of this section could be re-written to be clearer which could well make the link more obvious too. ] (]) 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	: That should work. Any suggestions? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::If does it mean the main article link should be avoided now. ] 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: Let's see what the rewrite looks like and it that satisfies DigitalC's concern. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::I guess we should rewrite that first sentence either way, but I don't understand reasoning for NOT having a main article link. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::: There really isn't any reasoning against it. I don't mind adding it if only to make Wikipedian research easier. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	== Problem with worker's compensation section ==
	The last paragraph in the worker's comp section doesn't relate to the title of the section, as it is about patient satisfaction. Furthermore, the reference given, the Cherkin survey, doesn't support patient satisfaction. It talks about chiropractor's and physician's attitudes toward treatment of back pain: "Random samples of 605 family physicians and 299 chiropractors in Washington were surveyed to determine their beliefs about back pain and how they would respond to three hypothetic patients with back pain". This disconnect has been bothering me. Someone fix it please!CynRN] (]) 02:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:CynRN, there are a lot more problems with the ]. For example, The text says in "1998" when the reference says "1988." A 1988 study is way too old when newer sources are available. ] 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:I explained about it in this . It contains obsolete studies. It will be deleted. That's my fix. ] 04:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::OK, sounds good. Will there be an updated summary of worker's comp studies?CynRN] (]) 16:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I already did that hours ago. I will add an update to the article when it becomes unprotected. ] 17:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Can you point me to where the updated summary of worker's comp studies are? It doesn't appear to me to be any consensus to delete this material. But perhaps I am overlooking it on this rather huge discussion page. Thanks. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: ] 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: So despite you adding that just after my request here, there still doesn't seem to be a consensus nor an updated summary as you suggest just above. All that is there is your opinion on the matter and much disagreement with your opinion. Thus, if you were to "add an update to the article when it becomes unprotected", it would be considered a ]. Please strive to work out a consensus version first, lest we find ourselves with a blocked article for another week or more. Make sense? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Also, let's carefully consider which provides a comprehensive review of the literature. I think this may very well qualify as the best source we have. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	(outdent) As I understand it, the intent is to write a new cost-effectiveness/risk-benefit/etc. section based on the latest reviews of the subject. (A draft of sources for this section can be found in ].) If these reviews refer to those old worker's compensation studies the new section should summarize them; if not, it won't. Either way, the new section will summarize higher-quality stuff that has come out more recently; that should suffice to cover the topic. This new section should be drafted and discussed on the talk page before going in. ] (]) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:We also have from 2004 an updated Workmans Comp (WSIB) performed by an independent 3rd party consulting firm. Conclusion? Go see for yourself! This should be included in any revision. I'm also a bit leary of any intent to do a risk/benefit section for the exact same reasons as described by the majority of editors when the proposed effectiveness went thud. ] (]) 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: The proposed effectiveness section is still under discussion. Like any substantial change in a controversial article, we can expect a lot of discussion. Even in the unlikely event that the discussion results in no changes to ]'s coverage of effectiveness, a failure to improve one part of the article does not mean we should give up trying to improve another part. ] (]) 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Please point me to the specific policy where Wikipedians cannot start a stub section in mainspace. I will use newer, high quality studies and delete the obolete studies. Starting a stub section in mainspace is done everyday on Misplaced Pages. ] 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: For controversial articles like this one, it is common practice (and a good idea) to propose specific changes on the talk page first, so that they can be discussed. Please try that in this case. For non-controversial articles things are quite a bit easier, but this article is controversial. ] (]) 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: There was an edit conflict here, but Eubulides essentially took the words right out of my mouth. QG, please work to form a a ] here first before inserting anything into the article. This article is too delicate to risk anything which might appear to be ]. Make sense? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::My question was not answered. Again. ''Please point me to the specific policy where Wikipedians cannot start a stub section in mainspace.'' ] 19:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Agreed with Eubulides and Levine2112 on this one. Sure some studies like the old workmans comp can be pruned, but should be amalgamated with newer workmans comp stuff. So long as the studies are in the proper historical context and have the proper significance (Manga was a landmark study for the profession regardless of the controversy it may have generated afterwards) and that's important to note. I trust the judgment of chiropractic historians, such as Keating, PhD to determine the appropriate impact and weight rather than a skeptical editor who seems to abide by a deletionist policy rather than the favoured inclusionist one. Also, if there is no (majority) consensus for a stub, there's no stub. That's one of the important tenets of[REDACTED] per ]. Your efforts and edits will be much better if you approach it that way, methinks. ] (]) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Again QG, please consider ]. While it doesn't prohibit you from making article edits on articles, it certainly recommends discusses edits first on talk. Given the contentious nature of this article and all of the recent article blocks, I and the other editors all agree to abide to talking out edits first. I hope you can see to it to abide by this too as bold edits to the article at this point may be viewed as ]. Further, please consider ] as well as it may answer your question above even more directly. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I do not see any harm for starting a new stub section in mainspace. This is done every single day on Misplaced Pages and this is normal practice. ] 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: The harm is that all the other editors who have spoken about this here would prefer if you didn't because it would be perceived as disruptive. Instead of posting your new stub section article space, all we are asking is that you post it here first so we can discuss. The block which the article is currently in was in effect started by you performing a similar action (installing the efficacy section before it had achieved consensus). The result was that was an edit war, the article was locked, morale fell, and civility and the spirit of cooperation dropped. So, you ask us now what's the harm in doing it once again when I should think it is plainly obvious from last time what the harm is. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::The article is currently locked up because a certain editor added original research and POV material to the article. How is it preceived as disruptive to start a new stub in mainspace when this is normal practice. Improving the article is not harmful. If someone disagrees based on POV issues like the Scope of practice, that is a different matter. It is up to the editor who disagrees to provide a reason why it does not meet Misplaced Pages's standard. If it does meets Misplaced Pages's standard, it is harmful to the project to blatantly delete NPOV written text, especially when using the newest available sources. The worker's compensation studies do not belong in the history section. It belongs in a new section titled cost-benefit. Most if not all of those studies are outdated anyhow. If there is anything worth keeping it should be put in the proper section under cost-benefit. ] 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: And the time before that, it was you adding the not-ready Efficacy section which lead to an edit war and the eventual block. See the pattern? See what happens when contentious material is added without consensus? Just be cool and let's discuss it first. That is the consensual wishes of everyone here. If anyone disagrees with me (anyone aside from QuackGuru) and rather thinks we should not discuss major edits first, please speak up now. Otherwise, this is the consensus on how we are going to move forward. We will discuss edits such as adding new sections/stubs to the article, work out a consensus version and then (and only then) insert in the article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Adding a new stub section is not a major edit. The obsolete studies have no place in the history section. And the Effectiveness seems ready now. ] 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: I am sorry, but I disagree. And so do others. You are going to have to wait. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::QG, you would be wise to heed Levine2112s and Eubulides advice. You're also ignoring the points we've mentioned above already; we're not suggesting we keep the obsolete studies, we suggest in making sure they're relevant and put in the proper context. Unilaterally deciding what stays, what goes is not the right way to go about this. ] (]) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::It makes sense to delete the obsolete studies that are unrelated to history. The proper context is to replace the outdated studies with the newer effectiveness studies. A stub section is not a major edit. Agreed? ] 22:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::: We're going in circles here. Round and round. QuackGuru, you know everyone's position here. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::We can reach and strive for a better article and not the status quo. Just around the corner is a great improvement and thus a better article because of our efforts. It can be done easily, especially when arguments such as makes sense. Please provide a reason for your desire to keep oudated studies and ignore newer effectiveness studies. Small improvements such as starting a new stub section (cost-benefit) will encourage thought and development to reach that elusive GA status. We can do this. ], okay. ] 02:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Disagreeing with isn't a lack of ], QG. What perplexes me is how you do not seem to understand what we are proposing. Just because Manga is an old study does not mean it's not relevant to the profession. Keating says so many times as well. I don't know why you want this study gone so badly. We agree that we must use the best, recent and relevant sources for an update. I appreciate your efforts in attempting to bring this article to FA (featured article) not GA (I thought it was a typo, the f and g key are side by side!) status and we'll get there if we can avoid disruptive conversations on the Talk page of all places. ] (]) 04:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	::I think we can reach common ground with the Manga report. The Manga report is out and it can be replaced with historical refs such as Keating. We can do the same with the other obsolete studies. They are also out and the newer studies are in. ] 04:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: So I take it that you don't stand by anymore? That you at least agree that Manga is of historical significance to Chiropractic? Yes? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::The Manga report itself is an obsolete study and no argument has been made to keep it. The Manga report itself has no historical impact. The Keating reference might be used as a historical reference. There are also more obsolete studies that should also be . Agreed? ] 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I sincerely apologize but continue to disagree with the same argument you keep repeating over and over again. Additionally I find it hard to understand that you maintain that the Manga Report has zero historical impact considering not just the Keating source, but the others I and others have provided above. Consider, for instance, this . My feeling remains that Manga (and a few other of the landmark studies following Wilk) should be discussed for their historical context in our article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::References that decribe the Manga report might be used if they are reliable and have historical impact. But the original Manga report is obsolete and should be deleted. The same goes for the . Agreed? ] 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: Instead of talking about it like this, let's draft it up on this page. That way our discussions can be more tangible. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::The draft for the would be blank. ] 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Why? I have already provided at least three sources above which show some of their significance in terms of chiropractic history. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The would be blanked because we have newer studies available such as the ready effectiveness section. If you want to add new information using historical references about history that is a different issue. Feel free to edit the article and add historical information according to the sources. ] 19:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: All I am saying is don't blank, add, edit, remove, or delete anything from the article without a consensus to do so. This article is too volatile at the moment. Let's just take it slow. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Please provide a reason for keeping and completely rejecting newer and ready effectiveness studies. Anyone is free to update the history section with references that discuss history. ] 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: No one is completely rejecting the newer studies. I just don't agree that they necessarily render the older studies obsolete. The older studies are seemingly much more comprehensive. Let's start first by drafting up a version which we can all live with before we make any further edits to the article. I think we have all agreed to abide by this except for you. This is out of interest of stopping any future edit wars and subsequent locking of the article. I think we all want to know that you will at least agree to abide by this. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::The obsolete studies have no place in the history section. The history section is specifically for chiropractic history and not a place for outdated studies. If there is anything worth keeping it should be added to the appropriate section. Newer studies on the same specific topic renders the older studies obsolete. A draft of obsolete studies? That would not be an improvement for this article. ] 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	. This has hit a new low. GQ, you are misrepresenting Levine2112's point. The fact that 3 sources (so far) has mentioned Manga as an important study illustrates the point that it's a notable. Next, there is confabulation with other topics which prevents this discussion from moving forward in a productive manner. ] (]) 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Anyone is free to update the article using historical references that mention the Manga report. But the Manga report itself is an obsolete study when we have newer effectiveness studies available. ] 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: Perhaps, but I just want your assurance that you will abide by the consensus here to discuss all changes (including removing, add, amending content) first and to arrive at some agreement before making changes to article space. Once you agree, I would very much be interested in moving forward discussing this matter with you and drafting up new versions of the content. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::I am not interested in drafting up new versions of outdated studies. ] 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::: That's not what I am asking. I am asking you if you are willing to abide to our agreement not to edit the article without a consensual agreement here first. Are you willing to abide by this? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	If it's any consolation. . . I will abide by this too. . . Are we unanimous now (save Quackguru)?] (]) 04:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	: Yes, as far as I can tell. Thanks, Doc. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 05:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Me too. (for getting consensus on this before editing article) ] (]) 06:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	How does Misplaced Pages work? An experienced administrator explained it best: CBM wrote in part: "." Got in? ] 03:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:And a follow up reply from the same thread. - "Only newbies are expected to edit controversial articles as if talk pages do not exist. An experienced editor coming to a controversial article is expected to read the talk page history." ] (]) 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: That "experienced administrator" was foolishly encouraging grief. Here is my comment that immediately preceded the one quoted by QG:
	::* Generally '''any''' potentially controversial edit, especially on a controversial article, should be discussed on the talk page '''before''' even attempting the edit. Discuss it there, reach a consensus, and then make (or not make) the edit. It will then have a much better chance of surviving and edit wars will be avoided. -- Fyslee
	:: the reply was:
	::* That isn't the way[REDACTED] is set up: we encourage people to edit the page ''first''. -- CBM
	:: Well, the typical BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS editing pattern causes an awful lot of grief and edit wars on controversial articles, and I think that consensus is also an important part of policy, hence my comment. It would be nice if we could get a couple sentences echoing what I've written above included in policy here. We sorely need a whole paragraph or more dealing with how to edit controversial articles, because they definitely aren't like other articles, and editing them as if they were only leads to grief. If this could somehow cut down on the edit wars and bold, solo editing by various editors, it would sure make editing here a more pleasurable experience. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	Reading this whole thread is quite an experience! One thing stands out, and it's QG's failure to seek to edit collaboratively. His continual insistance that bold, solo editing is OK is getting very tiring. Einstein stated that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." QuackGuru, wake up and smell the flowers. They are over there, about 8 million light years away from Misplaced Pages. Go pick some and enjoy them......there. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 04:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:This thread is about the problems with worker's compensation studies. The workers' compensation studies are misleading because they are very old. Newer sources are available. Currently, we have a NPOV failure. Editors talk about a socalled consensus but ignore NPOV. But NPOV is the key. I would appreciate it if editors would make an attempt to collaborate on this discussion. ] commented that there is a survey that needs to be . A study is in and not 1998. Insanity is when editors continue to post repeated comments that would make ] and editors continue to ] them. ] 07:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Agreed with Fyslee, QG. It's your approach that is drawing criticism and detracting away from the point you're (trying) to make. Considering you narrowly escaped an ANI meeting last week and after seeing what happened to your buddy ] you'd think you'd lie low a bit and not push too much. We shall see how it all plays out, but other users have given you wise counsel and I strongly suggest you abide by it. ] (]) 17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: When both me and CorticoSpinal are agreeing with Fyslee, it is certainly time to pay attention, QuackGuru. ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::Please consider addressing the mentioned above instead of ] them. Agreed? ] 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::: For the one millionth time, please suggest rewording at talk and I will be happy to discuss it with you. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I already explained what we should do with the dated studies but I was ]. We should delete the dated studies. ] 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	== Use of primary sources is permitted ==
	I see a need to emphasise that the use of primary sources is standard, accepted and common practice on WP. ] and ] do not in any way preclude their use.
	Reviews are conducted for specific purposes, they filter information in other studies and leave out what is not relevant to '''their specific purpose'''. '''Our purpose''' in improving Misplaced Pages will frequently not be a close match with the '''purpose of the review'''. It is only if there was an great similarity of the reviews purpose and our purpose that we might ignore primary studies. What has been promoted here in terms of ignoring primary studies can easily lead to important material on a topic being missed. WP needs to consider '''all relevant material'''. Checking for RS, NPOV, NOR or NSYNTH is the function of editors - attempting to tie our hands or blinker us on primary sources is not for the best of WP. Material from primary studies does need to be subjected to rigorous examination by editors, which I am confident will occur here.
	Eubulides, you seem to be promoting a position here on primary sources that is at odds with Misplaced Pages policy.] (I repeat "Those reliable reviewers can have a purpose skewed with respect to our purpose.") Changing WP policies will necessitate us engaging in other forums. Eubulides, is this your wish?
	If your intention is to show that a specific review's purpose closely matches ours then I suggest that discussing the purpose of the review relative to our purpose here will at least promote useful discussion and be in-line with policy. ] (]) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Recent reviews are better than the older primary studies covering the specific topic at hand. Our hands will be tied if we continue with the older studies and not emphasize the latest state of the art sources. ] 02:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	::In your opinion do we need to closely consider the match between our topic and the purpose of the review? ] (]) 02:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::I am not sure I understand your question. What I do know is this. Reviews evaluate primary studies for us. Know need to re-examine an older study. The review did it for us. ] 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::You have missed SmithBlue's point, QG. It boils down to this: research done DC/PhDs, MD/PhDs, PT/PhDs and published in a high impact journal (Spine) suddenly doesn't meet Eubulides criteria. I have argued that such studies and not only reliable and valid for inclusion, but by not including it we can not obtain NPOV. We had a secondary source by ONE author (Ernst) in a low impact journal whose conclusions are far difference than the WHO Neck Pain Task Force studies re: spinal manipulation, safety, stroke, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and evidence. (published in 2008 no less, hence no review available) To not include these types of studies in a blantant violation of ] and I believe a majority of editors would agree. This is the 6th editor who disagrees with Eubulides on this issue yet it persists. This is the kind of tendentious POV push which compromises the reliability and validity of the project. For the record, Vaccination has some serious POV issues as well and weight issues as well. ] (]) 04:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It is best to stick to newer reviews that examine older primary studies. This will help eliminate personal opinion or POV from being injected into the article. Makes sense? ] 04:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Who's personal opinion are you referring to? The Misplaced Pages editor's? The researcher? Or the reviewers? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 05:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	SmithBlue is correct on several points.
	* ] and ] are guidelines, not policy; the argument "it would not be right" was based on guidelines, not policy. Similarly, when several of us urged QuackGuru a few hours ago not to make unilateral changes to ], this was based on guidelines, not policy. In both cases there are very good reasons for the guidelines, but they are not absolute requirements.
	* We do need to consider why the reviews were written. Reviews that are written for some other purpose may not be reliable sources for our purpose. In general, this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
	* The problem of reviews being some other purpose is not a significant one in practice here. For example, in this particular case the review (Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204386) goes into more depth than we do, in a narrower topic area. The review has a section on the safety of neck-pain interventions which devotes about 250 words to the topic of VBA stroke after cervical spine manipulation. This is far more than the roughly 110 words that ] devotes to all serious complications (not just VBA stroke) after all spinal manipulation.
	* It would be very odd for us to reach down into primary studies and highlight points in the review's topic area, when hte more-focused and more-detailed review does not mention those points.
	In short, I agree that use of primary sources is permitted, but there are important reasons that ] strongly prefers reviews, and these reasons all apply here. It's not like ] is the
	only article with medical controversies: they come up all the time, in lots of different articles. Sticking with reviews is a good way to ensure high quality and avoid introducing POV inadvertently. ] (]) 09:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	208.101.118.196's characterization of this dispute is incorrect on several counts.
	* This is not a case where there's "no review available". All the primary studies under dispute have been reviewed by the very Neck Pain Task Force that commissioned the studies, so it would be ''very'' odd for us to override those reviews; to do that, we should cite a reliable source that disagrees with those reviews, and no such sources have been cited.
	* Nor is this a case where research "suddenly doesn't meet Eubulides criteria". The criteria in this case are not new: they are the criteria in ], which says that secondary sources should be preferred to primary sources, as it's too easy to use primary sources to push particular points of view.
	* Critics are not publishing in low quality journals. For example, Ernst 2008 (PMID 18280103) was published in this month's issue of the ''Journal of Pain and Symptom Management'', which has an impact factor of 2.437; this is a bit higher than ''Spine'''s 2.351 in the latest (2006) ISI JCR list. Not that I think such questions should be resolved by whoever has the higher rating, but there's no way around the fact Ernst's criticisms are mainstream criticism, and ] should summarize them fairly and neutrally as per the usual Misplaced Pages standard.
	* ] is a different section, for which (as far as I can recall) this particular issue of primary versus secondary sources has not come up.
	] (]) 09:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Explain to me why when 6 different editors disagree with your interpretation of WP:MEDRS that you insist on tendentiously pushing the point that we cannot inclued Haldeman, Cote and Boyle et. al. You also have misrepresented my statement again (15th time). Your argument has not changed for the past 2 months whereas a plethora of editors now have raised a multitude of points and different arguments that point to a deficiency in the logic used. Until we can cite and use the appropriate materials by DC/PhDs the safety, effectiveness and vaccination will remain NPOV with a harsh tone. Can you find evidence that Ernst POV is the mainstream POV? Also, why haven't you acknowledged that MDs disagree with Ernst? Regardless, SmithBlue has thoroughly deconstructed your argument as others have done as well. There is a strong case here for a civil POV push case as well, so I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance otherwise, as suggested above, this discussion will have to carry at a different forum. ] (]) 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::* I don't count 6 different editors disagreeing with the idea that we should prefer reliable reviews to reaching down into primary sources. On the contrary, I see real concern that we be very careful about highlighting details that the reviewers did not highlight.
	:::* ], ], and ] all cite materials by DC/PhDs. And it's not just a few materials: ''most'' of the citations in those sections are from DCs or PhDs. The dispute here is not whether DC/PhD material should be included; it obviously should be. It's whether material from non-DCs should be discounted. It should not be discounted.
	:::* I acknowledge that some MDs disagree with Ernst. The same is true for chiropractors, of course: some of them disagree with (say) Haldeman. Mainstream opinion is not unanimous on every detailed point. That being said, many mainstream physicians are quite critical of chiropractic care's effectiveness; some have even stronger opinions than he does.
	:::* I'm not aware of any deconstruction of any argument here, but I am not an expert on deconstruction so I may well be missing something.
	:::] (]) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	Eubulides re: "''there are important reasons that ] strongly prefers reviews, and these reasons all apply '''here'''.''" If you have in mind a specific review then I can't comment meaningfully yet. I agree that we, the editors, need to reach consensus on whether each specific review meets our purposes, and makes primary studies on that specific issue unnecessary, on a case by case basis. You and I agree that it is '''not''' "primary study=bad review=good". ] (]) 03:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	: Yes, I have in mind a specific review: Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18204386), as mentioned above (there is an extensive quote from it near the start of ]). This review is directly on point, it reviews all of the primary studies under dispute, and it covers the issue of VBA stroke and chiropractic care for neck pain in far more detail than ] does. We'd need a good reason, supported by a reliable source, to override its opinion. ] (]) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
	== Section Chiro/History ==
	As noted above article ] already exists. Now we just need to reach concensus on what is better included in ]/History. I suggest we find a few references from each notable POV and work from there? Other's ideas? ] (]) 03:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	: Finding sources is good. Please see ] for a draft list. ] (]) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	At this article we need a v brief overview of Chiro history.
	'''Very brief descript of sources found and history content in point form'''
	*New Study Finds Unity in Chiropractic
	:no obvious relav
	*How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors
	:no obvious relav
	*Canada Celebrates 100 Years of Chiropractic Dynamic Chiropractic July 17, 1995
	:no relevant material: ''Canada postage stamp''?
	*Chiropractic: history and overview of theories and methods. Homola (abstract only sighted)
	:Palmer DD 1st adj, Palmer BJ dev prof (more in article?)
	* ACA
	:2 relv para; 1895 founded profession, legal recognition 50 states, report: Chiropractic in New Zealand 1979, 1993 Manga study.
	*Chapter I: A Brief History of Chiropractic'' by Reed B. Phillips, DC, PhD
	:~14 relav short para; 1st adj 1895, early 20th allopathic greater cultural authority - chiro lexicon, adversity economic/political/legal nnec clinical, State Board Licensing Exams 1925, Council on Chiropractic Education 1974, allopathic attacks, Research was neglected early, Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research 1977? 4 Fed research grants 1996, increased collab (Mootz 1995), LBPain(Shekelle, 1992), recommended treatment in the Federal guidelines for the treatment of acute low back pain (Bigos, 1994). ''(research emphasis in this history)''
	*Chiropractic: A Profession at the Crossroads of Mainstream and Alternative Medicine, Meeker & Haldeman
	:3 para (+1 events timelist): 1st adj, Palmer innate, professional self-regulation and independent legal status were crucial to survival, 1923 Alberta, 1923 Zurich, now most countries, (Timelist: 1905 license Minnesota, 1922 license California, USCSCE 1933 (now FCLB), FCER 1944, NBCE 1963, Louisiana last license 1974, USCCE recog by US Dep Ed 1974, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1976 indexd NLM, US Supreme Court uphold Wilks 1987, U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research findings 1994, Consortial Center for Chiropractic Research est by NIH grant 1997. ''(emphasis: education and research dev, legislation)''
	] (]) 09:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Please review this ] of the FCER, which was made in 1944, however it had a predecessor the NCA as well. Skeptics do not realize that the chiropractic sciences had been in development for many years but strigent opposition from the allopathic community severely hampered the ability to get funds and make partnerships for research. ] (]) 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:I added some more sources to ]. One is freely readable and worth looking at: Kaptchuk & Eisenberg 1998 (PMID 9818801). ] (]) 10:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	''Factors so far: beginnings, relationship with medical mainstream developments, legislative developments, educational developments, international spread, scientific research development, research outcomes, effectiveness study developments'' ] (]) 10:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	== POV issues as of 2008-05-03 ==
	Here is a list of POV problem areas that I see with ] as it stands . Fixing these problems would suffice to remove the articles POV tag. This list is updated from ], and reflects changes made to the article since 2008-03-12 as well as discussion since then and some other POV problems I noticed recently. Comments welcome; please make them in
	] below. I plan to strike out items as they are addressed. Thanks. ] (]) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	===2008-05-03 issues list===
	* The sections ] through ] are heavily biased on the subject of effectiveness. They present only old sources that promote the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic treatment, and discuss neither the mainstream viewpoint that disputed these old sources, nor more modern sources on the subject that present a more-balanced approach. One simple way to fix the problem would be to replace these sections with a new section for which we have a draft ]. This draft was inspired by a reader who wanted clear information on whether chiropractic treatment is effective and who thought that an earlier version of the draft "is the sort of clear descriptive information that will make the article easier to read." We rarely get comments from readers, so the few we do get should be listened to when at all possible.
	* ] describes the feud between conventional medicine and chiropractors in a heavily biased way. For example, chiropractors are described by a lengthy quote as having "progressive minds" whereas conventional doctors are said to "have failed to realize exactly what is meant by disease processes". Both sides (traditional medical and chiropractic) have attacked and have victories and losses, but the current discussion focuses almost exclusively on attacks by the medical profession, on chiropractic victories, and on areas where chiropractic is said to be superior to conventional medicine. The dispute should be covered neutrally. There is no need for a separate section ] with a lot of detail, for example, unless there is also similar detail devoted to the other side.
	* The sections ], ], ], and ] are merely a laundry list of endorsements of chiropractic. These sections should be removed, with their useful content moved to appropriate sections, as citations.
	::Merge them. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	* Several phrases are inserted to strengthen the argument for chiropractic by giving the qualifications of sources when they are favorable to chiropractic. Sources should be mentioned in the citation, not in the main text; there is no need to puff up the main text. The following quotes can be removed (with some rewording necessary to fill the gaps):
	**"the Ontario Ministry of Health and conducted by three health economists led by Professor Pran Manga"
	**"by Steve Wolk"
	**"by Cherkin ''et al.''"
	**"The British Medical Association notes that"
	* Several places, including the lead, characterize chiropractic as ]. This characterization is controversial and alternative views should be given. See, for example, Redwood ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18435599), in which 69% of surveyed DC faculty disagreed with the proposition that chiropractic is CAM.
	* ] claims "Evidence-based chiropractic balances this ] by emphasizing both the tangible, testable principle that structure affects function, and the untestable, metaphorical recognition that life is self-sustaining." but the cited source does not talk about evidence-based chiropractic. Removing "Evidence-based" would fix this problem.
	:* Need I remind you of the conversation which it was requested BY YOURSELF to change it from contemporary to evidence-based because YOU felt the word contemporary was too PEACOCKISH? Please decide on a term, evidence-based or contemporary. ] (]) 16:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::* Evidence-based is not in the source, and it's inaccurate to boot in this context, so it should go. "Contemporary" is peacockish, so it should go too. Let's just say "Chiropractic" without the adjective. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::*Disagreed. You can't have it both ways, Eubulides. We had contemporary you said EB. Now you want EB gone and not cite contemporary which is in the source. Just accept the fact that contemporary chiropractors exist, they're EB and we go with it. Stop constantly trying to minimize any hint of the maturation of the profession. Lastly, I'll point out that your POV re: chiropractic is in direct conflict with the trend and literature demonstrating the efficacy and importance of integrative medicine. Speaking of which, what ever happened to that proposed section? I'll go dig it out of the archives, that was another section squashed by the skeptics for no good reason. ] (]) 04:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::* I don't recall the earlier discussion. What I do see now is text that is not supported by its source. This needs to be fixed. Please see ] below for more. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	* The lead also has several POV problems, which can get fixed once the body gets fixed:
	** The lead should reflect the body of the article. The lead currently lacks summaries for some entire sections, including Safety, Scientific inquiries, Vaccination. The overall effect is to minimize the controversial parts of the body.
	** The lead has a POV phrase that needs rewording: "Today, the progressive view".
	:** Need I remind you of the conversation already had earlier which the the progressive view is a directly taken from the US Department of Education who divides the Chiropractic programmes into straight and progressive?
	:::* The usual terms for this division, and the one used elsewhere in the article, is "straight" and "mixer"; let's stick with that rather than "traditional" and "progressive". ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::*The cited source does not say "straight" or "mixer" it refers to the educational paradigns as "traditonal" and "progressive". Why the constant nit-picking of trivial stuff, Eubulides? You play with the rules; when it suits YOUR POV it's pliable, when it doesn't it's rigid. This example is case and point of this. ] (]) 04:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::* None of the three cited sources (, , ) say either "traditional" or "progressive". I just now checked. This is a mismatch between the lead and its sources, which needs to be fixed. I will add a "failed verification" tag; please see ] below for more. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	] (]) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== Comments on 2008-05-03 issues list ===
	*Safety The safety section omits valuable resources from DC/PhDs that contest the findings of Ernst and give more appropriate context to the article at hand. Considering the February 2008 issue of Spine dedicated a whole issue to the WHO Task Force, surely the 1 sentence currently at Safety is undue weight, no?
	:* 1 sentence might be undue weight, yes. But ] currently devotes 5 sentences to the WHO safety guidelines and 2 sentences to the February 2008 issue of ''Spine'', so this doesn't appear to be a problem. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::* The tone of the article is fear mongering. SMT is a relatively safe procedure. The section reads as though there is no real benefit to it; instead it relies heavily on Ersnt that side effects are very common (implied risk is great that benefit) that there are catastrophic consequence (permanent neurological impairment and even DEATH (insert scary music here). You have no problem with adding Miley et al, a study which contradicts the majority of the safety literature, yet Boyle, Cassidy and Haldeman cannot be included who are expert researchers in SMT and stroke. Anyways, the tone of the section is uneven and comes off as harsh. It reads like it's written by someone who is against manips rather than neutral. Again, I need to make my point clear: it's not the amount of sentences or references (lack thereof of the best ones available that are relevant), it the WORDS BEING USED TO DESCRIBE THEM. This needs to be fixed asap. ] (]) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::* ] is not fear mongering: it starts off saying "Chiropractic care in general is safe when employed skillfully and appropriately."
	:::::*...which subsequently degenerates into an oratory that SMT is dangerous and hurts. Gimme a break. ] (]) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::* If there is a problem with the tone, please make a specific suggestion for improving the wording. The suggestion should be supported by reliable sources, as is usual for this section. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::* The section is about safety, not effectiveness, and so a discussion of benefits would be irrelevant; ] is a draft for benefits.
	::::* There is no serious dispute that mild side effects are very common.
	:::::* There is no mention what the benefits are. ] (]) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::* Benefits are for the ''Effectiveness'' or ''Cost-effectiveness'' sections, not the ''Safety'' section. ] is a draft for the first of these. We should have the second one too. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::* There is no serious dispute that in rare cases there are very serious complications.
	:::::*Occurs infrequently and unpredictably enough to not warrant the the spotlight as you've done. This is more allopathic arrogance and bias. ] (]) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::* It occurs often enough to be highlighted by reliable reviews in the area; it's a notable topic that deserves coverage. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::* Miley ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18195663) is a structured evidenced-based clinical neurologic practice review; it is not a primary study. As per ], secondary sources like Miley ''et al.'' are preferable to primary studies.
	::::* The sources you refer to are primary studies that are reviewed in Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18204386), which ] cites heavily in this area, and which do not mention the parts of the primary studies that you wish to emphasize. Reaching down into primary studies to select points that reliable reviewers do not mention is something we should avoid, as it is too easily a source of bias.
	:::::*Why do you fail to understand that your argument has been debunked by myself, Levine2112, DigitalC and most recently by SmithBlue? For the very last time, stop saying reaching down into primary studies. This is not the case. You have been stonewalling this issue for close to 3 months. I'm getting fairly annoyed now. Stop it. I have been gracious is debating this with you for the amount of time and have let other editor chime in. You are wrong. I'm going to include the relevant passages. ] (]) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::* Please do not argue with reliable secondary reviews by highlighting results of primary studies that have been reviewed. This is contrary to the ] guidelines and there is good reason for this: it is too prone to editor bias. We need good reasons to disregard expert opinion in this area, and no good reasons have been supplied. Please see ] below for more. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::* Miley ''et al.'' 2008 does not contradict the majority of the safety literature. On the contrary, it agrees with the mainstream opinion, which is that cervical manipulative therapy causes stroke in rare cases.
	::::::Actually, this is patently false. Mainstream opinion, as evidenced by the Spine articles suggests the opposite conclusion. You are trying to portray the WHO Task Force as a DC source when it's clearly not. It's a multidisciplinary panel which gives it more credibility. You are cherry picking data to support your case while wikilawyering from preventing a rebuttal. This is a very tendentious, and highly unethical approach. ] (]) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: The Spine articles do not dispute a causative relationship between SMT and stroke. They merely state that there's good reason to believe that the statistical association is explained by other causes. Statistical association is not the same as causation, so the two sources do not disagree here. The mainstream opinion (not just Miley ''et al.'', but also Haldeman and others; these are DCs as well as MDs) is that causation occurs in some cases. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::* Specific suggestions about wording changes to correct tone are welcome; obviously any such changes must respect the sources and should follow ] guidelines.
	::::] (]) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	*Vaccination. There is undue weight on the Canadian chiropractors who hold an anti-vaccination stance. These DCs form an estimated 0.02% of the world chiropractic tally. So much space is dedicated to them and not enough to those who aren't against or neutral towards vaccination.
	:*"0.02%"? Really? I thought it was more like 5%. Anyway, sources on the rest of the world would be welcome, but in the meantime we have to rely on the sources we have. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::I don't know how many chiropractors there are in the world, but if you figure 80,000 then the Canadians are about 3%, but 5% may be more accurate. But, the point from the reference regarding the Canadian DCs was that, given the scientific emphasis in the Canadian Chiropractic College, Canadian chiropractors should be ''more'' likely to embrace vaccination than not, and their opposition/neutrality was surprising.--] <sup>''<font face="Calibri" color="006400">(])''</font></sup> 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Nice new font Cyn! Looks good. There are a few caveats that need to be illustrated. First, the data was collected in 2000. The new integrative curriculum began in 1999. Hence, the cohort studied was significantly different than those who have graduated since. This brings up the reliability of these stats. Secondly, the CCA unmistakeably favours vaccination as a cost-effective and effective method of public health. Also, the 3-5% you are quoting asssumes that all 60000 (at the time, it's closer to 7k now) were all anti-vaccination; which was not the case. Regardless, Eubulides continues to ignore my point that it's a weight issue, not a notability issue. I've mentioned this now for close to 3 months. Please justify the undue weight you have put on the fringe element of the profession (anti-vaccination) whilst ignoring the stance of the majority (neutral -> pro). Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::* More recent data would be welcome, if we can find a reliable source for it. Particularly for the U.S., which has far more chiropractors, and which appears to be more anti-vaccination than Canada does.
	::::* Obviously it's not the case that the Canadian statistics mean 0.02% or 3% or 5% (or whatever) of chiropractors are against vaccination. It was a small sample, and in that sample, 25% opposed vaccination. A larger 1995 sample of U.S. chiropractors found that a larger fraction (about 1/3) did not believe that there was proof that immunization prevents disease. Based on all this, it'd be reasonable to guess that about 30% of chiropractors worldwide oppose vaccination. Of course this is just a guess, and cannot be reported in the article. But the point is that there is a significant opposition to vaccination among chiropractors. It's not "0.02%"; it's more than 20%.
	::::* The CCA supports vaccination, but they represent a much smaller fraction of the world's chiropractors than the ACA, which supports exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws. It is certainly notable that the leading chiropractic association is so ambivalent about vaccination. The ACA is not the fringe; it's mainstream chiropractic.
	::::] (]) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::From the Kansas survey of American chiropractors, 2005: "Immunizations are effective in the prevention of disease." strongly agree 12.0%, agree 30.7%, neutral 12.1%, disagree 19.3%, strongly disagree 19.9%.
	:::::"Encouraged patients to be immunized." yes 16.3%, no 54.2%, under certain circumstances 29.5%"
	:::::So as recently as 2005, 40% say vaccinations are 'ineffective'. So the article really should emphasize the belief (by 30-40% of chiropractors) that vaccines are 'ineffective'.--] <sup>''<font face="Calibri" color="006400">(])''</font></sup> 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	*Effectiveness/Science The proposals are grossly inappropriate, especially the into to science which has exactly 0 DC sources. This article is about Chiropractic and chiropractors. The science of chiropractic medicine, goes far beyond simple manips. Also, there is 0 mention of the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines the foundings of the CRF/FCRE the development of university-based masters programs in chiropractic SCIENCE, etc. This is simply another vehicle for the allopathic physician editing here to marginalize chiropractic
	:* It is not necessary for a source to be written by a DC for it to be reliable. The sections in question go far beyond simple manipulation. ] explicitly mentions practice guidelines. The source for ] was not written by an "allopathic physician", not that that matters. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::* I never said that. I said that there was 0 sources from chiropractic scientists and chiropractic historians or chiropractic experts. The article is about chiropractic, the section on the science of chiropractic. Hence it is not valid when you omit all relevant, reliable and valid DC sources. I have mentioned this time and time again, but you have insisted that my sources does not meet inclusion criteria despite the fact that several other editors agree including independent 3rd parties. Anyways, it's a poor intro and does not even come close to tackling the fundamental issues as noted already by SmithBlue in a separate thread. ] (]) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::* You wrote "0 DC sources". The introduction is backed by a recent reliable source in a peer-reviewed journal. It is far better than what is in ] now, most of which is entirely unsourced (and the only source is lower quality). No doubt it could be improved further, but it's far better than what's there now, and unless specific further improvements are suggestion there's no reason it can't go in now. ] (]) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	*The lead does not accurately reflect the body of the article which is missing vital importances from Scope of Practice, to Education, to History-(PRESENT) to Integrative Medicine, to subspecialities, etc. We all know that our resident MD wants to include every controversy under the sun in the lead; however this would be a serious violation of ]
	:: Yes, the lead should accurately reflect the body of the article. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: Then we agree it's the last thing to be changed. Finish the body, then we can touch-up the lead. ] (]) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I used to think that, but it's becoming clear now that the body will never be "finished", and we should strive to keep the lead in sync with the body. ] (]) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	*Treating the fringe elements of chiropractic as mainstream and the mainstream as fringe. This is by far the biggest violation of the approach by certain skeptical editors. This needs to change.
	:: Yes, this should be fixed. What specific instances of this are there? ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Practice Styles and schools of thought, Vaccination, safety, science, history, subluxation, etc. Take your pick. ] (]) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::: That's a bit vague. Please suggest specific wording changes. ] (]) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== Scope of Practice: Sources dispute ===
	If ] would like to explain his concerns regarding the scope of practice section which according regarding the " of the sources presented that would be helpful. I do believe they all meet our inclusion criteria per ], ] and thensome. Also, if you would please abide by ] and ] and not make attacks in your edit summaries that would be appreciated as well. I've gone ahead and brought an highlighted some of the sources you dispute
	*Council on Chiropractic Education which is accredited by the US Department of Education
	*<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/>{{verify source}} You've got to be kidding, right?
	*<ref>{{cite book|last=Haldeman |first=Scott|coauthors=Chapman-Smith, David, Petersen, Donald, Jr.|title=Guidelines for Chiropractic Quality and Practice Parameters|publisher=Jones and Bartlett|location=Sudbury, MA|pages=111-113|isbn=0-7437-2921-3|accessdate=2008-04-16|language=English}}</ref>{{verify credibility}} Since when is Dr. Haldeman not credible, nor a respected publishing house?
	<ref>{{cite book |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M ''et al.'' |date=2003 |title= How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors |location= Ada, OH |publisher= Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University |isbn=0972805559}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal= Semin Integr Med |date=2004 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=92–8 |title= How chiropractors think and practice: the survey of North American chiropractors |author= McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M |doi=10.1016/j.sigm.2004.07.002 |laydate=2003-06-02 |laysummary=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/21/12/19.html |laysource= Dynamic Chiropractic}}</ref>{{verify credibility}} This journal is credible. Are you seriously disputing this?
	*<ref>|title=CHIROPRACTIC TRAINING|coauthors=Ian D. Coulter, PhD Alan H. Adams, DC; Ruth Sandefur, DC, PhD|publisher=AHCPR|language=English|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref>{{verify credibility}} The credibility sir, is not in doubt.
	However, with ] edits like this that seem to raise a ] are not helpful in the least. I would hope that ] would be extended to me however you seem to be making a habit of contesting a lot of my edits on some questionable grounds. Nonetheless, if you would participate in talk perhaps you would be familiarized on some of the salient points raised over the last few months. There's a lot of material to go over, but seeing as you have a long history with this article you might as well invest the time like the regulars have since January 08. Cheers. ] (]) 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:? What in the world is that supposed to mean? I don't know.
	:This changed the entire meaning of the text. Now it is POV again. The does not work properly. ] 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::QG, the addition by Eubulides is a poor one but I won't revert it today. Whether you agree with it or not, DCs are at the very LEAST primary CONTACT and most are legislated as primary CARE. I've conceded the primary CARE, as per CynRN's suggestion so stop crying wolf. These constant cries of NPOV for the scope of practice section are definitely misleading and not as warranted as you make it seem to be. ] (]) 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Please adrress the issue at hand and help the . Two refs need to be . They are not properly working after your recent edit. ] 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::So, to be clear, you are disputing that chiropractors are primary contact providers for conservative care of the neuromusculoskeletal system? That's the POV? Please provide clarification so I can be address your concern. ] (]) 17:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::When I added the templates:
	:::::Re verify-source templates: The versions I saw, at the time I added the tags, did not support the statements made. Quite simple. Some of them might have been broken, and some google books references are automatically broken for most people. Please refer DIRECTLY to the book using {{tl|cite book}}. If google books works, you can get there through the links, or add a google books reference in the URL field.
	:::::Re verify-reliability templates: The use of a chiropractic source for ''legal'' information as to scope of practice is self-serving. Because of the history of dispute between medical doctors and chiropractic doctors, we would need sources from ''both'' for inclusion, as well you should know.
	:::::Specifics.
	:::::#I'd never heard of Jones & Bartlett. Are they primarily a medical publishing house? A chiropractic publishing house?
	:::::#Chiroweb and "Dynamic Chiropractic" are not credible sources except as to the opinions of chiropractors. "Semin Integr Med" (by the way, there was a discussion elsewhere, which suggests journal abbreviations should NEVER be used, as there isn't a one to one correspondance between abbreviations and names), might be, and the doi: link doesn't list the actual name of the journal for me.
	:::::#The credibility of Ian Coulter is not ''seriously'' in doubt, but he's only one of the co-authors of the source, and we don't know he had ''final'' editorial control, that his reputation has sufficient standing that it is considered implausible he would assist a friend or colleage in supporting something that he doubted the accuracy of, or that AHCPR (which, again, shouldn't have been abbreviated -- I can think of at least 2 relevant organizations known by those initials, and you didn't list the journal or book title) isn't a chiropractic organization.
	::::: The sources and text have been significantly changed since I added the tags, so I'm not sure that the tags would still be correct. &mdash; ] ] 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::You are either misleading the readers and other editors, are mispeaking but the sources have stayed the same as they did when I originally put them in and when Eubulides checked them out. In fact, since you are an administrator, I find your conduct to be very unbecoming of someone who is to be a voice of reason and a calming influence. Rather, it seems that your last change is more of the same as I written above. Also, if you could be so kind as to point out policy that chiropractic sources cannot be used as you have alluded to above would move this discussion further. Thanks. ] (]) 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Weasel wording attribution was added . ] 23:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::QG, you are crossing the line making false allegations. Jefffire routinely does the exact same thing (but much worse) at ] and he gets a free pass, I mention that it's a research paper (weasel?) and you cry foul. A bit of consistency from you would be nice. Thanks. ] (]) 00:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::The source is from a high quality journal (<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2002 |volume=136 |issue=3 |pages=216–27 |title= Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine |author= Meeker WC, Haldeman S |pmid=11827498 |url=http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/3/216.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref>) and not a chiropractic POV source. We need more medical journal representation on Misplaced Pages. Attribution is in this particular case. ] 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	Please see ] below for more. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	== image/table ==
	The section is about philosophy and not scientific investigation. Possibly, it can be placed in the ]. ] 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	: Yes, that image clearly belongs under ]. ] (]) 06:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::My specific revisions is to delete the in the scientific investgation section and move the image to the appropriate philosophy section. Going once... going twice... ] 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::No, "clearly" that image does not belong in philosophy. If the image in question is BJ, the "developer" he is a historical figure (now dead) and belongs in history. We don't put pictures of random individuals in Philosophy, Eubulides and QG. If you want to kill the image altogether, go ahead I'm cool with that. ] (]) 20:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::This is not a picture of a person. The is in the ]. And it is clearly about philosophy. remains in the scientific investigation section. ] 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::This table was not an improved on Dematts. If we can find Dematt's table (better aesthetically by far) I see no problem moving this to Practice Styles/Schools of Thoughts where it was ORIGINALLY. ] (]) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::There already is a table in the ]. See at the end of the ]'s section. ] 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Can we move the table to the philosophy section and delete the in scientific investigation now? ] 00:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::This was made over a day ago. No objections have been raised. The table in the scientific investigation section is about philosophy. It can be moved to a more appropriate place. ] 04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== keep or delete table ===
	We added the table to the section. Should we keep the table or delete it. Please discuss. ] 04:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	: The table is kind of corny, but it's better than nothing. In general, having a few illustrations is nicer than just having plain text. If we can find a better illustration for ], let's use it; but in the meantime let's keep the table. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The table was . Why did this happen. ] 15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: The change log says it was deleted because CorticoSpinal thinks that as an illustration it is redundant and ugly. On both counts CorticoSpinal is correct: it is redundant, and it is ugly. However, it is still useful in an encyclopedia to give a diagram or illustration, as this can help new readers follow the exposition. A more-beautiful diagram would be nicer, but in the meantime it's what we have; there's little point to deleting a useful diagram from an article that is begging for decent illustrations. It's no big deal, but I would support restoring the diagram (or a more-beautiful version, if someone cared to write it). ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::I prefer the useful table restored. ] 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	== Attribution does not require mentioning in the text ==
	changed a claim of the form X to a claim of the form 'A doctor of chiropractic, Robert S. Francis, states that "Spinal manipulative therapy gained recognition by mainstream medicine during the 1980s".' Generally speaking, this sort of change is a bad idea. Citations are the right place for attribution; if we were to put attributions into the text of the article all the time, it would be littered with junk like "Dr. So-and-so said" which gets in the way of the primary topic of the article, namely chiropractic. I realize that this particular case is an exceptional one (the sentence was stolen, without attribution, from a primary source) but in general it's better to paraphase the source than to quote it and then said "Dr. So-and-so said". This section is ripe for rewriting from scratch, so I'd rather spend time on that than twiddling this particular quote, so for now I suppose we should leave it alone. ] (]) 07:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Delete it then. I added attribution because it seems extra ordinarily unwise to quote as fact a doctor of chiropractic who works for a obscure chiropractic organization. Talk about an unreliable source. So I attributed according to ] ] (]) 08:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The original source of this statement was the Meeker and Haldeman paper (2002) and someone changed it to a weaker source. Hmmmm, why would that be? Is anyone disputing that "Spinal manipulative therapy gained recognition by mainstream medicine during the 1980s".? ] (]) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Given your COI, I would be reluctant to rely entirely on your opinion on this. If an authoritative mainstream source, like a standard textbook for medical students says that, then cool. If it's in a paper, then it needs to be attributed since it may still be just the authors opinions. If it's the AUM, then quite frankly it should be deleted. ] (]) 17:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::Given your persistent accusations, I'd ask you to please stop making insinuations that I'm violating some kind of policy. Indeed, you are being needlessly disruptive and your lack of AGF is noted. The Haldeman article is published in the Annals of Int Med. You don't seem to get it; chiropractic textbooks published by majority publishing houses are just as notable and more relevant to chiropractic than a 'medical' text is. For the record, chiropractic texts are also classified under medical too, so I don't really understand your point. ] (]) 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::] is policy. ] (]) 10:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::You are violating the spirit of the rule by insinuating that the sources and authors represent a fringe viewpoint. This is not the case. If you feel differently, feel free to chime in at the fringe thread below. Thanks. ] (]) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	== Is Chiropractic ]? ==
	It seems like a lot of the endless debate, POV wars, edit wars, disruption, bans, blocks, etc could be attributed to a fundamental differences that proponents and skeptics view the chiropractic profession.
	I have been told by skeptics that DCs and chiropractic care is fringe, and, in effect is no different than ] and ]. Skeptics also suggest that chiropractic medicine is a pseudoscience. Let's have an open debate about these points and we shall see the strength of the arguments on both sides. The floor is open. ] (]) 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:To begin with, ''statements'' by chiropractors that chiropractic is ''not'' fringe can and should be disregarded by all, unless backed up by evidence ''not'' generated by chiropractors. That's just self-serving, even if published in (chiropractic)-peer-reviewed journals.
	:My feeling is that the evidence supports chiropractic working for some muscular-skeletal conditions, there is marginal evidence for some not-obviously muscular-skeletal conditions, such as headaches, and no evidence that it works for any conditions considered "diseases" by the medical community. There is no scientific support of chiropractic ''theory'', even to the extent of whether:
	:#]s cause disease (illness, or whatever non-standard term for such that chiropractors claim to cure).
	:#]s correct ]s.
	:So, in summary, chiropractic theory is ], but, chiropractic, itself, is marginal. &mdash; ] ] 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for starting the conversation, Arthur. So, to summarize, chiropractic is "marginal" hence not "mainstream" and chiropractic "theory" is fringe. Also, chiropractic sources, regardless of their reliability and validity are to be disregarded, correct? Are there particular elements of the theory that is fringe and what is your understanding of vertebral subluxation (complex) and adjustments (just to specify so I clearly understand). Cheers. ] (]) 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::There appears to be no ''definition'' of ]s which distinguishes them from other ]s, as we seem to have agreed in ], even if we allow ourselves to consider definitions supplied by chiropractors. (That should have been an additional point above in the "clearly fringe" list. My bad.)
	:::And we cannot use statements supplied by chiropractors or published in chiropractic journals as ] as to the efficacy of chiropractic, but we can use them toward definitions ''as understood by chiropractors'', provided it's made clear. Even under ], statements by practitioners as to what they (think they're) do(ing) are allowable. &mdash; ] ] 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for the reply but you didn't really address my questions above. Also, you've raised another point which I need to clarify; namely that we cannot use chiropractic sources, as per ] to discuss the effectiveness of chiropractic care. Is that correct? I think before we proceed I do need you to address the questions I've raised above so I clearly understand your position. Many thanks in advance. ] (]) 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::{{cite journal |journal= Chiropr Osteopat |date=2005 |volume=13 |pages=17 |title= Subluxation: dogma or science? |author= Keating JC Jr, Charlton KH, Grod JP, Perle SM, Sikorski D, Winterstein JF |doi=10.1186/1746-1340-13-17 |url=http://chiroandosteo.com/content/13/1/17}} Here is a comprehensive ref about subluxation. ] 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::What about Gatterman, Leach and Haldeman? The Keating et al. paper talks primarily about the fringe (but vocal) viewpoint of vert sub. What about what the majority of the profession and vert sub? ] (]) 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::What questions haven't I answered? And, ''in your opinion'', what ''is'' the mainstream chiropractic theory? I'm just looking for opinions at this point, not requesting that they be backed up with sources. &mdash; ] ] 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2002 |volume= 136 |issue=3 |pages=216-27 |title= Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine |author= Meeker WC, Haldeman S |url= http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/3/216.pdf |pmid=11827498}} I think this insightful ref can be used to improve this article. This ref answers a lot of questions. ] 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	I just want to confirm a few things before I answer your question. To summarize, chiropractic is "marginal" is not "mainstream" and chiropractic "theory" is fringe. Also, chiropractic sources, regardless of their reliability and validity are to be disregarded, correct? Lastly, that we cannot use chiropractic sources, as per ] to discuss the effectiveness of chiropractic care. I want to make sure I understand your position clearly so we can have more effective communication. ] (]) 22:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Almost. Because of obvious conflicts of interest, chirpractic sources as to the effectiveness of chiropractic cannot be reliable. Chiropractic sources as to the definition of chiropractic, and as to what the chiropractic theories are, can be appropriate. Chiropractic sources as to the history of chiropractic can usually be used if noted. Chiropractic sources as to other aspects can be considered separately, keeping in mind obvious conflicts of interest. &mdash; ] ] 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Some sources are RS and some are SPS for example. There are a lot of different types of sources. We should use the best sources available. If that means using less than reliable sources than RS then that is fine in some circumstances. Some sources are okay as long as proper attribution is given. It all depends on the specific circumstance. Blogs are sometimes considered reliable when written by a notable expert on the topic. ] 22:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	{{cquote|Right now chiropractors can go before any audience and say that there is sufficient science to discuss the neurological and clinical effects of the adjustment. It is no longer credible for anyone to state that "there is no scientific basis for spinal manipulation or the chiropractic adjustment." It is, however, essential that any proponent of chiropractic be very careful not to include leaps of faith and dogma when interpreting the research that is available.}}
	: Does this accurately sum of the state of affairs today, NPOV? ] (]) 05:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::This seems like a COI source from a . POV? Surely. ] 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: Quack, could you please elaborate on your concerns that a statement on chiropactic science and theory by Dr. Haldeman is not fair game? He is THE leading chiropractic scientist, IMO. YOu should also note that the FCER merely reproduced the transcript. I also think you don't understand the purpose, notability, relevance and signifance of the FCRE in both historical and modern contexts. To not have this at science of chiropractic is a serious error that needs to be corrected. As soon as I can roll out SOP and education, (which has been waiting patiently since April 13/08) I'd be more than happy to invest time and effort to help rewrite the scientific section. ] (]) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::There is no purpose in evaluating this source when we can't use this unreliable source. More reliable sources are currently available. ] 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Scott Haldeman is an unreliable source on chiropractic science? Is this what you are suggesting? ] (]) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Good question. That statement may not be very precise, and therefore risks being labelled a (unintentional) straw man argument, since it may miss it's mark ever so slightly, and lead to lots of wasted time on futile discussions. Who says it, and what is the setting? That might make a difference. It might be advisable to refine it. There are even chiropractic sources that admit nearly the same thing and therefore urge caution in making claims. It would be the claims themselves that often lack scientific evidence. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Feel free to tweak the sentence(s) as you see fit so long as it can be backed up with a source, if need be. Don't forget that was also said in 2000. There's been significant scientific developments since that time. ] (]) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	The ] is the gold-standard diagnostic text for classifying, billing and coding. at the list of signatories. Fringe company?
	: Your point? Chiropractic uses standard billing codes and this has nothing to do with any questions of fringe or not fringe. All organizations that use those codes are of course signers. Keep in mind that many instances where chiropractic is mentioned in various places are in fact proof that chiropractic is still on the fringes and not in the center (as yet). Those mentions of exceptional occurrences (which is why they are noticeable!) where chiropractors are seen involved with or cooperating with mainstream practitioners or in mainstream institutions are examples of "the exception and not the rule," and such exceptional "fringe" mentions should not be use to make a case for "not fringe". Examples of this have been (mis)use of the fact that a chiropractor here or there has ER privileges or teaches in some medical school as proof that chiropractic is now mainstream. (Often those chiros are also MDs, which is why they are where they are.) No, those are exceptional cases. BTW, please sign above.-- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 06:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	== things to do list ==
	Per ], a description of how spinal manipulation is performed is an improvement. ] 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:You can take the description of it from the safety section and duplicate it. Do we have a source for that just in case its contested? ] (]) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::I already have a more descriptive source in mind. ] 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Per Eubulides, "More generally, the "Minority" section doesn't present the big picture, which is that chiropractic has always been riven by internal disputes, and that simplifying it to "straight" versus "mixer" is a bit like simplifying the history of American politics to "Republicans" versus "Democrats". There are always subgroups with their own agendas, the two examples given are just recent examples of this, and it's missing the bigger picture to mention only those two examples." The big picture needs representation. There is a lot more to this story than the straight v. versus mixer evolution. There are internal conflicts too. ] 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::There are only 2 groups, no one but yourself promotes this. I had been on the fence with reform, but that is simply the maturation of the mixer POV. Do you know when the straight vs. mixer debate happened? To you know the relevance to it with respect to innate intelligence and subluxation? These are fundamental points to grasp. Please do let me know, otherwise we'll need a history lesson before we proceed. ] (]) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::We have reliable references that disagree with your point of view. ] 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It's not my POV, it's the POV of the chiropractic historians and researchers. What is your source incidentally? You do realize that '''you are the only editor''' here who is promoting the "more than 2 groups" thing, right? Your POV (or that of your sources) disagrees with the overwhelming majority of the literature. ] (]) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	== tags ==
	There is a content dispute tag at the top of the article. There is no need to additionally add tags to the Safety and Vaccination sections. It looks spammy. ] 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	I thought content dispute tags were added to the article. The tags are relevancy tags. I think Safety and Vaccination topics are relevant for this article and are in the appropriate section. ] 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Someone felt obliged to add the same 'spam' to effectiveness and history. Skeptics aren't the only ones who have NPOV issues with the article. To note, Eubulides' recent change of safety with the inclusion of Miley but not Boyle made it that much worse. At least stuff like that makes my case that a double standard is being used that much easier to prove. It's unfortunate that an otherwise good editors would get snagged in something like this; but their edits are out of my control. Edit conflict: since you have more experience at Misplaced Pages, please put a NPOV tag or a weight tag. That would be more appropriate but I don't know how to do it ] (]) 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::I thought the recent addition to the safety section was an improvement. NPOV as ever. ] 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::First of all, the wrong tags were added to the Safety and Vaccination sections. It should of been specifically the content dispute tags. However, at the top of the page is a content dispute tag for the whole article. It would be duplication to add more content dispute tags. ] 23:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for clarifying that for me, QG. You definitely know your dispute tags well, for whatever reason. Anyways, let's take down the main dispute tag and leave it for the sections that are disputed. How does that sound? ] (]) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::There are too many sections under dispute. Even improving references (formatting) is under dispute. ] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
	Generally speaking when there are this many disputes it's better just to have one tag at the start rather than litter the article with tags. I made to coalesce the tags that way. ] (]) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:I made to reflect that the unrelated content has been removed. Now we can get to work on the rewrite. ] 08:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::QG, you have removed content that we, as editors, had asked you to please not remove until we got consensus (Manga report). I'm going to give you the opportunity to restore that, otherwise it will look like a disruptive edit. We don't want to page to be locked down again, so let's co-operate here. Thanks. ] (]) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::I explained my reasons for removing the . We have consensus for a rewrite anyhow. ] 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I think you are mistaken, QG. Please reinsert Manga as per our discussion above. Thank you. ] (]) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: I agree with Cortico here. There is no consensus to remove, though there is one to rework them into the history section. Let's rework them first and then remove. Not having these important studies included in the interim is egregiously not including topical information from the article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::We have newer sources available that decribe the Manga report.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2001 |volume=24|issue=8|pages=514-9|title= Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest state, provincial, and national chiropractic associations and research agencies |author= Grod JP, Sikorski D, Keating JC Jr |doi= 10.1067/mmt.2001.118205|pmid=11677551}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/13/15/06.html|title=Canada Celebrates 100 Years of Chiropractic|accessdate=2008-05-01 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date=July 17, 1995 |volume=13|issue=15|publisher=Dynamic Chiropractic}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=150 |issue=11 |pages=1878–81 |title= Orthopedists have bone to pick with economist over report on chiropractic |author= Lowry F |pmid=7802764 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7802764}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1107–8 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Manga P, Angus D |pmid=7922936 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7922936}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1108 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Chapman-Smith DA |pmid=7802806 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7802806}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1110 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Hoaken PC |pmid=7922937 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7922937}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=9 |pages=1247–9 |title= Is the chiropractic management of low-back pain the solution? What can physicians learn from the Manga report? |author= Tardif GS |pmid=7954171 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7954171}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=9 |pages=1250–1 |title= Defending the Manga report on the chiropractic management of low-back pain |author= Manga P |pmid=7954172 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7954172}}</ref> ] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::There is consensus for a rewrite. We can use the latest sources available and not the obsolete studies. ] 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	== unsourced material in scientific investigation ==
	When testing the efficacy of health treatments, ] studies are considered acceptable scientific rigor. These are designed so that neither the patient nor the doctor knows whether they are using the actual treatment or a placebo (or "sham") treatment. However, chiropractic treatment involves a ]; "sham" procedures cannot be easily devised for this, and even if the patient is unaware whether the treatment is a real or sham procedure, the doctor cannot be unaware. Thus there may be "observer bias" - the tendency to see what you expect to see, and the potential for the patient to wish to report benefits to "please" the doctor. Similarly, it is often difficult to devise a sham procedure for surgical procedures, but it is not impossible. It is also a problem in evaluating treatments; even when there are objective outcome measures, the ] can be very substantial. Thus, DCs have historically relied mostly on their own clinical experience and the shared experience of their colleagues, as reported in ], to direct their treatment methods. Consequently there has been a call to increase ] studies that can better examine the whole chiropractic clinical encounter.{{Fact|date=April 2008}}
	Please provided a quality reference or in accordance with ] the unreferenced material should be deleted. ] 01:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	: The ] is to replace that material with ]. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::This unsourced text will be deleted if no references are provided. ] 15:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== outdated POV material in scientific investigation ===
	In 1994 and 1995, half of all grant funding to chiropractic researchers was from the US Health Resources and Services Administration (7 grants totaling $2.3 million). The Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (11 grants, $881,000) and the Consortium for Chiropractic Research (4 grants, $519,000) accounted for most of the rest. By 1997, there were 14 peer-reviewed chiropractic journals in English that encouraged the publication of chiropractic research, including ''The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics'' (''JMPT''), ''Topics in Clinical Chiropractic'', and the ''Journal of Chiropractic Humanities''. However, of these, only ''JMPT'' is indexed in ]. Research into chiropractic, whether from Universities or chiropractic colleges, is however often published in many other scientific journals.<ref>Chirofind.com </ref>
	Here is more oudated stuff in the article. Time for a cleanup. ] 01:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	: The notion that historical information can be outdated is rather ironic. I think this information is well-cited, relevant and important to chiropractic history. It should stay. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 07:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::This information is not part of the history section. It is in the scientific investigation section. The notion that you believe it is historical information is not the point. Even if the information is historical it has no historical impact. The text is highly one-sided from a less than a reliable website. Get it? ] 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: Certainly historical material can become outdated. The information in question is highly biased: it does not present the other side of the argument, which was available contemporaneously in high-quality sources. This must get fixed. Again, the ] is to replace that material with ]. Details about these obsolete studies can go into the history subarticle; they are not that relevant here. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Scientitic investigation, as it stands, is about investigation of SMT and not of the profession of chiropractic or any of the significant scientific milestones of the profession (Palmer clinic circa 1920's, FCER foundation 1944, CCE accrediation (funding for scientific investigations was a directed consequence of accreditation) conference on manipulation 1975 USA (they could not call it chiropractic for fear of a boycott (Petersen/Wiese 1994), the New Zealand commission 1979, Index Medicus JMPT 1983, major medical publishing houses publishing chiropractic textbooks 80s, 90s, WHO recognition (90s), integrative medicine (2000s). Also, scientific investigation as proposed by Eubulides violates ], ],] and applies questionable ] tactics. Seeing as there may be an impasse here I'll make a quick draft that is more relevant and valid to the topic at hand, namely the science of chiropractic. ] (]) 15:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::* ] dicusses forms of treatment other than SMT.
	::::* People who are reading about scientific studies of effectiveness and safety want to know today's best results, not about old stuff. Historical material should be put into ] with a brief summary in ].
	::::* The effectiveness of chiropractic care is a core issue; the scientific bureaucracy behind the scenes is not.
	::::* ] relies on high-quality recent reviews, from both chiropractic and non-chiropractic sources, and is far superior to what's in ] now, both in terms of quality of sources and lack of bias.
	:::: ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::According to Levin2112 the information . But the information is in the scientific investigation section and has no historical value. ] 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::Accordinng to this comment the text is This dated information is in the scientific investigation section and not the history. The highly bias text has no historical impact. Going once... twice... ] 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	== 2008-05-06 changes ==
	Reviewing made to ] since 2008-05-06 noon UTC, along with the comments made above:
	* The lead talks about "progressive view" but none of the three cited sources (, , ) say "progressive". This is a mismatch between the lead and its sources, which needs to be fixed. For now, let's add a "failed verification" tag.
	**It's clearly in the US Dept. of Education, Eubulides. Why you seem to dispute everything here is beyond me. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	*** Text must be directly supported by cited sources. Surely this is not controversial. The current text is not supported by the sources this cites. This is not controversial either. So the tag is appropriate. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	* The wording in ] has strayed to include material like "legislated as" that is not supported by the source, and the phrase "according to a research paper" which is out of place in a Misplaced Pages article (it is attempting to undercut the source). It's better to stick to what the sources say. The simplest approach is to keep the first sentence "primary contact providers" as-is, citing the WHO, and to have the second sentence use "primary care providers" and cite Meeker & Haldeman. That way, the text matches the sources, and it more accurately reflects the underlying controversy without getting bogged down in the dispute. Rewording it this way lets us avoid the "failed verification" tag.
	:*You have included that piece which was absolutely no bearing on the actual scope of practice of chiropractors. It shall be moved to the appropriate section, opinions of any kind, do not belong SOP. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::* Every source used in ] gives an opinion. If a source could be excluded merely because it expresses an "opinion" that would give license to exclude any source whatsoever, which is surely not intended. The source in question (Meeker & Haldeman 2002<ref name=Meeker-Haldeman/>) is high-quality and discusses scope-of-practice issues in a relatively neutral way, giving adequate weight to the wide variety of opinions on this subject. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	* The discussion of veterinary chiropractic is still supported by dubious citations. The discussion says DCs and DVMs "can practice veterinary chiropractic" but neither source says that. For now let's add "Failed verification" tags to these sources.
	:*Sorry that you find anything less than a double blind RCT "dubious" but had you actually read the sources, it says it clearly. I'm going to remove the tags, they are unneccessary and are a further example of questionable editing practices. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::* It's not a question of whether the sources are reliable. It's a question of whether the sources support the claim.
	:::* Neither of the two source cited (, ) support the claim that veterinary chiropractic "includes assessment, diagnosis and treatment of biomechanical disorders of animals that may be amenable to manual therapy"; neither of talk about assessment, or about diagnosis, or about biomechanical disorders, or about amenability to manual therapy.
	:::* Neither source says that DCs and DVMs "can practice veterinary chiropractic". The first source is an advertisement for a training course; it says nothing about practice or scope of practice. The second source talks about the examination process for getting an ACCC certification. It does say "examinations are designed to evaluate the suitability for practice in the international animal chiropractic environment" but that's too vague. Does it mean passing the test lets one practice veterinary chiropractic in (say) Mongolia? But one doesn't need a certificate to do that; one can just go ahead and do it; the Mongolian authorities won't care one way or another.
	::::* Let's find a source that directly supports the claim that this is a genuine scope of practice issue, as opposed to a meaningless and unenforced certificate that one can hang on the wall. And let's find a source that supports the other stuff about biomechanical disorders and diagnosis and so forth.
	:::: In short, I am not saying the text is incorrect; it's just that it's unsourced. Claims need to be sourced. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	* The ACA, the leading chiropractic association, veterinary chiropractic as a matter of official policy. This should be mentioned briefly, as the existing text gives only the positive POV of veterinary chiropractic. I propose adding the text "However, the official position of the ] is that applying manipulative techniques to animals does not constitute chiropractic and that ''veterinary chiropractic'' is a misnomer." and citing the abovementioned source. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:**This has no bearing to scope of practice and it completely ignores the subsequent survey which demonstrated de-facto support. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::* Sure it has bearing on the scope of practice. The leading chiropractic organization opposes the very existence of "veterinary chiropractic". Subsequent surveys do not change the fact that the topic is a controversial one, and all sides should be fairly covered. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	* The cited source for where chiropractic medicine is more established lists (on page 23, under "Thinking things through") that the U.S., Canada, and Australia are "established" but that other countries such as England, Denmark, South Africa, and New Zealand are merely "advancing". This does not support ]'s claim that chiropractic medicine is "most established" in North America (North America includes Mexico, which is surely not intended) or the U.K. Let's fix this problem by rewording it to "Chiropractic medicine is established in the ], ], and ], and is present to a lesser extent in many other countries."
	*::It's a big player in UK and they are producing good research and have a good journal as well. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::: The cited source says that chiropractic is not established in the UK. Claims made in ] should match their cited sources. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	* The expansion to ] was added not only without consensus, but with an undisputed outstanding suggestion in ] to put the new text in ] first, and to propose a briefer version here. I'll move the expansion to ] as a first step to implement that suggestion. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	*::The section is NPOV and this is yet another attempt by yourself to supress any information that you personally disagree with. I have restored the version as it is well cited, factual amd all significant claims are sourced. Please desist from deleting cited material that is directly applicable to chiropractic. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::: The material is duplicative of material that is already in ]. When the material ] two editors expressed their opinions; both suggested putting it in ] and drafting a shorter version here. Nobody expressed a different opinion. The suggestions should not have been silently ignored. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	* The phrase "(not necessarily performed by a chiropractor)" was inserted. A clarification is useful as the sentence appears right after a sentence talking about chiropractic care, but the parenthetical remark could be worded a bit more briefly. I suggest "(whether chiropractic or not)". I verified that the source, although it does not limit itself to chiropractic care, does emphasize chiropractic studies and/or arguments that apply equally well to chiropractic versus non-chiropractic care for its stronger results, so the "nonspecific" tag can be removed.
	* A citation was added to a primary study (Boyle ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204389) in order to argue with secondary reviews. This is not in accordance with the ] guidelines, which states that Misplaced Pages should not use primary studies to argue with secondary reviews due to the possibility of introducing our bias. In this particular case arguing with the secondary review is particularly inappropriate:
	::*We have discussed already this many times and Boyle et al. can be added in accordance with ] (at worst) and the guidelines does not preclude us from using high impact, quality, peer-reviewed articles. Unlike say, Miley et al. which does not mention chiropractic, and is rather about cervical manipulation (thus should not really be in the article, but rather SMT) Boyle '''is about chiropractic safety and utilization''' ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::* ] is not a good basis for writing a reliable encyclopedic article in a controversial area. It is a recipe for generating low-quality material that endlessly mutates. The Boyle citation is lower-quality for reasons already mentioned, none of which have been disputed; it was reviewed by Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18204386), and all of its results mentioned by Hurwitz (that is, the empty set) were already covered. Citing Boyle ''et al.'' is disagreeing with a reliablye high-quality review by reaching down into a primary study to obtain material used to dispute another high-quality review. This sort of behavior is a recipe for building ureliable and tendentious material. You are incorrect about Miley ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18195663); that study mentions chiropractic heavily and relies on chiropractic studies for some of their strongest results. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	**One of the cited reviews (Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204386) covers the primary study in question and did not highlight the result in question.
	**The Hurwitz ''et al.'' review is by the same task force as the primary study, so this is not a hostile or critical review we're talking about here; they would be expected to summarize the primary study with some sympathy.
	:It would be best not to speculate, Eubulides. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: The point is that there's no reason to expect Hurwitz to review Boyle unfairly. They are on friendly terms. Even a friendly review found nothing worth summarizing about this study. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	**The measurement technique used by the primary study (an "ecologic" one) is crude, so it's not surprising that the study reports no significant results.
	:** Please abide by ] and don't doubt the experts. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::* I am assuming good faith of the experts. The experts here (Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204386) do not think the report's results are worth mentioning. As per ], their opinions should take precedence over primary studies. We need a good reason to refuse to follow guidelines. No good reason has been presented, other than ], and "ignore all rules" is not a reason. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	**Other primary studies, using different techniques, have measured a statistical association between chiropractic services and stroke.
	**Nobody is seriously disputing that this statistical association exists. The Task Force review acknowledges it, among other reviews.
	**The text claims that the weak Boyle ''et al.'' result "is in contrast" to the Miley ''et al.'' review. But this is not the case. The Boyle ''et al.'' result (i.e., their crude technique could not detect a statistical association that other techniques can detect) does not disagree with or contrast with the Miley ''et al.'' review (i.e., there is weak to strong evidence of causation).
	**A Misplaced Pages article should not mislead the leader into thinking that Boyle ''et al.'''s weak result casts any doubt on the other results.
	***Where does it mention that the results are 'weak'? Are you injecting your personal commentary and inuendo or is there a source which suggests Boyle et al is weak? Please clarify. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::* The experts in this case (Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204386) have reviewed the study do not think its results are worth mentioning. We should not override their opinion in an effort to undercut the results of another reliable review. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:For now, I'll remove the citation and the text. If there is real sentiment that Misplaced Pages should cover Boyle ''et al.'''s primary study, I suggest putting it into a subarticle on scientific investigation, along with coverage of dozens of other primary studies. 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::For now, I'll restore the citation and the text. It's a study that '''directly''' investigates '''chiropractic care''' and stroke. It's published in a high-impact journal. It's a study funded by the WHO. It's part of an international task force. Weak? Hardly. ] (]) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: It's a study that has been reviewed by the same group that produced the study (Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204386) and they did not think its results worth mentioning. We should not override published expert opinion. For more, please see ] below. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	I made to implement the above suggestions. All in all, though this has been a lot of work and obviously there is some disagreeement here, I think we're making some real progress. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. ] (]) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:This controversial change added the POV wording of of subluxation. What happened to the ?
	:If we are going to use a primary source we should use something that adds value to the article. I find this sentence to be both comprehensive and informative. --> These strokes after manipulation appear to be unpredictable and are an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication of cervical spine manipulation.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2002 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=49–55 |title= Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy: a review of sixty-four cases after cervical spine manipulation |author= Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M |pmid=11805635 |url=http://spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200201010-00012.htm}}</ref>
	:: That sentence was removed after comments by SmithBlue in the ] thread. His feeling was that the sentence is to some extent superseded by the 2008 reviews and executive summary by Haldeman ''et al.'' published in ''Spine''. I don't feel strongly about it either way, but SmithBlue did, so I removed it. Please review the above thread before re-adding that sentence. The citation is not a primary source, by the way; it is a review, which is a secondary source. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:This recently , is written biasly. It starts off by saying "''This is contrast to the conclusions that suggest...''" This is POV and should be deleted. The cherry picked source does not add much to the article. It is saying that the risk does not increase with additional chiropractic care. The reviews did not think much of this too. This sentence seems misleading too. It is giving me the impression there is no risk with more chiropractic care. Please fix it. I think the text flowed better with the previous version. This does not flow well. ] 15:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: The "biasly" text and "cherry picked source" was added by CorticoSpinal for no stated reason other than ]. No other editor supports it, and due to its serious problems it should be removed. For more, please see ] below. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Chiropractors are ''primary contact providers'' who emphasize the conservative management of the neuromusculoskeletal system without the use of medicines or surgery.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/> <-- This sentence is POV. The next sentence explains about the ''primary contact providers'' debate. ] 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:This was not what I had in mind. Fixing the previous sentence about the primary contact providers issue is easy. Just remove the primary contact providers words. ] 16:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Given the controversy I thought it would avoid the whole mess by removing possibly PoV paraphrasing and go for a direct quote. I thought it worked rather well, but I would be happy to discuss this if you would elaborate on your objection. ] (]) 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Quotes are a good starting point. But when we have an original Misplaced Pages sentence it is better to use our own writings. Quotes are fine is some circumstances. ] 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::I agree that it isn't ideal. I viewed it as a compromise until an elegant NPoV wording could be found. ] (]) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Asking for elegance is probably asking for too much here. It should suffice if the wording is accurate and not overly clumsy. Accuracy is more importance than elegance. But I attempted to supply more-elegant wording; please see ] below. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::There was NPOV wording before but someone added the POV wording (primary contact providers). ] 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: The cited source says "primary-contact health care practitioners", so let's use that phrase. For more, please see ] below. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::This is a and the POV wording has returned. ] 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::QuackGuru, everywhere that DCs are legislated and regulated (hence scope of practice) they are considered PRIMARY CARE. I have compromised and took CynRNs suggestion to replace care with contact. Now skeptics won't even allow the disemination of information that DCs are PCPs for neuromusculoskeletal. Give me a break. ] (]) 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Given the controversy I thought it would avoid the whole mess by removing possibly PoV paraphrasing and go for a direct quote. I thought it worked rather well, but I would be happy to discuss this if you would elaborate on your objection. ] (]) 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Except in doing so, you disregarded the consensus on compromise that was achieved by myself, Eubulides and CynRN who felt that setence was appropriate. You have an increasingly worrisome habit of popping by the article, making an edit/reverting without even being part of the discussion that proceeded it. ] (]) 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Quotes are a good starting point. But when we have an original Misplaced Pages sentence it is better to use our own writings. Quotes are fine is some circumstances. ] 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::I agree that it isn't ideal. I viewed it as a compromise until an elegant NPoV wording could be found. ] (]) 17:34, 7 May 2008
	::::::: I attempted to supply some more-elegant wording. For more, please see ] below. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::It is a NPOV sentence. It's only POV to chiropractic skeptics who seem to have a warped sense of what constitutes POV. ] (]) 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::That has ALWAYS been part of the draft, QG, there are many, many diffs to prove this. If I might give you some friendly advice, if you are going to cast stones, make sure you don't live in a glass house. Your attitude here lately is unbecoming of an experienced editor and you have failed to agree to consensus as demonstrated above. I will remind you, yet again, that you narrowly escaped an ANI investigation into your disruptive tendencies on chiropractic and related articles and the diffs are accumulating since that time. For the good of the project, fellow editors and the article, please desist from inflammatory statements and false accusations. Consider this a gentle nudge! Take care, ] (]) 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::I must say that this was an unexpectedly hostile reaction to providing a quote from the world health organization. ] (]) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I'm not going to take your bait, Jefffire ("unexpectedly hostile". You have not participated here through building of the draft so naturally, you have no context to the situation. Go fish elsewhere. ] (]) 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::This is in direct contradiction to the next sentence. The first sentence declares chiropractors as "primary contact providers" but the next sentence explains the primary contact providers controversy. The sentences appear to be contradictory. ] 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::That's because Eubulides went against consensus and inserted an opinion of Haldeman and Meeker. It was struck out in the original draft and several editors felt it belonged ELSEWHERE. There was agreement however on the first sentence (primary CONTACT) and if anything the second sentence should be moved into the practice styles section or where OPINIONS belong.
	:::::::::: I did not go "against consensus"; I went against only your opposition to including the relevant points from Haldeman & Meeker. It is not the case that "several editors felt it belonged ELSEWHERE". ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Here is another . Please fix it. ] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Here is another that declares chiropractors as "primary contact providers" but the next sentence explains the primary contact providers controversy. ] 07:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::If there is a legitimate controversy about the status, then I think the appropriate thing to do would be to cut the "primary" stuff from the first sentence, and then explain the controversy in the second. ] (]) 07:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Removing the POV material (primary contact providers) from the first sentence works for me. ] 07:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Apparently I have missed something. How is it POV to say that DCs are primary contact when they are? If someone can demonstrate a reason why it should be changed (ie - how is it POV?), then it should be changed BACK to primary care. ] (]) 08:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::The next sentence explains the controversy. It should be changed back where there was no mention of primary contact providers or primary care. ] 08:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	(outdent) I gave a shot at rewording it in the light of the above comments. For more, please see ] below. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:QG, the next sentence does not explain the controversy. In fact, the second sentence could be deleted completely imho. Chiropractors are primary care/primary contact health care providers. That is a fact. It is not POV. Eubulides, I don't think that edit is acceptable, because now it seems like they aren't primary care/contact, they only have "many" attributes of primary care/contact, and then goes on to qualify it. Why the watering down of the fact that chiropractors ARE primary care/contact?] (]) 11:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: It is not a universal "fact" that DCs are PCPs. They are PCPs in some jurisdictions, but not in others. For example, DCs are not legislated as PCPs in New York; see (dated 2005). I'm sure there are other examples. The point is that the rules vary quite a bit from one jurisdiction to another, and the assertion "DCs are legally PCPs for NMS" is not correct in general. ] (]) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Thank you for that source. It has been my experience up to this point that legally, Primary Care has met the defintion of , in that there is no need for referral. Obviously, I was mistaken, and an agreed upon definition does not necessarily exist. I still fail to see the controversy about the first sentence calling chiropractors primary contact health care providers.] (]) 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The next sentence clearly explains the controversy in a neutral way. The next sentence explains it accurately. ] 16:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	==Disruptive editing by Jefffire==
	I would ask that Jefffire please refrain from editing agreed upon material with respect to scope of practice. The first sentence, which you have reverted twice, adequately and NEUTRALLY describes by and large the scope of chiropractic practice. Several discussions took place over this sentence and a neutral, agreed upon version claiming primary CONTACT (rather than care) was AGREED TO by the REGULAR editors here, including Eubulides, CynRN and myself. I would ask that you please desist from making any more reversions to agreed upon material or I will have to ask an uninvolved admin to lock the page if your disruptive and bogus edit summaries (POV) continue. Thank you. ] (]) 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Calm down a sec. There is no problem with making changes to an article. If adding a quote from the world health organisation which gives their view on chiropractic is so unbearably PoV then the other regular editors will chip in on it. ] (]) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::You replaced an agreed sentence which has been under review for 2 months and replaced with a non-sequitur that is a duplication of the lead from the WFC. You replaced a statement by the WHO that was cited and attributed and agreed upon with something that was not. Then you ignored my reversion which stated the statement was agreed upon. Then, by divine right, Arthur Rubin comes down and reverts it again. You two are beginning to look awfully suspicious in the way you edit this article. You have not participated in the discussions so you have no moral right to come here and disrupt the progress being made. It's the same garbage wherever you edit chiropractic-related articles. Then you slag me on QGs talk page. How can you come across as credible and I'm to AGF when you constantly disrupt chiropractic-related pages? ] (]) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Here was the consensus version for SCOPE OF PRACTICE. This had the input of all regular editors.
	CONSENSUS VERSION
	'''Chiropractors are primary contact providers who emphasize the conservative management of the neuromusculoskeletal system without the use of medicines or surgery'''.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/>
	JEFFFIREs CHANGE
	'''The World Health Organisation described Chiropractic as "A health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health. There is an emphasis on manual techniques, including joint adjustment and/or manipulation, with a particular focus on subluxations"'''
	Jefffire's needlessly disruptive edit. Thanks for proving your ] but that change is not for the better and not valid. We are discussing the primary contact provider (or primary care). The sentence was succint and clear. It was relevant to the section. He reverted me twice and then Arthur Rubin came and and ignored the consensus version (that guy is an admin?)and reverted the consensus version. So, technically, Jefffire escapes 3RR but the spirit of the rule was still violated. Skeptics have gone too far. Uninvolved Admin Swatjester has already said that the section had been NPOV and properly referenced. Since I included it has been the target of persistent attacks and stonewalling tactics by both Jefffire and Arthur Rubin. What makes this even worse is that neither of those 2 were present for the discussions. So, they're essentially undoing the hard work it took to achieve consensus on the major points resulting in a low grade edit reversion. I apologize for going up to 2RR and I'm going to desist for tonight but Jefffires edits and Arthur Rubin's approval just go to show at what lengths skeptics will go to challenge anything that challenges their personal POV. ] (]) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:* I share CorticoSpinal's distress at the way these reverts and reverts-of-reverts have been done. It would be better to discuss changes like this on the talk page first.
	:* The existing text is not carved in stone; if there is a good reason to change it to include the other points, let's please hear about it on the talk page first: why is it a worthwhile improvement over the existing version?
	:* Swatjester did not have the benefit of subsequent remarks explaining POV concerns about the text, and Swatjester has not weighed in on the discussion since then. It is not clear what Swatjester's opinion would be now, about either the original or the revised text.
	: For more, please see ] below. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	== draft for lead changes ==
	Traditionally, it is based on the premise that a ] or ] dysfunction can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health. Today, the progressive view examines the relationship between structure and function and its impact on neurological mechanisms in both health and disease.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/ |title= An introduction to chiropractic |author= ] |date=2007 |accessdate=2008-02-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://acatoday.net/level2_css.cfm?T1ID=13&T2ID=62 |title= A history of chiropractic care |author= ] |accessdate=2008-02-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.webmd.com/back-pain/guide/chiropractic-care-and-back-pain |title=Chiropractic Care and Back Pain |accessdate=2008-02-25 |date=2008-02-24 |work=WebMD |publisher=WebMD LLC}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=May 2008}}<!-- The cited sources don't say "progressive view". -->
	Chiropractic medicine focuses on the body's structure (primarily the spine) and its function (as coordinated by the nervous system) <s>are closely related</s>, and suggests this relationship affects health. Chiropractic care is given with the goals of normalizing this relationship between structure and function and assisting the body as it heals.<ref>{{cite book|last=Leach|first=Robert, A.|title=The Chiropractic Theories: A Textbook of Scientific Research|publisher=Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins|date=November, 2003|edition=4th|isbn=0683307479}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Principles and Practice of Chiropractic|editor=Haldeman, Scott|publisher=McGraw-Hill Medical|date=Sep 20 2004|edition=3rd|pages=1200|isbn=0071375341 }}</ref>
	=== commentary on draft for lead changes ===
	There has been two differnent versions to the lead. Please discuss. ] 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:It's easy. The sources deleted by Arthur Rubin were authorative texts that specifically go over this issue and that UNIFIES all the theories into some basic premises that straights, mixers and anything in between agrees upon. It was NPOV, it was factual, it was relevant it was cited. Arthur Rubin, for an adminstrator, is displaying incredibly poor judgment and has been reverting me in some way for the last 2 weeks and all the reversions he made went back to the original version? Why? Because he does not familiarize himself with the salient points before jumping it. He's letting his chiro-skepticism get the best of him. The fact that there seems to be an unofficial alliance between Jefffire and Arthur Rubin is even more disconcerting, it's a way of going around 3RR by getting someone else to revert AGREED UPON MATERIAL. The scope of practice section will be THE downfall of the skeptical editors, you guys have clearly crossed the line with the billion stonewalls, reverts, tags, disputes, verifications and other BS to discredit, obstruct and marginalize the profession which you clearly view fringe. This is my last warning: continued disruptive and disingenious reversions to scope of practice, particularly the first sentence, will go to ANI. We now have Orangemarlin, Arthur Rubin, Jeffire all reverting consensus material without warning/discussion despite pleas from involved editors; Eubulides has the distinction of being lumped in with those guys. You already know where I stand with respect to your editing practices. {{unsigned|CorticoSpinal}}
	::If you're being reverted by 5 editors, and the edits are not being restored by any, doesn't that tell you something about consensus? &mdash; ] ] 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::5 editors? Sure. If you mean randoms like you and Jefffire disrupting and leaving like you have a history of doing. You have completely ignored and disregarded any of the talks discussion and you have been proven wrong in every single instance you have tried to stonewall Scope of Practice? How are those verification failed tags doing you put up at Scope of Practice? Every single one of them you put up has been taking down (by Eubulides no less!). You simply do not have a grasp of the salient issues here because unlike the regular who have spent the last 2 months trying to fix things, you're simply trying to disrupt them. You won't be able to get away with this crap, forever. You should be stripped of your admin status; rather than build bridges and consensus you seek to delete and destroy. You have also failed again to address any of the points I raised above before using a red herring fallacy to try and cover up your significant errorS in judgment. ] (]) 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::I've been editing ] longer than you have, unless you have another account before your last change. '''And there is no evidence that there was consensus''' on what you call "the consensus version". I think you and possibly Levine just outshouted the other editors. And all of my {{verification failed}} tags were '''clearly''' supported (i.e., the text was clearly not supported by the reference).
	::::And you've reverted 7 times in 72 hours. How is that in keeping with your 1RR parole? &mdash; ] ] 00:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::This that DigitalC previously striked out as . ] 06:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Chiropractic is "assisting the body as it heals." Is this true? ] 07:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Changes like these should be discussed on the talk page before installing. For more, please see ] below. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	Sorry, I don't follow what those two paragraphs in ] are intended to mean. What are they supposed to replace in the lead? Why is the replacement important? I agree the lead has real problems but I don't understand this as a concrete proposal for improving it. Perhaps it would be clearer and simpler to put a draft replacement for the entire lead as a subsection of this section? ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Let me explain. There was a recent edit war over the two different versions above. I thought discussion would be helpful. ] 12:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== lead improvements ===
	The lead currently does not reflect the body of the article. We should not wait to finish the body. It may takes years that way things are going. I suggest the lead be improved where possible. ] 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	: Yes, the lead should reflect the body today; we can't go on for months editing the body without fixing the lead to reflect the body. ] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::I recommend we start with ] first per ]. ] 16:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	== 2008-05-07 changes ==
	Reviewing made from 2008-05-07 11:00 through 2008-05-08 08:00 UTC, I see the following problems:
	*As discussed above there is considerable dispute over the phrase "primary contact". The cited source (the WHO guidelines) uses the phrase "primary-contact health care practitioners" and I suggest we stick to the source's wording.
	*As discussed above, there's some confusion about the seeming contradiction between the 1st two sentences in ''Scope of practice'' re primary contact etc. I tried to reword it to avoid confusion.
	:* undid the change with that "Eubulides, I don't think that edit is acceptable, because now it seems like they aren't primary care/contact, they only have "many" attributes of primary care/contact, and then goes on to qualify it. Why the watering down of the fact that chiropractors ARE primary care/contact?" The problem is that chiropractors are primary care in some jurisdictions, but not in others. For example, they are not legislated as PCPs in New York; see . We need to briefly summarize, somehow, that there are important diverging views on this subject; the article cannot simply state that chiropractors are primary-care or primary-contact without also covering alternate views with proper weight. I will try another way to phrase it, since this way obviously didn't work for you. Here's what I'll try: "Chiropractors are primary-contact health care practitioners who emphasize the conservative management of the neuromusculoskeletal system without the use of medicines or surgery." citing the WHO, followed by "Although chiropractors have many attributes of ] providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like ]." citing Meeker & Haldeman.
	* introduced substantial and controversial changes to the lead (for example, it removed the notion of vertbral subluxation) without any advance discussion or comment. Please don't do that; it understandably caused a mini-revert war. Let's please go back to the old lead and discuss the changes first here on the talk page.
	:Why is it important to have vertebral subluxation in the lead? ] (]) 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: Certainly vertebral subluxation is important in the historical development in chiropractic. But the point here is not to argue about what should be in the lead; the point is that there should be discussion about controversial changes like this ''before'' installing them. That was not done in this case: the lead was fairly stable for weeks, and then all of a sudden a substantial change was made to it without advance discussion. That is contrary to the proper practice for this controversial article. ] (]) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	* removed a diagram from ]. The diagram is indeed ugly, but it's functional and it illustrates some of the relationships in ''Philosophy''. Let's keep it until we get a better illustration. Illustrations are good; ] needs more of them.
	* added a citation for Oregon and adjusted the text to match the citation. Thanks, that is an improvement. A couple of minor points: there's no need for the phrase "with no additional qualifications" here; also the cited source says "substances" rather than "drugs" so we should use the more-general "substances" term.
	:*I changed it from "with additional training", because they DON'T need additional training. I feel that it is notable that they DON'T need additional training to prescribe OTC "substances", but maybe it isn't, and I certainly don't have a source that says its notable. Feedback from others?] (]) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::* The cited source doesn't say that they don't need additional training; why should ] highlight something that's not in the cited source. ] (]) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	* removed a couple of failed-verification tags, and reworded the text at the same time (presumably to make the text match the cited sources better). But I just now went to the two cited sources, and I can't see anything like that text there. The two cited web pages do not mention anything being "in accordance with state or provincial licensing boards". They do not mention "assessment" or "diagnosis" or "treatment" or "biomechanical disorders" or "amenable" or "manual therapy". The first web page does not mention "practice". The second web page does say "The examinations are designed to evaluate the suitability for practice in the international animal chiropractic environment" but it is not clear that this "practice" is recognized by any legal authority. Please rewrite the claims to match the sources, or find better sources. I'll add a comment to that effect to the text, along with a "Failed verification".
	::*I did have some problems with this, as I tried to add another source that stated that veterinarians and chiropractors could perform animal chiropractic with additional training and licensure, but WP has blacklisted that URL.
	::*However, if we change (or add?) the first reference to , it is stated there that"<u>Qualified</u> Doctors of Chiropractic or Veterinary Medicine can practice Animal Chiropractic in accordance with the standards set forth by their respective <u>provincial or state licensing boards.</u>"
	:::* Thanks for that URL. This addresses the concern that none of the cited sources talk about "accordance with state or provincial licensing boards" or "practice". However, the other concerns remain: none of the cited sources talk about "assessment" or "diagnosis" or "treatment" or "biomechanical disorders" or "amenable" or "manual therapy". Please find a source that talks about these things, and add that; in the meantime I'll use the adjusted URL and restore the "failed verification" tag with the smaller remaining set of concerns. ] (]) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::*Again, please comment on {{cite web
	|url=http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse/Study%20at%20RMIT%2FTypes%20of%20study%2FPostgraduate%20Programs%2F;ID=MC030;STATUS=A
	|title=RMIT - Animal Chiropractic – Master of Chiropractic Science incorporating Graduate Diploma
	|publisher=www.rmit.edu.au
	|accessdate=2008-05-08
	}}. It is not a cited reference yet, but rather than insert it and get in an edit war, I'd like opinions on it first. ] (]) 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::*Sorry, I missed that comment the first time around. (This page is too big!) That URL says RMIT offers a postgraduate animal chiropractic program that covers diagnosis and management. This would address the concerns about mentioning "diagnosis", and if "treatment" is changed to "management" it would address those concerns as well. The remaining words not covered would be "assessment", "biomechanical disorders", "amenable", and "manual therapy". A couple of thoughts: first those remaining words could simply be dropped, surely. Second, I'm a bit uncomfortable with gluing together bits and pieces from various universities etc., and would prefer rewording it so that there's one phrase supported by each source if possible.
	:::::* I did a bit more Googling and found this source, for Nevada: (PDF). Note that it says any vet can practice veterinary chiropractic, but DCs can practice it only after jumping through hoops and only under the direction of a vet. Of course Nevada is just one state, but this is a worrisome datum, since it suggests that in Nevada at least chiropractors aren't really independent actors, and the summary currently presented in ] doesn't correctly state the relationship between DVMs and DCs (at least in Nevada). Here is one other source, in a journal: {{doi|10.2460/javma.2003.222.1679}}. It pretty much is in line with the Nevada source. If these are right, it looks like the current text has some real problems.
	:::::] (]) 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::*That was part of the reason for the inclusion of the "in accordance with...". Perhaps this could be changed to "In some locations..."?. Given that health care regulations vary from state to state, province to province, and that we want a global POV, I would assert that it would be NPOV to use "In some locations". ?] (]) 01:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	::*As for "diagnosis", and "treatment", would this be a RS? Not every word needs a citation. This source backs up claims that treatment includes "injuries" (ie - of the biomechanical kind, not lacerations), and we are allowed to paraphrase. {{cite web
	|url=http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse/Study%20at%20RMIT%2FTypes%20of%20study%2FPostgraduate%20Programs%2F;ID=MC030;STATUS=A
	|title=RMIT - Animal Chiropractic – Master of Chiropractic Science incorporating Graduate Diploma
	|publisher=www.rmit.edu.au
	|accessdate=2008-05-08
	}}] (]) 11:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::* Yes, please see above. (I missed this comment at first.) ] (]) 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	::As for NEEDING additional trainig, this is Australia-centric, but I just chanced across it while looking for the proper RMIT url above, ] (]) 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: Yes, that source means there's a legal scope of practice in Victoria for ''animal chiropractic''. Again, please see above. (I missed this comment at first.) ] (]) 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	* replaced a brief summary of ] with a copy of that article's lead section. So far, three editors' comments in ] have disagreed with putting this lengthy discussion here rather than in the subpage. Please address the concerns by adding to the discussion there; it's not constructive to silently ignore other editors' concerns and revert their changes. I will attempt to address the concerns myself, by drafting a brief summary; no doubt there will be problems with this draft but at least it should be a step forward.
	*The same edit created a broken citation to the CCE-USA web site.
	*The same edit lost the hyperlinks to ] and ]; surely this wasn't intended.
	*'s log said "moving contraindications to top where it flows better." but it did far more than that: it made significant changes to the wording without discussion. It's OK to move the contraindications, but it's not OK to make significant changes like that without discussion and with a misleading change log entry. Perhaps the wording can be improved, but this needs to be discussed first. For now, I'll restore the old wording.
	*The same edit changed "high levels of underreporting" to "potential high levels of underreporting". The cited source does not say "potential". Again, this is a significant change in wording with a misleading change log entry. For now, I'll restore the old wording.
	*The same edit changed "is similarly associated with general practitioner services" to "is similarly associated with general practitioner services for all ages". The cited source (Hurwitz ''et al.'' 2008, PMID 18204386) does not mention the "all ages" detail; it merely says "This study confirmed an increased risk of VBA, but found a similar increase in risk of this form of stroke after visiting a primary care physician for neck pain." Since the cited source does not mention this detail we should not reach down into the (uncited) primary study and highlight it. Again, this is a significant change in wording with a misleading change log entry. For now, I'll restore the old wording.
	*The same edit added a "content" tag but there's nothing in the log entry saying why. Since the entire article has a "content" tag it's redundant to put it on this section.
	* inserted a controversial citation to Boyle ''et al.'' 2008, reaching down into a primary study, and supplying linking text "This is in contrast to" that is ]. This change has not reached consensus; on the contrary, two editors have opposed the change, and no one (other than the editor who made the change) has supported it. The change violates ] guidelines, and the only argument made for it seems to be ], which is not a good policy for a controversial article like this. Also please see the discussion in ] above. Please discuss further options for this change on the talk page first. If we start adding primary sources because we disagree with what reliable reviews say, there will be no end to problems with editors adding marginal sources; hundreds if not thousands of primary sources would be available as ammunition for this sort of thing. For now, I'm reverting the change.
	*One other detail: there was a "nonspecific" tag that I said can be removed in ], but due to a typographical error I forgot to remove it. There's been no discussion since then so I assume it's OK.
	I made to implement the above suggestions.
	] (]) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== Not acceptable change regarding primary care/contact ===
	:I saw this and now I am shaking my head. The controversial changes have continued. This edit reverted a reference improvement among other things. The primary study was reverted back in the safety section. The table was deleted. ] 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: Yes, that edit undid many changes without explanation. The change log entry did say "Not acceptable change regarding primary care/contact" with . I attempted to addressed these concerns, and the few other concerns that were explained and installed a change to try to accommodate them, while restoring the changes that were not commented upon. is the set of changes that result from the combination of these edits. ] (]) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm willing to admit I may have made a mistake here. Is there a way to undo one part of a large edit without undoing the rest? ] (]) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::No automated that I know of, alas; one must simply create the desired page by hand. (Nor do I know of a good way to edit giant talk pages like this one. Ouch, it's large!) ] (]) 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Make small edits, save them, and continue. Any single edit that might be controversial (in this article that's just about anything other than spelling changes..;-) should be aired here first and only added after a consensus has been reached. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 03:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	=== deletion of cited text in medical opposition ===
	This change deleted cited text. Hmmm. ] 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	: To be specific, that change removed the text 'According to a 2002 survey, 68% of chiropractors believed that "most diseases are caused by spinal malalignment," although only 30% agreed that "subluxation was the cause of many diseases."' with a citation to . The log comment for the change said "this is not in the proper chronological order (at the very least)". A few thoughts:
	:* I assume the log comment is referring to the problem in citing a 2002 survey after a discussion of events in 2005 and 2006. This criticism makes sense, and can be addressed by moving survey results earlier in the text, so that it's clear the survey results are talking about chiropractic attitudes a few years ago rather than chiropractic attitudes today.
	:* Isn't McDonald ''et al.'' 2003 a better survey? Larger, more comprehensive, better questions, etc.? It's already cited by ] and it would make sense to cite it instead of Biggs 2002 unless there's some reason to cite Biggs 2002.
	:* I understand there's been a long-running dispute as to how much ] should emphasize survey results, but to be honest I don't recall all the details. Is there a short summary of the dispute that would make sense to people who haven't been following it all that carefully?
	:] (]) 19:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The 2002 survey is very clear and concise. If something similar is written from the 2003 survey it can replace the 2002 survey or we can add both surveys. For now I think we should restore the 2002 survey. We would have to write something in order to replace the 2002 survey. I don't see any proposal. If you are sure you have something good in mind then by all meaans add the 2003 survey to the article at ]. ] 02:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	== philosophy ==
	recognizes the centrality of the nervous system and its ''intimate'' relationship with both the structural and regulatory capacities of the body
	The word ''intimate'' seems like a ] term. ] 13:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
			The section "History" could use an update if sources are available.
	I will remove the peacock term. Going once... going twice... ] 02:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
			Looks like the most recent info in that section is from 10+ years ago.
	== reference improvements ==
			- ] (]) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
	Does anyone have any objection if I improve a few references. I know some editors continue to blindly bulk reverts quality NPOV edits (heavily cited text) and that is not right. Please do not blindly revert. We hope the reference tampering stops. ] 13:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
			:As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. ] (]) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	I will improve references. Again, please do not revert reference improvements. Formatting references is an improvement. Blindly reverting ref improvements is unproductive. ] 03:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
			:: In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at ] and ] for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. ] is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. ] is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical , a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are?
			:::I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out?
			:::Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume?
			:::It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. ] (]) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::: I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with ], the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from ]. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic ]! It works like magic! -- ] (]) (''''']''''')
			== Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience ==
	== References ==
			The links regarding its "esoteric" roots have nothing to do with esotericism. Also, the references that claim it is a pseudoscience are all just opinion articles. None of them have scientific evidence included. One of them even notes that while chiropractic started with unusual claims, it is now focused on physical therapy and has a scientific basis. If you want to claim it is a pseudoscience because of erroneous thinking in it's origins, then you need to make the same comments about psychology, psychiatry, and many other medical disciplines as well (which obviously are all legitimate by today's standards, as is chiropractic). ] (]) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			:They're not 'just opinion articles', and all Misplaced Pages requires is that sources meet ]. They do not have to include 'scientific evidence' to your personal standard. ] (]) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
	{| class="navbox collapsible" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
			::I'm as anti-chiropractic as they come, but saying "we did the bare minimum" is a bad faith argument. There are plenty of high-quality articles discussing chiropractic as a pseudoscience and no real excuse to not accept criticism of the article just because it happens to be right. ] (]) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
	|-
			:::No one said "we did the bare minimum". What I did say is that Misplaced Pages has standards it follows. We're not going to switch standards and rule out references because someone sets the goalposts in some arbitrary place to get rid of results they dislike. ] (]) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
	! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | References
			:] is essentially equivalent to an MD, but we still characterize them as practitioners of pseudoscientific techniques. Much of the <s>profession</s> Chiropractic profession has changed to be essentially PT, but much of it has not. Globally, the field is still beset with snake oil, sorry to say. ] (]) 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	|-
			:: I think there is some confusion there. Osteopathy is a red herring here, as this is about chiropractic. ]s are not comparable to ]s. DMs are real medical doctors, most of whom have long since rejected the pseudoscientific underpinnings of original ]. The chiropractic profession (except in England) still allows claims for non-existent ]s and "adjusting" patients for every disease imaginable, using claims that regular ]s will put the body in a better condition to self-heal. There is no evidence that adjustments make people more healthy. -- ] (]) (PING me) 05:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	|
			:::Yes, I worded that very confusingly. ] (]) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	{{reflist}}
			::::I want to point out that the articles cited after calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" are from SBM which is a blog. While they do good work, they have an implicit bias against chiropractic.
	|}
			::::The WHO recognizes the World Chiropractic Federation. It also recognizes spinal manipulation as a viable and first step for chronic lower back pain ().
	<!-- If you are inserting something below here, STOP PLEASE and instead insert above "== References ==". Thanks! -->
			::::I know people get on a high horse, but the body of evidence is massive compared to articles dated in 2008. Nearly 20 years have passed since the articles from Dr. Hall and you're touting it as if it's the end-all.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::Medicine changes and updates. I can't and won't speak for every practitioner, but evidence points towards chiropractic being beneficial for patients. It doesn't work the same way Dr. Palmer indicated it would in 1897, but Dr. A.T. Still wasn't correct either.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::If you're willing to keep your implicit bias against chiropractic, I'm only one person and cannot stop you, but being willing to accept data contrary to your beliefs is what makes Misplaced Pages a great resource. Yet, you're doing readers a disservice by using old data with outdated claims.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::I'm happy to keep providing updated data. I will concede that some chiropractors still subscribe to outdated beliefs, but I am also willing to provide evidence that MDs, DOs, and other medical providers do as well.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::You have a duty to maintain the up-to-date nature of the sources used. Otherwise, what's the point of science if you're going to cling to outdated ideas? ] (]) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			:::::See ]. Chiropractic is woo and that's been long settled &amp; accepted knowledge. ] applies and an exceptional set of sources would be needed to source any change of position. ] (]) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::Lol. I tried. I'm curious who you'll cite as it being "woo." ] (]) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			:::::::The article is well cited at the end of the first paragraph. ] (]) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::I've read the sources. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term. You may not like chiropractic, but slamming something as pseudoscience leaves no room for discussion because you will dismiss evidence out of hand.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::If I gave you a dozen meta-analyses for chiropractic adjustments, would that change your mind? A hundred?
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::If I gave you studies on patient outcomes? On patient satisfaction?
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::Psychiatry is still questionable on what causes depression. Yet it is a medical profession. Podiatry began as chiropody but is now a medical profession.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::This Wiki article cites DD Palmer as a problematic character. Look back at the origins of Osteopathic medicine. At the origins of modern medicine. None of it is good.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::Yet, you still fault them for the sins of those who came before.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::AT Still never went to medical school. Yet DOs are medical doctors.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::So, please, define for me what you consider pseudoscience.
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			::::::::I have no problem playing this game and changing the edits however much I can. I think it's a disservice to those who seek chiropractic care into scaring them away when modern evidence points to the benefits and validity. ] (]) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
			:::::::::Misplaced Pages follows reliable source. If they say something's pseudoscience that is reflected here. End of story. ] (]) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::All pseudosciences of a certain minimum age have studies confirming them, but that is not enough for ], for ] or for Misplaced Pages to say they are not pseudoscience, since primary studies are only the first step of the science process.
			:::::::::{{tq|On patient satisfaction}} LOL, that's a good one. If patients were never satisfied, a medical pseudoscience would not even get started.
			:::::::::{{tq|What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"}} See ]. --] (]) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I hear your concern, Bonewizard, and I _do_ wish we could strike a slightly better middle-ground. Anyone who ever leaned back in a chair and felt the pleasant sensation of 'crack your bones' knows that there's ''something'' to Chiropractic, however minimal. But unfortunately, Chiropractors as a field are absolutely known for peddling pseudoscience bordering on snakeoil. For the time being, we do have to warn readers that their field is pseudoscientific.
			:::::::::I would, however, love to see, say, comparison between things like chiropractic and, say, opioids, which consensus now accepts were often overprescribed to the point of malfeasanced -- IF we could find GOOD mainstream RSes, not cherry picked research. ] (]) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::The physical manipulation part of chiropractic (sort of maybe) 'works' for pain, but then that's just ]. Chiropractic, to be distinctively chiropractic, is the whole medical system built on the idea that the spine is the root of all health and that dextrous manipulation can cure all ills. ] (]) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Absolutely. But what fraction of practicing Chiropractors still preach that whole 'joint popping can cure all ills' nonsense? Enough that we still need to warn the reader, no doubt. But I do feel for the 'modern' practitioners who are, in essence, ], helping people reset a rib or crack their back or what not, and nothing more. But we DO need to err on the side of caution, Chiropractors will still totally take money to test your blood for fictitious 'toxins'. But I do wish there were better labelling between 'I'll help pop your back' vs 'I'll help cure all your ills' types. ] (]) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Do you have any evidence to support that? From any leadership in chiropractic? They don't teach that.
			:::::::::::The spine is central to the profession but no one of any consequence believes that.
			:::::::::::Primary evidence is showing immunological changes but the accepted body of work knows and understands there are limits - as there is in any profession. ] (]) 13:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::It's how it's sold. A quick search quickly finds this where chiropractic is being sold to treat allergies on the basis it addresses the 'root cause' of diseases. Reliable sources apparently see things for how they are, not some idealised form confected as a front. ] (]) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Does this work?
			::::::::::https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910617?form=fpf ] (]) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::You were pointed to ] above, you should read it thoroughly. ] (]) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Pseudoscience is descriptive. You can make a chart of fields claiming to be science and easily determine which belong in which category because we all know what the word means even if we don't like it. Just because it's used dismissively doesn't mean it's inherently a pejorative. ] (]) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
			:As far as I can tell {{u|Jjazz76}} was correct when they from the lead on account of not explicitly supporting "esoteric". I get that Simon seems to be hinting at it with "unconventional", but there's too much air between those wording choices. We're in an awkward position where "esoteric" is still present in the body with the same citation.
			:Regardless of the language choice, I'd support restoring something brief in the opening paragraph, paired with "pseudoscientific", that nods toward the origins of the practice. I can Google like the best of them, but I'm hoping someone more familiar with the body of sources can point us toward what the good ones say (or don't say) about this. ] (] / ]) 02:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm sorry I didn't also see the mention of "esoteric" in the body, because it is also unsupported by a RS, and I'm going to delete it.
			::I'm not going to weight in (yet) on the pseudo-science part of the debate (it is late here), but esotericism has a pretty specific enough meaning, and I'm not seeing a strong enough connection here. If there are some good reliable sources, then that's fine, let's include it, but but the connection as it stands seems tangential at best.
			::One might claim that chiropractic is pseudo-scientific and esoteric, and unconventional but I think each claim needs a reliable source to support it, and they terms are different enough in that one can't use a claim of one as proof of a claim of one of the other. ] (]) 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
			:I think it's important to mention the more comprehensive outlook on patient care that modern chiropractors have. In the UK, every chiropractor I have met and worked with, except for members of older generations, use techniques founded in physiotherapy, osteopathy and other fields of healthcare science; with many chiropractors working with osteopaths and sports therapists. Chiropractic has moved away from the idea of spine manipulation being the 'go-to' and instead tend to a patient's needs in much more versatile ways. I hate the way many people see chiropractic as only 'cracking backs' and I wish more would recognise what a chiropractor actually does. If someone would sit in for a chiropractor's average day at the clinic they would see nutritional advice, soft-tissue work, ultra-scans etc. and many other treatments you wouldn't expect. Healthcare professionals are vital for many people whom couldn't function without their help, many patients being turned away from general practitioners, their stories not being heard; drugs can't solve everything. ] (]) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Thats all well and fine, but the costume that chiros put on is still that of a primary care provider, which they are not. There isn't controversy surrounding massusers for example because they don't claim to be doctors. ] (]) 03:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 03:31, 4 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chiropractic Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. [REDACTED] Alternative views Mid‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Citizendium Porting (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Chiropractic (history) → Chiropractic treatment techniques Copied Chiropractic (history) → Veterinary chiropractic Copied Koren Specific Technique (history) → Chiropractic Copied Chiropractic (history) → Baby colic Copied Baby colic (oldid, history) → Chiropractic (diff)

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

The section "History" could use an update

The section "History" could use an update if sources are available.

Looks like the most recent info in that section is from 10+ years ago.

- 189.122.84.88 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at Chiropractic treatment techniques and Spinal adjustment for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. Activator technique is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. Applied kinesiology is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical , a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are?

I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out?

Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume?

It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. Feoffer (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with Joseph C. Keating Jr., the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from B. J. Palmer. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic hole in one! It works like magic! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience

The links regarding its "esoteric" roots have nothing to do with esotericism. Also, the references that claim it is a pseudoscience are all just opinion articles. None of them have scientific evidence included. One of them even notes that while chiropractic started with unusual claims, it is now focused on physical therapy and has a scientific basis. If you want to claim it is a pseudoscience because of erroneous thinking in it's origins, then you need to make the same comments about psychology, psychiatry, and many other medical disciplines as well (which obviously are all legitimate by today's standards, as is chiropractic). 2603:8000:DC01:401:6161:C2A0:44A8:D60A (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

They're not 'just opinion articles', and all Misplaced Pages requires is that sources meet WP:RS. They do not have to include 'scientific evidence' to your personal standard. MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm as anti-chiropractic as they come, but saying "we did the bare minimum" is a bad faith argument. There are plenty of high-quality articles discussing chiropractic as a pseudoscience and no real excuse to not accept criticism of the article just because it happens to be right. 2603:7081:1603:A300:D56:8C74:C3D7:9391 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

No one said "we did the bare minimum". What I did say is that Misplaced Pages has standards it follows. We're not going to switch standards and rule out references because someone sets the goalposts in some arbitrary place to get rid of results they dislike. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine is essentially equivalent to an MD, but we still characterize them as practitioners of pseudoscientific techniques. Much of the profession Chiropractic profession has changed to be essentially PT, but much of it has not. Globally, the field is still beset with snake oil, sorry to say. Feoffer (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion there. Osteopathy is a red herring here, as this is about chiropractic. DCs are not comparable to DMs. DMs are real medical doctors, most of whom have long since rejected the pseudoscientific underpinnings of original Osteopathy. The chiropractic profession (except in England) still allows claims for non-existent vertebral subluxations and "adjusting" patients for every disease imaginable, using claims that regular spinal adjustments will put the body in a better condition to self-heal. There is no evidence that adjustments make people more healthy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I worded that very confusingly. Feoffer (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to point out that the articles cited after calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" are from SBM which is a blog. While they do good work, they have an implicit bias against chiropractic.

The WHO recognizes the World Chiropractic Federation. It also recognizes spinal manipulation as a viable and first step for chronic lower back pain (WHO releases guidelines on chronic low back pain).

I know people get on a high horse, but the body of evidence is massive compared to articles dated in 2008. Nearly 20 years have passed since the articles from Dr. Hall and you're touting it as if it's the end-all.

Medicine changes and updates. I can't and won't speak for every practitioner, but evidence points towards chiropractic being beneficial for patients. It doesn't work the same way Dr. Palmer indicated it would in 1897, but Dr. A.T. Still wasn't correct either.

If you're willing to keep your implicit bias against chiropractic, I'm only one person and cannot stop you, but being willing to accept data contrary to your beliefs is what makes Misplaced Pages a great resource. Yet, you're doing readers a disservice by using old data with outdated claims.

I'm happy to keep providing updated data. I will concede that some chiropractors still subscribe to outdated beliefs, but I am also willing to provide evidence that MDs, DOs, and other medical providers do as well.

You have a duty to maintain the up-to-date nature of the sources used. Otherwise, what's the point of science if you're going to cling to outdated ideas? Bonewizard1 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SBM. Chiropractic is woo and that's been long settled & accepted knowledge. WP:ECREE applies and an exceptional set of sources would be needed to source any change of position. Bon courage (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Lol. I tried. I'm curious who you'll cite as it being "woo." 2600:1008:B10C:CC3A:814A:4C81:47D7:99D9 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is well cited at the end of the first paragraph. Bon courage (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've read the sources. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term. You may not like chiropractic, but slamming something as pseudoscience leaves no room for discussion because you will dismiss evidence out of hand.

If I gave you a dozen meta-analyses for chiropractic adjustments, would that change your mind? A hundred?

If I gave you studies on patient outcomes? On patient satisfaction?

What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"

Psychiatry is still questionable on what causes depression. Yet it is a medical profession. Podiatry began as chiropody but is now a medical profession.

This Wiki article cites DD Palmer as a problematic character. Look back at the origins of Osteopathic medicine. At the origins of modern medicine. None of it is good.

Yet, you still fault them for the sins of those who came before.

AT Still never went to medical school. Yet DOs are medical doctors.

So, please, define for me what you consider pseudoscience.

I have no problem playing this game and changing the edits however much I can. I think it's a disservice to those who seek chiropractic care into scaring them away when modern evidence points to the benefits and validity. Bonewizard1 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows reliable source. If they say something's pseudoscience that is reflected here. End of story. Bon courage (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

All pseudosciences of a certain minimum age have studies confirming them, but that is not enough for evidence-based medicine, for science-based medicine or for Misplaced Pages to say they are not pseudoscience, since primary studies are only the first step of the science process.

On patient satisfaction LOL, that's a good one. If patients were never satisfied, a medical pseudoscience would not even get started.

What is the limit at which something becomes "science?" See WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I hear your concern, Bonewizard, and I _do_ wish we could strike a slightly better middle-ground. Anyone who ever leaned back in a chair and felt the pleasant sensation of 'crack your bones' knows that there's something to Chiropractic, however minimal. But unfortunately, Chiropractors as a field are absolutely known for peddling pseudoscience bordering on snakeoil. For the time being, we do have to warn readers that their field is pseudoscientific.

I would, however, love to see, say, comparison between things like chiropractic and, say, opioids, which consensus now accepts were often overprescribed to the point of malfeasanced -- IF we could find GOOD mainstream RSes, not cherry picked research. Feoffer (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The physical manipulation part of chiropractic (sort of maybe) 'works' for pain, but then that's just physical manipulation. Chiropractic, to be distinctively chiropractic, is the whole medical system built on the idea that the spine is the root of all health and that dextrous manipulation can cure all ills. Bon courage (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. But what fraction of practicing Chiropractors still preach that whole 'joint popping can cure all ills' nonsense? Enough that we still need to warn the reader, no doubt. But I do feel for the 'modern' practitioners who are, in essence, folk bone-setters, helping people reset a rib or crack their back or what not, and nothing more. But we DO need to err on the side of caution, Chiropractors will still totally take money to test your blood for fictitious 'toxins'. But I do wish there were better labelling between 'I'll help pop your back' vs 'I'll help cure all your ills' types. Feoffer (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support that? From any leadership in chiropractic? They don't teach that.

The spine is central to the profession but no one of any consequence believes that.

Primary evidence is showing immunological changes but the accepted body of work knows and understands there are limits - as there is in any profession. Bonewizard1 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's how it's sold. A quick search quickly finds this where chiropractic is being sold to treat allergies on the basis it addresses the 'root cause' of diseases. Reliable sources apparently see things for how they are, not some idealised form confected as a front. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Does this work?

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910617?form=fpf Bonewizard1 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You were pointed to WP:MEDRS above, you should read it thoroughly. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is descriptive. You can make a chart of fields claiming to be science and easily determine which belong in which category because we all know what the word means even if we don't like it. Just because it's used dismissively doesn't mean it's inherently a pejorative. 2603:7081:1603:A300:D56:8C74:C3D7:9391 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Jjazz76 was correct when they removed "esoteric" from the lead on account of the Simon source not explicitly supporting "esoteric". I get that Simon seems to be hinting at it with "unconventional", but there's too much air between those wording choices. We're in an awkward position where "esoteric" is still present in the body with the same citation.

Regardless of the language choice, I'd support restoring something brief in the opening paragraph, paired with "pseudoscientific", that nods toward the origins of the practice. I can Google like the best of them, but I'm hoping someone more familiar with the body of sources can point us toward what the good ones say (or don't say) about this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't also see the mention of "esoteric" in the body, because it is also unsupported by a RS, and I'm going to delete it.

I'm not going to weight in (yet) on the pseudo-science part of the debate (it is late here), but esotericism has a pretty specific enough meaning, and I'm not seeing a strong enough connection here. If there are some good reliable sources, then that's fine, let's include it, but but the connection as it stands seems tangential at best.

One might claim that chiropractic is pseudo-scientific and esoteric, and unconventional but I think each claim needs a reliable source to support it, and they terms are different enough in that one can't use a claim of one as proof of a claim of one of the other. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention the more comprehensive outlook on patient care that modern chiropractors have. In the UK, every chiropractor I have met and worked with, except for members of older generations, use techniques founded in physiotherapy, osteopathy and other fields of healthcare science; with many chiropractors working with osteopaths and sports therapists. Chiropractic has moved away from the idea of spine manipulation being the 'go-to' and instead tend to a patient's needs in much more versatile ways. I hate the way many people see chiropractic as only 'cracking backs' and I wish more would recognise what a chiropractor actually does. If someone would sit in for a chiropractor's average day at the clinic they would see nutritional advice, soft-tissue work, ultra-scans etc. and many other treatments you wouldn't expect. Healthcare professionals are vital for many people whom couldn't function without their help, many patients being turned away from general practitioners, their stories not being heard; drugs can't solve everything. Klondike4 (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thats all well and fine, but the costume that chiros put on is still that of a primary care provider, which they are not. There isn't controversy surrounding massusers for example because they don't claim to be doctors. 2607:FEA8:4A62:2F00:AC7B:E1D:4396:EBB (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories:

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• B-Class Chiropractic articles
• Top-importance Chiropractic articles
• WikiProject Chiropractic articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Top-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles