Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chiropractic: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:00, 23 April 2010 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Neutral point of view: RFC← Previous edit Revision as of 03:04, 23 April 2010 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Failed verification: Request page number.Next edit →
Line 248: Line 248:


:::::::::What is found on the webpage was not what I could find in the book. I could not find the exact quotes anywhere in the book. ] (]) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC) :::::::::What is found on the webpage was not what I could find in the book. I could not find the exact quotes anywhere in the book. ] (]) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I request the exact page number where the exact quotes appear in the book. A webpage is not the book. ] (]) 03:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


== Neutral point of view == == Neutral point of view ==

Revision as of 03:04, 23 April 2010

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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 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, 40Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
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.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease 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.
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

Links from this article with broken #section links :
], ]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem
Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ]

For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page.

Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis 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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCitizendium Porting (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 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, 40Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Lead changes

Changes were made to the lead that does not summarise the article. See WP:LEAD. I would like to gain talk page consensus to restore the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus would be required to make such changes in the first placem so I have restored the previous NPOV lead that was developed according to the guidelines at WP:LEAD. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I've inserted the word 'alternative' in the lead, seeing as the infobox and the rest of the article is quite clear that it's not a mainstream discipline. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the lead that says "It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), a characterization that many chiropractors reject." Inserted the word 'alternative' in the lead was duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily - I feel that we're not giving enough weight to the fact that it's not real science. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Chase me..., I suspect you forgot "not" in "that it's a mainstream discipline". -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :-) *blushes* 16:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead says "It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), a characterization that many chiropractors reject." Inserted the word 'alternative' in the lead was duplication.

Not necessarily - I feel that we're not giving enough weight to the fact that it's not real science.

You did not explain how it is "Not necessarily" duplication. You think "that we're not giving enough weight to the fact that it's not real science." Whether or not it is not real science is a separate issue and irrelevant to this discussion. The word alternative and not real science are different topics. An unattributed opinion is a violation of WP:ASF. See WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." When there is a serious dispute it is considered an opinion according to ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the attribution problem and reworded it to avoid wordiness. The first mention is appropriate for the summary description in the first sentence. The next mention deals with documenting the categorization fact and also that many chiropractors reject it. That should take care of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No, you did not fix the attribution problem and you reworded another sentence is irrelevant to the attribution problem. The first mention is clealry not appropriate for the summary description in the first sentence. It is still an unattributed opinion that is a violation of WP:ASF. Instead of improving the article, the edit made things much worse. This edit did not remove the duplication. Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative health care is an unattributed opinion. I made this change because the sentence violates ASF and the other reworded is not neutral in tone. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It's attributed to the chiropractic source, Chapman-Smith. Don't you know who he is? He's the next-to-the-top dog in the profession. It's his statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It is still a violation of ASF. The text is referenced to the source but it is not in-text attributed. The text is asserted as fact without in-text attribution. The opinion is asserted as fact without explanation from other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you don't think it's attributed properly, how would you do it? Do you think his name should appear in the text, and not just in the ref? Propose a better wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this mess to the lead can be fixed with in-text attribution. My proposal is to revert all the non-consensus edits to the lead and I suggested a proposal in another thread that will fix the confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Try a better wording right here. Make a proposal and maybe a consensus wording will emerge.
You aren't a consensus. Your discussing in circles needs to stop. Your one track mind is currently running in two tracks: ASF and WEIGHT. There's more to life than that. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you agree it is a violation of ASF?
There was not a problem with the previous consensus version. The recent bold changes are against ASF and WEIGHT. Please explain how an unntributed opinion is not a violation of ASF. My proposal is to revert all the recent changes. I don't see a problem with the previous version but I have pointed out how the non-consensus version does have problems. If editors want to clarify about primary care providers I made a proposal in another thread. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
When discussing ASF with you, I know you have your own peculiar ideas of what that means that are at variance with many other editors' understanding, so I'm not going there. Instead you should demonstrate what you mean right here. If you believe that Chapman-Smith's name has to be visible in the lead, then try to make a proposal here and let's see how it works. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I do not have peculiar ideas of what ASF means. That is your excuse to ignore my comments. When I discussed ASF you did not respond to my concerns. You have not explained how this unattributed opinion is not a violation of ASF and you did not answer the question whether you think it is a violation of ASF. There was no problem with the previous version so there is no need to make a proposal with non-consensus version. There is still a problem with duplication in the lead. I pointed this out before but it was ignored. I did make a different proposal. The proposal was to revert all the bold changes and clarify the lead with another proposal that you are not interested in commenting on. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
And I have asked you to demonstrate what you mean, since your definition varies from others'. If you mean that Chapman-Smith's name should appear in the lead, then confirm that's what you mean. Is it? That's a very simple question. Just answer the question instead of going in circles. That's known as stonewalling, something you are well-known for doing. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I previously explained my point of view. I suggested to revert the bold changes that were duplication and against ASF and clarify the matter with a different proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

<- You know good and well that you have been asked to not use links to your previous comments rather than answer questions. That's stonewalling and totally unhelpful. I have already read what you wrote.

You have complained about an ASF issue. Now answer my question: "If you mean that Chapman-Smith's name should appear in the lead, then confirm that's what you mean. Is it?" If you refuse to answer I will report you for stonewalling. Your answer will bring clarity as I can't read your mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you address my concerns about duplication. The more that I think about it the more I think the problem cannot be fixed with Chapman-Smith's name appearing in the lead. I have a better idea. That sentence is poorly written and should be fixed by reverting to the long standing consensus version. I have complained about duplication in the lead which was not fixed. The duplication can be fixed by restoring to the previous version. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll take your "Chapman-Smith's name appearing in the lead" as an affirmative answer to my question, but next time don't bury it. What version are you proposing going back to? Please provide a diff. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you address my concerns about duplication.
I proposed restoring to the version before this edit without "Chapman-Smith's name appearing in the lead". If we restore to the long standing consensus veersion then we don't need to add attribution to the lead using poorly written sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, to get what you want with the lead without undoing other intervening edits elsewhere, here's the lead paragraph from that time:

You could just substitute it. I have no objection. There is only one small edit I made to the lead that would be affected and I can fix it easily. Go for it. It can always be reverted if someone objects. It's still not attributed in the manner you prefer (actually naming the source person in the text, rather than just in the lead), but whatever. Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would of liked my concerns about duplication among other problems be addressed. You can revert your own edit if you like. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I only made that edit because you complained about the attribution. Normally lack of attribution refers to lacking a source, so I provided it. If you just want me to revert my edit from that time, I can do that. I'm not hung up on the matter, but Chase me ladies might not like it if I go too far, so I'll leave his edit, but with the source so it's attributed in the normal manner. Why not write him an email and get him to come here and discuss this? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You want to leave his edit but you encouraged me to substitute it the the previous version. You wrote "I have no objection." among other things. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Forget that. I forgot that his edit was there, and I have no problem with it, especially now that it's attributed with the ref. I have stricken that comment of mine to avoid confusion.
I have carried out my change per my comment above. Now I'm out of it and you can discuss this with him. I support that content in its present form. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Attributed with the ref is irrelvent. Did you address my concerns about duplication yet.
You wanted me to revert his edit and instead you reverted my edit. I partially reverted by restoring the tag. There is still an issue with duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You wanted me to revert my edit and that's what I did. What I said about "substitute"ing was wrong. I have stricken it so don't mention it again. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course you have no objection if I revert Chase me ladies, the Cavalry but for you it was a different story. QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I do have an objection to that. I didn't revert Chase me. I didn't revert back to my edits, but only undid my own edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten about my concerns about duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with the "duplication" since it's very minor and deals with two different matters. The first identifies the placement of the profession with one word, right where it needs to be done. The second goes into depth about how many chiropractors feel about the characterization. That's a different matter and probably is too much detail for the lead. If anything, the second mention should be moved into the body of the article, if it isn't already there. That would solve your problem with "duplication" and remove unnecessary discussion from the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You don't see a problem with duplication when there is a problem. "It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), a characterization that many chiropractors reject." This sentence that summarises the body shows a serious dispute and adding the unnatributed opinion 'alternative' to the previous sentence is duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The word "alternative" is properly sourced to Chapman-Smith in the ref, and that's all that's necessary. If you were being consistent instead of selective, you'd require that the other places he is cited would also mention his name in the text, which would be ridiculous. No, the ref is good enough. The duplication is also fixed by moving the second duplication to the body. Problem solved. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Mainstream health care and governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization consider chiropractic to be complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); and a 2008 study reported that 31% of surveyed chiropractors categorized chiropractic as CAM, 27% as integrated medicine, and 12% as mainstream medicine." This text is in the body and was summarised in the lead.
This bold change removed text from the lead that summarised the body. Now the lead does not summarise the body because of this odd edit. QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That was the old text before my move. The part that was in the lead (about many chiropractors objecting...) wasn't even in the body, but the rest of the content from that source was, and now it's gathered together very logically. Read it. We can't duplicate every single detail in the lead, and the mention that it's "alternative" in the lead covers the mention in the body, where more detail is allowed. The lead was too clutterd with all that discussion which was inappropriate for a lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose restoring to the last NPOV version before all the problem edits began. QuackGuru (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That way you'd get to remove everyone else's edits and preserve only your own. No, that won't do. The duplication problem is solved. I've got other things to do than continually converse with you. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This text is from the body: "Mainstream health care and governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization consider chiropractic to be complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); and a 2008 study reported that 31% of surveyed chiropractors categorized chiropractic as CAM, 27% as integrated medicine, and 12% as mainstream medicine."
This text summarised the body: "It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), a characterization that many chiropractors reject."
I previously explained how the text deleted from the lead violated WP:LEAD.
BullRangifer agreed to revert his edit but then without consensus deleted the sentence from the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Weight violation again

The article says "In 2008 and 2009, chiropractors, including the British Chiropractic Association, used libel lawsuits and threats of lawsuits against their critics."

This change is a weight violation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is any problem there, it's probably that the first mentioned sentence is separated from the newer content. Maybe they can be merged and the sourced still used. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No, this was dicussed before and it was rejected to have this amount of coverage of this subject. This was a violation of WEIGHT according to past discussion on a similar paragraph. I made this change to the disputed paragraph. The paragraph should not be merged. It should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah! I get it now. You finally graduated from chiropractic school and are now engaged in whitewashing. That explains everything. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There was no misunderstanding. You have made similar comments like this before. QuackGuru (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see you also have a sense of humor! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall the previous discussion. That may have been the consensus then, but now we can form a new consensus. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are past discussions about similar text. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 30#Singh paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of past discussions, please remember that WP:Consensus can change. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You have not given a reason why the text should remain or be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
And neither have you - citing a policy is all well and good, but you haven't explained why it's undue weight. I must also point out that citing a 9 month old opinion by a single editor doesn't really hold any water as far as providing consensus, nor does it qualify as past discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There were a lot more previous discussions on this that were all rejected as against WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This text has serious WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM issues; it is way too much detail for Chiropractic about one incident. There have been thousands of prosecutions over chiropractic, many more serious than this one (resulting in significant jail time), and most of this has been chiropractors being the jailed rather than the prosecutors. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh good, and here I was afraid you might just copy and paste the same arguments the other editer made last time... I do happen to agree with you, however, that more than a sentence in the main article is probably excessive (but then I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic, so another editor may point out a reason that it's not undue weight). Rather than just deleting it however, the new sources should be used to update the paragraph about the event in the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article, since it still states that "the suit is ongoing". VernoWhitney (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The content should be deleted from this article first and then anyone is free to update the controversy article. A quick check of the archives will show past discussion on this topic. For example, see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 29#Simon Singh to put chiropractic on trial in UK. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I made this change to the case. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I can now support the removal of that paragraph from this article without hesitation. Others (e.g., BullRangifer) may disagree, but I get the feeling that's a common occurrence around here. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll defer to Chase me ladies. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Summarise Scope of practice

Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry. I propose summarising Chiropractic#Scope of practice in the WP:LEAD. This edit is an unattributed opinion in violation of WP:ASF but this proposal will clarify in the lead that chiropractic is not necessarily a primary health care provider. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The attribution problem is fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The attribtuion problem is not fixed. You have not commented on the above proposal. So far no specific objection was made to the proposal in this thread. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I was only responding to your mention that there was an attribution problem. I fixed it. See my comment above. As to the other part of your statement, no, I didn't comment on it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You asserted that you fixed it when I think you made things much worse. This proposal will fix or clarify the issues in the lead IMHO. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see what you've got. Just plunk it down here and let's look at it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat my proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Where is your proposal located and what does it look like? You are supposed to collaborate with other editors, not just refuse to cooperate, refuse to answer questions, stonewall, and generally run discussions into the ground with endless circling. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry." This is the proposal you missed. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It's easier to notice when it's in quotes. Is it going to be used to replace any content in the lead or will it be an addition? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It is proposed as an addition to the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Go for it and let's see what it looks like. If it doesn't work we can always revert and you can try in a different manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be a bit bold to make such an edit so soon. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If anyone doesn't like it they can revert it. It's as simple as that. Go for it. The evidence is right here that I encouraged you to do so, but if there is some other reason you're not doing it, let me know. Do your sanctions forbid you making any edits? You've been making them, so I don't get it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I was waiting for Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry to comment in another thread or consider this proposal to fix the confusion in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a separate addition, not a reversion, so it can be dealt with separately. Just go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a related issue to this edit. This proposal may resolve the other issue with the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

<- As long as it doesn't disturb that edit, then maybe you can make your addition without any problem. You answered my query and stated that it was "an addition to the lead", not a replacement. Where are you proposing to place it in the lead? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly where. But I thought in the first paragraph somehwere. QuackGuru (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay. When you figure it out let us know. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Failed verification

Attorney David Chapman-Smith, Secretary-General of the World Federation of Chiropractic, has stated that "subluxations are not structural entities and cannot be detected on x‑ray."

I was unable to find this quote in the book. Thus, it failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you just weren't able to find it. A simple search would have confirmed it's in the book. Even when we can't access a book, that doesn't mean it's not there. It was there when the edit was made, and I doubt that it's been removed. You need to be creative! Here are a couple chiropractic sources that affirm it's there:
Brangifer (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you know I have a copy of the book. I think we both know what is verified and what is not verified. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea whether or not you have a copy. If you have a copy, please explain why you started this specious thread. Are you baiting me?
I don't know what you mean by "what is verified and what is not verified". Please explain and be specific. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I started this thread because I have a concern with the text. That was it. See WP:V.
David Chapman-Smith (2000). The Chiropractic Profession: Its Education, Practice, Research and Future Directions. NCMIC Group. p. 160. ISBN 1-89273-402-8.
If other editors want to contribute to this discussion I suggest getting a copy of the book and try to verify the text in quotation marks. QuackGuru (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You explicitly stated that you were "unable to find this quote in the book. Thus, it failed verification." What's the problem? Can't you find it? Don't you believe it's in there? Don't you believe what the World Chiropractic Alliance says when it complains to the Word Federation of Chiropractic, discusses that book and cites that exact quote? Maybe the quote isn't being quoted exactly. Is that what you're saying? If you are complaining, then you need to help us understand the problem. You've got the book, what does it really say? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to explain I could not verify the text. I'll leave it up to other editors to decide if the text in quotation marks should stand or be rewritten. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Then there's really no problem and it can just remain. It's not always easy to read a complete book and spot an exact detail others have read. Let's move on. Thread closed. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What is in the book may not be the same from the websites. I would like it if someone else would get a copy of the book and try to verify the quote along with the page number. QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why you are so concerned? Don't you believe that Chapman-Smith would say such a thing? Keep in mind he's a lawyer, not a chiropractor, so he doesn't have the exact same POV as the straights and he no doubt has more common sense than they do, so the statement seems pretty consistent for his POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned because I cannot verify the claim. See WP:V. Did you have a copy of the book. What page is the quote on. I could not verify the exact quotes. Did you add the quotes to the chiropractic article? QuackGuru (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hope you two don't mind me jumping in again. BullRangifer did add the quote, and I don't know if it helps (since I don't have a copy of the book), but here is a webpage which talks about the section it's in, so maybe that will help you narrow down your search area for verifying it. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What is found on the webpage was not what I could find in the book. I could not find the exact quotes anywhere in the book. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I request the exact page number where the exact quotes appear in the book. A webpage is not the book. QuackGuru (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Chiropractic is a health care discipline and profession that emphasizes diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine, under the hypothesis that these disorders affect general health via the nervous system.

This two sentence proposal below, among other things, is to go after the first sentence in the lead.

"It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), a characterization that many chiropractors reject. Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry."

This proposal is to remove the word alternative and add the two sentences above to the lead while reverting this edit and this edit, revert this edit, remove the weight violation from History and controversy, and reverting this unsourced edit.

An unattributed opinion is a violation of WP:ASF. See WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." When there is a serious dispute it is considered an opinion according to ASF. To fix the problem I propose to add the two sentences which clarifies the health care discipline. We should explain the serious dispute rather than asserting it is an "alternative" health care as fact. Summarising the body is in accordance with WP:LEAD. The word alternative is not a good summary of the body.

There was no misunderstanding on my part. BullRangifer, you have made similar comments like this in the past. The Singh paragraph has serious WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM issues; it is way too much detail for Chiropractic about one incident. There have been thousands of prosecutions over chiropractic, many more serious than this one (resulting in significant jail time), and most of this has been chiropractors being the jailed rather than the prosecutors. BullRangifer agreed to revert his edit but then without consensus deleted the sentence from the lead which went against summarising the body. QuackGuru (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. Cite error: The named reference Nelson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Chapman-Smith was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Redwood-CAM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. Cite error: The named reference content-of-practice was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. Cite error: The named reference History-PPC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. Cite error: The named reference Keating-subluxation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Meeker-Haldeman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Categories: