Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 21 April 2008

Scientific Investigation

Let's start this article off on the right foot. Though I don't overly object to the 2 references used thus far; we must be vigilant in selecting, using and interpreting the evidence. Let's learn from the lessons of Chiropracticand not make the same mistake here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have my reservation since "Veterinary chiropractic" is a profession and not a modality which can be tested for efficacy. However, at least the studies referenced are specifically about chiropractic treatment and not about SMT in general. That said, the third reference added was to a "Chirobase" article last revised in 2000. Following our standards at Talk:Chiropractic, this is too old. Additionally, this is not a scientific paper, but rather an opinion piece published by a partisan group without any peer-review. -- Levine2112 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. This is a hard to find ref. I could not find another ref that covers this specific issue of risk to a horse. The other refs do not discuss this specific issue of "risk of injury." There are a lot of pro chiropractic partisian sources that are not peer-review. Removing the risk of injury bit is in violation of the spirit of WP:NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The other two sources in this section are research published in peer-reviewed journals. The out-dated, non-peer-reviewed opinion piece doesn't cut it and thus will be removed. If you would like to cite a peer-reviewed source the opinion piece relies on (if there is one) to make such a risk assessment, please feel free. But my guess is that there is no such source and even if there were, it would be severely outdated. Further, NPOV doesn't mean that a pro piece must be countered by a con piece. Neither of the two pieces of research cited qualify as a "pro chiropractic partisan source" as you suggest. They are published in a scientific, peer-reviewed, veterinarian journal. -- Levine2112 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The others sources are not a replacement for the text (risk of injury). Refs are being used in this article from pro chiropractic advocacy groups. Why remove the neutrally written injury bit but include links and refs to partisan chiro associations or groups. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We have no reliable sources stating that there is a risk of injury. The other refs in the Scientific investigation section are not from "pro chiropractic advocacy groups" but rather a peer-reviewed scientific journal. A statement from an unscientific, non-peer-reviewed, opinion piece is inappropriate for this section (regardless if the source is pro or con chiropractic). Make sense? -- Levine2112 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other refs in the article from "pro chiropractic advocacy groups." We have one ref that does discuss a risk of injury. That ref is the best available ref to write about "risk of injury" at this moment. There is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. David W. Ramey. "Veterinary Chiropractic". Retrieved 2008-04-15. I cannot find a replacement for this ref. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's old, unscientific, an opinion, not peer-reviewed, and unsourced to any piece of scientific literature. It is inappropriate for this article. Leave it out please. To pput it into perspective, it is tantamount to using as a source a veterinarian chiropractor's personal website who lists all of the benefits and states that there is no risk. Make sense? -- Levine2112 19:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to leave out the best available reference for the specific topic of risk of injury and include partisan chiropractic groups such as Canadian Animal Chiropractic Certification Program added to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not including any scientific research from CACCP or any conclusions about risk, benefit or efficacy, nor do I consider CACCP necessarily a partisan chiropractic group. This discussion is about the "Scientific investigation" of this article and the CACCP is not even referenced in this section. I wouldn't call Ramey's opinion piece "the best available reference" either. By all measures of WP:RS, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source for presenting risk. It is not a scientific paper nor is it investigatory. It is merely an opinion piece which relies on no scientific studies whatsoever. Thus it is entirely inappropriate for the Scientific investigation section. Rather than allow this to dredge out into a circular debate, please know that I intend not respond to any repeated arguments which I feel I have already dismissed. -- Levine2112 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then what is the best available ref for "risk of injury" info. We have one ref available. Going once... going twice... QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know of no caveat to WP:RS which states that when a reliable source can't be found then you can dredge up and use whatever unreliable source is available. -- Levine2112 01:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is curious, David Ramey is a notable equine specialist in Hollywood, who has written a number of books. The journal's search engine mentions him a few times. -- Fyslee / talk 03:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramey as a source? He is a notable expert on the topic. Per WP:SPS, we can include the text and ref. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First, see WP:SELFPUB criteria #2. I would argue that this is contentious. Second, this source is not scientific nor is it investigatory; thus it is inappropriate in the "Scientific investigation" section. It's also fairly old, relies on no scientific sources, and is not peer-reviewed. Let's reserve the Scientific investigation section for sources that are actually scientific; preferably those which have been published in a peer-reviewed journal of science and not an opinion piece posted on an unreviewed partisan website. This is very much aligned with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and the spirit of good article writing as per Misplaced Pages's founder Jimbo Wales. -- Levine2112 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This material is neutrally written and NPOV. It is very appropriate to include it in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in a section about Scientific investigation, because it is not a scientific investigation and the statement is not investigatory nor based on science. -- Levine2112 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

. Agreed with Levine2112. QG, stop bringing more garbage from chiropractic over here. You're simply trying to insert these sections here so that can be justified in the main article. These tactics won't work and its just a continuation of questionable diversions used from the main page. Considering you have no expertise on this subject you should not pass yourself as an authority figure. How many times can we repeat ourselves here? Sure you're technically being "civil" but these kinds of edits are certainly disruptive or are at least interpreted that way. CorticoSpinal (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding NPOV text is not garbage. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the application of the text that is garbage, not the source itself. Ramey is DVM who is quite critical of chiropractic, I suppose we might as well get his 2c in here now, Fyslee you got a source?

You can always improve the text and expand on it. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We can easily discuss the effectiveness of Veterinary chiropractic treatments. This is a highly relevant and on target. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness and Safety (REDUX)

QG,

I will please ask that you desist from engaging in a continued civil war by tendentiously pursuing these topic here at Veterinary Chiropractic after you and a few select editors have already done so at Chiropractic. You know very well that you cannot judge the effectiveness of a profession or a specialization. And the safety edit is a joke right? Talk about WP:POINT violation. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything is NPOV and relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The source for safety meets the inclusion criteria. QuackGuru (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramey as a source meets Misplaced Pages's standard. He is a notable expert on the topic. Per WP:SPS, we included the NPOV text and quality reference. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I understand your argument correctly, you are suggesting that David Ramey, DVM is an expert in veterinary chiropractic safety? You also suggest the source is strong enough for inclusion? I call BS, but I guess we'll say how it plays out. Also, the heading research is preferred; its NPOV and more appropriate. I won't bother to revert you (you're edit warring (again) needlessly and I won't take the bait) but I'll note it, of course. G'night, GQ. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bottomline, it is a weak source. Take it to WP:RSN and describe precisely how you would like the source to be used. See what the outside perspective is here. Until then, let's not include a questionable use of a questionable source. Thanks. -- Levine2112 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please address my previous comment per WP:SPS. It meets Misplaced Pages's standard. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First, it is not an WP:SPS as it is not published by Ramey, but rather by the partisan website. Second, even if it were a WP:SPS it would fail some of the qualifications, especially #2 "so long as... it is not contentious;" Again, feel free to bring it to WP:RSN, but be sure to describe exactly how you wish to use the source. -- Levine2112 07:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I already explained how it is a WP:SPS source. Ramey is a notable expert on the topic. The NPOV text is written by Ramey. QuackGuru (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation is very weak and I don't think it meets inclusion policy and it's getting long in the tooth as well. It's also better to rename "effectiveness" to "research" that way we can add relevant studies that pertain to veterinary chiropractic. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying the citation is weak is not an argument. The citation is highly relevant because it is specific to Veterinary Chiropractic. "Research" is way too vague. A specific title is an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts. . . the Ramey source is not reliable or verifiable. . . Publisher is an attack organization. . . no real research there. . . and it is fairly old. . . and just this guys opinion.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS, it is reliable and meets Misplaced Pages's standard. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Cortico and Levine's explanation above, I agree that it fails as a reliable source for this particular usage.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru should probably respond directly to my comment above: First, it is not an WP:SPS as it is not published by Ramey, but rather by the partisan website. Second, even if it were a WP:SPS it would fail some of the qualifications, especially #2 "so long as... it is not contentious;" Again, feel free to bring it to WP:RSN, but be sure to describe exactly how you wish to use the source. -- Levine2112 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It meets Misplaced Pages's standard. Ramey is an expert on the topic and it is written by Ramey. Please stop trying to remove well sourced NPOV text. QuackGuru (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Common, QG. Enough is enough, already. You can't annoit experts, especially one who has not published a peer-reviewed article in a quality journal. Using NPOV as an argument is weak here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you still haven't addressed my concerns above. I think I am being clear enough, but let me know if I need to spell it out for you in simpler terms. -- Levine2112 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have clearly explained how it meets the inclusion criteria per WP:SPS. This topic is controversial. Also see WP:PARITY. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. I am glad you agree that it is controversial. And per WP:SPS, since it is controversial (aka "contentious") we cannot use it as a source. Great! That settles it. Thanks. (Oh and P.S. WP:PARITY does not apply here at all since we are not dealing with a Fringe Topic. :-) -- Levine2112 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What? The material is NPOV and well sourced. The topic is controversial. But that does not mean we can delete it. Why do you think it is settled? We are fringed out here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read #2 on WP:SPS. Since you agree that this is contentious, then SPS prohibits us from using such a source. EOS. You say this is a fringe topic, but do you have any reliable sources to back up this characterization? If so, please present them here. It would be good to determine if this is indeed a fringe topic before we go any further. -- Levine2112 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no #2 for WP:SPS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about the second paragraph: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Is Ramey an established expert on Veterinarian Chiropractic? No. Or at least I haven't been privy to any sources establishing him as such. Also, note that this source is not published by Ramey but rather by a partisan organization; hence, we are not dealing with a self-published source and WP:SPS does not apply. -- Levine2112 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic It does apply. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not self-published and this is not one of those circumstances. -- Levine2112 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness or Efficacy (specific topic)

Effectiveness is a specific section. The title Research is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Efficacy? I gave it a shot. Let's see. -- Levine2112 06:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon reading it, I don't like it. I don't think "effectiveness" is a proper discussion for this, a profession. I could understand discussing research which the profession is conducting, but not efficacy... because who is to say that an entire profession is or is not effective? -- Levine2112 06:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The proper heading is Effectiveness. That is what the section is about. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Efficacy can also work. As I previously explained, the title Research is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's truly what the section is about, then I am in favor of removing it. -- Levine2112 07:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is truly about Effectiveness (or Efficacy). Removing it for no reason constitutes WP:VAND. QuackGuru (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, QG. Things aren't always so black and white and you have a penchant for making it seem. Again, this section was added by yourself and it's validity was disputed by myself and Levine2112. We have offered to rename it Efficacy or as I prefer, Research but you have reverted all our suggestions and have not budged from your stance. I strongly suggest that you take a minute to review your actions because this does not need to escalate any further. Make us a counter-proposal. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is essentially vandlism to delete an entire section without any good reason. I have already explained that the title Research is too vague. I am having trouble understanding why you prefer a vague title. I am doing my best to clearly explain this. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument that the efficacy of animal chiropractic cannot be covered in the article because it is a 'profession' is IMHO absurd. Vets and chiros learn specific manipulation techniques, apparently, and these can certainly be studied for effectiveness. IOW, Fido comes in limping and runs out of the office like a frisky pup! Take 50 creaky Fidos and do manipulation on 25 of them and 'fake manipulation' on the rest and keep track of behaviour, nociceptors and...number of tail wags? Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many studies of safety or effectiveness of this specialty. As for the article, without RCTs, data should be gathered where it exists. If a notable veterinarian, like Ramey, has something to say on the subject, include it! Everything else out there seems to be by the believers of this new 'profession'. CynRNCynRN (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, CynRN. The question is of weight, notability and validity. To propose a section on effectiveness based on one study is far fetched. Why do you think Ramey is notable and therefore an expert on veterinary chiropractic, moreso than say Dr. Willough, DC, DVM? You will learn, as I have, that we can't simply "annoit" experts and when we're talking about medical subspecialties, the inclusion criteria and relevance of that material is higher than non-medical articles. Also, 'believers' is a poor choice of words; are you suggesting that veterinarians now have been suddenly convinced by the evil chiropractors that manipulation is beneficial? A better section title would be "Research" and this would solve any problems of including various types of studies being done. So, based on WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS the current Ramey reference is not likely to meet inclusion criteria. Also, you're analysis at Chiropractic is a bit skewed; you suggest that effectiveness can't be measured in the professions of Medicine and Nursing because they are too broad. What about Physical Therapy? Chiropractic shares many similar attributes and clinically see many of the same conditions. Can you judge the effectiveness of PT or is it too broad? CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

David W. Ramey is a notable equine specialist, who has written a number books. And EVJ mentions him a few times. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Cortico, you are putting words in my mouth! Who said or implied 'evil chiropractors!" Settle down. It seems to me that the whole veterinary chiropractic movement is putting the cart before the horse, pun intended.:-). IOW, where are the studies? Secondly, on Ramey's points that harm could be done to animals with improper manipulation; it's common sense that this is possible. He is apparently an equine expert and his opinion counts. I don't understand why veterinary chiropractic skeptics should not have a say in this article. I support a section titled Research instead of Effectiveness. It doesn't matter much either way, with so little evidence supporting animal chiropractic.CynRNCynRN (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for seeming dismissive of this topic in my post above. It is certainly an interesting one and I appreciate CorticoSpinal's fine efforts here. However, I don't think that the veterinarians who have embraced animal chiropractic are the only vets that should be heard from here at this article. I would like to know what the profession as a whole thinks of this offshoot.CynRNCynRN (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source which represents the views of the veterinarian profession as a whole then let's discuss it. -- Levine2112 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A reliable survey of vets on this topic may not exist...CynRNCynRN (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my initial though on reading the article was that it's a hoax, so I think it's somewhat unlikely that real vets have even heard of the subject. We are so far into the fringe here we're falling of the rug. I suggest we proceed accordingly. Jefffire (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when you mix laypeople and experts together trying to write an article. Suddenly DVMs now are fringe. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well...yes they are. Jefffire (talk)

Really? Veterinarians are fringe? Since when? -- Levine2112 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I misread that as dc, no need to be a spanner about it. In that case Cortico's comment's make no sense at all since I never claimed anything of that nature. Jefffire (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So what are you saying? DCs are fringe? I don't think that is established here at Misplaced Pages. -- Levine2112 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Alt is fringe, mainstream is mainstream. Obvious really. Jefffire (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. This is not in agreement, as far as I know, which what is established at Misplaced Pages. For instance, there is nothing a Chiropractic alluding to your opinion that chiropractic is fringe. -- Levine2112 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to your beliefs Levine, but don't try to force them on Misplaced Pages. If there are strong mainstream scientific sources then please bring them forward. Jefffire (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to force my opinion that chiropractic and veterinary chiropractic are not fringe topics. That's your assessment. Your definition of fringe are those without strong mainstream scientific sources. So if you need strong mainstream scientific sources, then I shall point you to them. Chiropractic, for instance, is chocked full of strong mainstream scientific sources. Please peruse the article and examine the refs. And in this mere fledgling Veterinary Chiropractic article, there are already at least two strong mainstream scientific sources - each from a peer-reviewed mainstream journal of veterinary medicine. So based to your defintion, Veterinary Chiropractic is not a fringe topic. -- Levine2112 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

consensus or not

Is there any consensus for the Effectiveness (Research) section. If not, then why does it remain in mainspace? QuackGuru (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, QuackGuru, do you feel that if there is no consensus, then the material should be taken out of mainspace? -- Levine2112 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the WP:CON policy on Misplaced Pages is outdated and does not take into consideration when content disputes such as this arise. Consensus can WP:CCC. Consensus wikilawyering can be used to game the system! As you can see, I have mixed feeling about consensus. I don't know how to answer your question. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While the WP:CON stands as is, I think we should follow it to the best of our abilities and not be so quick to resolve to WP:IAR. Maybe this is a question you can pose directly to the founder of Misplaced Pages. -- Levine2112 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to honest about this. I thought I was clicking on Show preview when I accidently clicked on Save page. I want the info included. Let's get that straight. I would like to know what others think about the consensus policy. I think it is a bit outdated. Do we even have consensus for this info? QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps your questions about WP:CON would be better suited for that policies talk page. I'm slightly in favor of keeping the Research section IF it stays focused on research specifically about veterinarian chiropractic published in peer-review journals. However, I can easily see the argument that since we are dealing with a profession and not a modality, that research into the effectiveness of specific modalities may be better suited for articles about these modalities rather than this one. -- Levine2112 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You said the section is about effectiveness. That is the specific topic of the section. Why the vague section name of Research? QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there are other kinds of research than just efficacy. Why limit ourselves at this infancy stage of the article? Let's just resolve to use high-quality scientific sources in this section and not self-published opinions (pro or con) from partisan sources (pro or con). When we have something substantial written, we can always discuss whether it (as a whole) is appropriate for this article or if it (or its pieces) would be more appropriate for separate articles. I really think this is a vision Jimmy Wales had for good article-writing when he came up with Misplaced Pages. -- Levine2112 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PARITY. There are no high quality sources, just a sprinkling of very weak studies. This is a fringe subject, and should be treated as one. Jefffire (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it is specifically about effectiveness. If you really think it is "better suited for articles about these modalities rather than this one," then what are you waiting for? Do what you believe to be best for the project. We are WP:BOLD around here. If it does not work we can always revert or try again. This is a wiki. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who says we are dealing with a fringe subject here? WP:PARITY doesn't apply unless that can be established. -- Levine2112 19:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not established that Vet chiros are mainstream. This topic is fringe. WP:PARITY is applicable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You have made the claim that Veterinary Chiropractic is a Fringe Topic, now prove it. Otherwise, WP:PARITY clearly doesn't apply. -- Levine2112 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather. A fringe subject is one which cannot provide high quality references in mainstream scientific journals. If you cannot find them, then it is clear the topic is fringe. Afterall, WP:FRINGE is there exactly because real scientists don't touch such crap with a ten foot barge pole. Jefffire (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, currently in the article, we have at least two high quality references from mainstream scientific veterinarian journals discussing this topic. So by your assessment, Veterinary Chiropractic is not a fringe topic and hence WP:PARITY doesn't apply. -- Levine2112 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Curse my scientific ignorance Levine, but could you point them out for me? I mean, I did a quite check on the impact factors on the journals listed, and at first glance they seem rock bottom. Jefffire (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here they are: and . If you would like to learn more about the EVJ, please visit this link. -- Levine2112 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, rock bottom impact factor. There are not authoritative journals. I appreciate you have a lack of scientific literacy, but please don't PoV push by cherry picking from a myriad of weak sources. Jefffire (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD discussion

This article contains a lot of uncited text and unreliable pro chiro partisan sources. I think we need to test the notability with an AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's getting a little out of hand how Users such as QG and Mccready consistently appear and show up, disrupt, obstruct and ultimately try to corrupt chiropractic related articles. If this type of crap continues, it's going to ANI. The material here more than meets inclusion criteria and is notable. We don't need non-experts in the field like Jefffire, Mccready and QG try to thwart the contribs of productive editors. CorticoSpinal (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I propose we need a new section titled 'controversy'. Several states are currently wrestling with legislation regarding scope of practice for vets. Vets are feeling threatened, for myriad reasons, by the growing animal chiropractic movement and see the need for more regulation.CynRNCynRN (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Post the sources here and let's discuss. Initially, I think "Controversy" doesn't seem to fit as a title. Maybe "U.S. Legislation"? Hard to say without seeing the sources first though. -- Levine2112 17:55, 21 April

2008 (UTC)

Isn't this topic inherently controversial? Maybe "legislation" could be a heading, though. Here is a 2007 year end summary regarding state legislative activity from the AVMA:

"The authority of non-veterinarians to treat animals is still a huge issue for state legislators and regulatory bodies. Massage therapists, physical therapists, acupuncturists, chiropractors and equine dental technicians all generated activity related to animal practice. See the section below titled “Scope of Practice/Complementary and Alternative Medicine” for details" http://www.docuticker.com/?p=19258

I follow the link and through a little sleuthing, I have found the originating source: Veterinary State Legislative 2007 Year-End Summary. I think this is a strong source with some good information in it for our article. It doesn't seem controversial, just legislative. Take a look and let me know. -- Levine2112 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)