Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:40, 10 July 2008

No "new section" button pleaseIn order to keep the references listed at the bottom, please don't use the new section tab above, and please don't use the "click here to start a new topic" below. Instead, please create new sections by hand, just before #References.

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

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: 7 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.

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.

Current hot topic: History. (schedule of hot topics)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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: 7 days

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, 40

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

List of hot topics

Add new topics to the bottom of the list. Each topic should focus on a section of the article where major changes are needed, or on a new section to be added to the article. A topic will remain "hot" for at least 96 hours and no longer than 3 weeks. People can change which section of this talk page a topic is linked to, as long as it's essentially the same topic – or provide more than one link for a topic.

• Education, licensing and regulation, starting 12:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) See also: Comments on Education, licensing, and regulation 7 and here and draft 8.
• Current hot topic: History, starting 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Scientific research, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. See also: Syn tag
• Lead
• Philosophy
• Vertebral subluxation

The following signature is present to keep the archive bot from archiving this section: Eubulides (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

History is hot topic

Edits to finished History 2

I've made some edits to the article that were reverted by QuackGuru though I realize that I wasn't signed in and it looked like an anon IP, so I reverted back. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As discussed earlier, we have two different sources that consider the reasons that DD and BJ developed the innate intelligence; one was that they believed it and the other that it was to protect it from political medicine. Right now we have this sentence that states that "Early chiropractors believed". That gives the impression that all early chiropractors believed that innate was God's presence in man, but obviously this wasn't true. We know that John Howard didn't and he started the school right across the street from Palmer while DD was still there that later became National Chiropractic and now National University of Health Sciences. John Howard was very influential in making sure chiropractic did not become a religion.. as was Willard Carver who went up against BJ at every turn. These were both presidents of mixer schools. Anyway, ScienceApologist reverted my change to "DD professed", which might not have been a bad thing, because that, too was not totally accurate, but certainly an improvement. I am open to suggestions on how we can change this to make it more accurate and still follow the sources. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• The source in question (Martin 1993, PMID 11623404) says (p. 812) "At the core of chiropractic's early appeal was its ability to reflect certain traditional values and beliefs in a way the new 'scientific' medicine did not. In contrast to the increasingly secular scientific medicine, chiropractic emphasized that disease resulted from a violation of God's natural laws. Chiropractors believed that all disease was caused by interruptions in the flow of a vital nervous energy that they called 'innate intelligence.'... At its inception chiropractic explicitly addressed considerably broader issues than etiology, diagnosis, and therapeutics. For chiropractors innate intelligence was more than a mysterious life force, it represented God's presence in man." Martin cites D.D. Palmer's 1910 textbook and B.J. Palmer's The Science of Chiropractic (3rd ed., 1917).
• Again, it's reasonable for a historical article to say "Early Christians believed that Christ would return soon", even though this is not true of all early Christians, and even though the belief was motivated by more practical political considerations. Similarly, it's reasonable for Martin (and for Chiropractic) to talk about the beliefs of the majority of chiropractors in the important formative years in general terms, even if there were obviously some counterexamples, and even if there were political motivations behind the beliefs. The current text already talks about political motivations for the beliefs (legal protection) so I don't see important notions being omitted here.

Eubulides (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused due to the archiving, but I believe that the draft that is currently being worked on is History 2? This sentence - "Although D.D. and B.J. were "straight" and disdained the use of instruments, some early chiropractors, whom B.J. scornfully called "mixers", advocated their use." is confusing and is not grammatically correct - it implies that mixers advocated the use of mixers. DigitalC (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• The next sentence is also a little confusing - "In 1910 B.J. changed course and endorsed the use of X-rays for diagnosis; this resulted in a significant exodus from Palmer of the more-conservative faculty and students.". Which Palmer was there an exodus from? PSC? DD Palmer? BJ Palmer? DigitalC (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• And one more - "By the mid-1990s there was a growing scholarly interest in chiropractic, which helped efforts to improve service quality and establish clinical guidelines that recommended spinal manipulation in some cases." Were the efforts really to establish guidelines recommeding SMT in some cases? Wouldn't the efforts be to establish clinical guidelines that recommend SMT? DigitalC (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing those out. I made this change to try to fix those problems. Eubulides (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

History 4 - section break

Oh, to clear up confusion. History 4 was started because I did not feel comfortable making changes to Eubulides History 2 without him getting a chance to see them. As we worked our way through our discussions, he updated History 2, but I never updated History 4, I just moved on to the next paragraph. So History 2 should be considered the working copy while History 4 is where I will try out my changes. I woud use my sandbox, but it works well because Eubulides seems to take a look and we can discuss things before we get in too deep. I believe I started that second paragraph and had to run without even finishing the sente...  ;-) I'll probably just be making changes to the article version from here anyway. Of course if you want a reference just let me know, sometimes what I think is obvious does need a source. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re some recent edits: this edit adds "invented a new vocabulary"; this is what the source says, so this is following the source (Primer) better as stated in the edit summary.

This edit changed "mainstream medicine" to "political medicine". The source cited is Keating et al.'s "Primer". The sources uses the phrase "mainstream medicine" once, not, in my opinion, when discussing the topic of battles or competition, and uses the phrase "political medicine" multiple times and often in the context of active rivalry/conflict. Therefore this change brings the article closer to the source.

This edit changed "However, its future seemed uncertain: as the number of practitioners grew, evidence-based medicine insisted on treatments with demonstrated value, managed care restricted payment, and competition grew from massage therapists and other health professions. The profession responded by marketing natural products and devices more aggressively, and by reaching deeper..." to "However, as the number of practitioners grew, managed care restricted payment, and competition grew from other health professions its future seemed uncertain. The profession responded by reaching deeper...". The source given is Cooper & McKee 2003. The doi link is broken and I'm not sure whether I can easily obtain this source, so I can't comment. A quote from this source somewhere on this talk page says nothing about marketing natural products and devices; I don't know if that's somewhere else in the source.

I've run out of time, so I'll have to comment on "Early chiropractors believed" another time.

Eubulides, I apologize for some omissions on my part, which you've pointed out, and which were due to lack of time. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

• Invented a new vocabulary. It's true that if we include more words from the source, we are "following the source" better by some epsilon; but the source contains thousands of words, and we cannot include them all. The question is whether the information contained in the phrase "invented a new vocabulary" is worth the cost in space of adding it. I don't think it is. There is no grand theme, common to all or even most histories of chiropractic, that says that B.J. invented a new vocabulary; "invented a new vocabulary" is just one phrase out of Keating et al. 2005 and I don't see why we should highlight that particular turn of phrase. The important thing is that B.J. was using new words for the same things to avoid prosecution, and that point is made clearly in the text without using the phrase "invented a new vocabulary". I therefore suggest that we remove the phrase. This is not a big deal, as it is merely editing for brevity and is not fixing a POV problem; but these little phrases add up and it's better to be concise.
• Political medicine. The phrase "political medicine" is different. The original use of the term "political medicine" was to mean what we would now call more "public health"; see, for example William Pulteney Alison. This use is still the most common one in mainstream literature; see, for example, Bergman 1995 (PMID 7478770). Using it instead to refer to organized medicine's attempt to squash chiropractic is a mildly pejorative Keatingism that has not been picked up in the mainstream literature. The phrase was part of the title of a paper by Keating & Mootz 1989 (PMID 2691602), and Keating clearly liked this use of the phrase, but hardly anyone else does, even within chiropractic (the common phrases are "mainstream medicine" or "organized medicine"), and we should not be introducing nonstandard terminology here. How about replacing "mainstream medicine" with "organized medicine" as a compromise? "Organized medicine" is also used by Keating et al. in the context of conflict, and has less of a pejorative connotation.
• Natural products and devices. Cooper & McKee 2003 (PMID 12669653) write in their brief introductory summary (pp. 107–108) "At the same time, chiropractors are experiencing greater competition from acupuncturists and massage therapists, whose ranks also are growing. In response, the profession is expanding beyond its traditional forms of chiropractic treatment by reaching deeper into both alternative medicine and primary care, and practitioners are more aggressively marketing natural products and devices." They have an entire section (pp. 122–124) entitled "A broader role in alternative medicine", full of juicy quotes like "Surveys show that the ability of chiropractors to maintain their incomes increasingly depends on the sale of nutritional products and other ancillary items, such as orthotic supports, weight management products, and magnets."

Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Eubulides. Given your argument about "inventing a new vocabulary", I admit that those words are not needed. Re "organized medicine": that sounds like a good compromise. Re natural products: thank you for taking the time to provide a quote from Cooper & McGee; apparently that part of the article follows its source well. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I made this change to replace "mainstream medicine" with "organized medicine". Eubulides (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

renaming scientific research

If we are going to rename the scientific research section I suggest we rename it with something that starts with Evidence such as Evidence basis. QuackGuru 16:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Does a section on safety really belong under the heading of Evidence basis though? I am not sure I understand the problem with calling it Scientific Research. DigitalC (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SYN and implicit conclusions

(outdent)

• No specific evidence of any explicit conclusions (which are necessary for SYN violations) has been presented. All the conclusions that have been presented are implicit conclusions, conclusions that are not present in the text. This is dubious evidence for an alleged SYN violation: every major Misplaced Pages article has a huge number of implicit conclusions which could be used to allege SYN violations under a rule where an implicit conclusion would mean a SYN violation.
• SMT studies are highly relevant to chiropractic. SMT is at the core of chiropractic, and the highest-quality SMT studies are written by chiropractors and are aimed at chiropractors. The relevance is not just "perhaps the opinions of some researchers": it is the opinion of the leading researchers in the field, researchers like Haldeman and Meeker and Ernst, and no leading researcher disagrees. Omitting SMT from Chiropractic would be like omitting acupuncture from Traditional Chinese medicine.
• I'm not aware of any specific wording proposal that would address the SYN problem. It sounds like a major rewrite of Chiropractic #Scientific research section is being considered, but no specific wording has been proposed.

Eubulides (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides said: "Every Misplaced Pages article has a huge number of implicit conclusions." That's a straw man argument. Nobody is saying we should take out everything from which a reader could draw a conclusion. What WP:SYN is saying is to take out material which is there specifically for the purpose of leading the reader to one specific conclusion (if that conclusion is not in one of the sources). It's similar to questions being disallowed on cross-examination in a court if they're "leading questions"; it doesn't mean all questions which have answers are disallowed. Is there any reason for including effectiveness-of-SMT studies in this article other than to lead the reader to a conclusion about effectiveness of chiropractic care? If so, the material would have to be presented in such a way that it does not seem to be leading to only one possible conclusion, unless that conclusion is expressed in the source.

Eubulides said, "The example paragraph in WP:SYN has an explicit conclusion, namely that Jones's claim, if false, would mean Jones violated the Chicago Manual of Style's practice. That is what makes this an example of SYN." Ah, no! That is not what WP:SYN says! It says "...Jones did not commit it." "it" means "plagiarism", or, if you will, the Chicago Manual of Style's (CMOS's) definition of "plagiarism". Do you agree, Eubulides, that the word "it" refers to "plagiarism", or do you have a different interpretation of that sentence? Also, it's saying that the point is that Jones did "not" commit it. The paragraph also says something about Jones violating something in the CMOS, but that is not the point: the point is about Jones not committing something, i.e. plagiarism: an idea which is expressed implicitly, but not explicitly, in the paragraph.

I guess I wanted to include something in the article that effectively meant "We're not saying that SMT equals chiropractic, but..." However, I guess it isn't actually possible to include anything along those lines without violating WP:V or WP:SYN. Maybe there's no way to take a SYN violation and add something to it to make it no longer a SYN violation: except that I still think a heading "Effectiveness of SMT" might help. Maybe the whole second paragraph of the Effectiveness section is essentially trying to do that and could be gotten rid of.

Re Eubulides' argument that there used to be a long pro-chiropractic effectiveness section: I think we need to argue on the basis of what would make a good article, not OTHERSTUFFEXISTED arguments. If the earlier section was too long, perhaps it should have been shortened. If it was actually about effectiveness of chiropractic itself rather than SMT, maybe the same arguments for shortening it didn't apply.

I think the key is looking closely at the definitions. From the above discussion it seems to me that maybe some of the sources are covering a broad range of chiropractic manipulation techniques and as such seem to me to be relevant to this article. Also, if a study has "chiropractic" in the title or states that it's evaluating the effectiveness of chiropractic etc., it's probably relevant here. I'm in the process of getting access to some of the sources and should have them within a day or two, and should have more comments after that.

Re needing a proposal of specific wording: you're right, of course, Eubulides. Go for it, Levine2112 or Dematt or anyone else. I might come up with something eventually if others don't.

QuackGuru, I understand that in your opinion there is no SYN violation, but in other people's opinion there is a problem, so the tag should stay until it's resolved. You could explain in more detail where you see the flaws in the arguments about SYN violations. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments. You've certainly given us some food for thought. Some followup:

• "Nobody is saying we should take out everything from which a reader could draw a conclusion." Obviously this objection is not to everything. It is objecting only to the "conclusion" that SMT studies are relevant to chiropractic. My point is that the same sort of objection could be applied to most statements in Misplaced Pages, which makes this particular objection suspect. Here is an analogy. Suppose I said that WP:MOS entails a guideline called the "Verb Guideline" which lets any editor successfully object to any claim that contains a verb. And suppose I invoked the Verb Guideline to object to the contents of Chiropractic #Philosophy, on the grounds that the section contains verbs, and defended this invocation with the argument "Nobody is saying we should take out everything containing a verb". Technically this defense would be true, but it's missing the point: the Verb Guideline is misguided and would let any editor successfully challenge just about anything. The proposed misreading of SYN would have powers similar to those of the Verb Guideline, and should therefore be viewed with a great deal of caution.
• Come to think of it, this whole argument about the relevance of SMT being a "conclusion" is 100% backwards. The objection being raised here is actually to an assumption in Chiropractic #Scientific investigation, not to a conclusion. The assumption is that SMT is highly relevant to chiropractic care. This assumption is a mainstream assumption, but it is disputed by the straights (a minority of chiropractors who have an antiscientific philosophy), who assert that chiropractors do spinal adjustment, not SMT, and that SMT is irrelevant to chiropractic. It is this mainstream assumption that is being objected to. The objection argues that Chiropractic #Scientific investigation, by making the mainstream assumption, is leading the unwary reader to the "conclusion" that SMT is relevant. But that is an indirect and weak argument, whose main virtue is that it brings SYN into play. The direct argument is the argument about the assumption, not about the indirect proof-by-contradiction "conclusion".
• "What WP:SYN is saying is to take out material which is there specifically for the purpose of leading the reader to one specific conclusion (if that conclusion is not in one of the sources)." What is the "one specific conclusion" in question? Levine2112 seems to be arguing that this "conclusion" is that studies of SMT are relevant to chiropractic. But that sort of argument, if taken to this kind of extreme, could be used about a vast number of citations used in many Misplaced Pages articles.

• Let's take, for example, the first citation used in the alphabetically-first featured medical article in Misplaced Pages, which (as of this writing) happens to be Action potential. Action potential says "Electrical signals within biological organisms are generally by ions, which may be either positively charged cations or negatively charged anions." and cites page 9 of Johnston & Wo 1995 (ISBN 0-262-10053-3). But this citation is not about action potential; it is about something else. So Action potential is "violating" SYN here, because it is written with the purpose of leading the reader to the (unstated) conclusion that cations and anions are relevant to the topic of action potential.
• Of course, this is a ridiculous example: anyone familiar with action potential knows that cations and anions are highly relevant to the topic, and it's eminently reasonable for Action potential to talk about cations and anions and to cite a source on them. If pressed by a skeptic, an editor could probably even cite a source saying that anions and cations are relevant to action potential. But then the skeptic would say "A-HA! You're violating SYN, by tying together two different sources to make a conclusion! One source talks about anions and cations; the other says that anions and cations are relevant to action potential! That's a SYN violation!"
• This sort of argument, when taken to such an extreme, could be applied to most citations in Misplaced Pages. A sufficiently-motivated skeptic can always say "A-HA! You need another source B to show that this source A is relevant!". And then there will be an infinite regress, and an article will never be able to cite any source.
• The only way to forestall this sort of Carrollian argument, in the end, is to apply common sense. Of course cations and anions are highly relevant to action potential, and of course there is no reasonable objection to citing a source on cations and anions in Action potential.
• Chiropractic is similar. It's true that SMT is not exactly the same as chiropractic, but it is also true that SMT is the core topic of chiropractic. If Chiropractic did not discuss SMT extensively, it would not be encyclopedic. Common sense says that Chiropractic should discuss SMT, a core topic, and cite reliable sources about it.

• I agree that the "it" in WP:SYN's "Jones did not commit it" stands for plagiarism, but I don't follow the rest of your argument. If the problem solely lies in the editor's opinion that Jones did not commit plagiarism, then the fix suggested by WP:SYN ("a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism…") would not in fact fix the problem, as the passage's insertion would still have been motivated by the editor's opinion. The example SYN violation does not occur merely because the editor had an opinion. There is another essential component to the violation, namely, that the text contained a conclusion ("If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice...") that is not supported by any source.
• There certainly is a way to take a SYN violation and add something to make it no longer a SYN violation. WP:SYN gives an example of repair via addition of a source, an example that I quoted in the previous bullet.
• I agree that we should argue on the basis on what would be a good article.
• A mechanical rule like "'chiropractic' in the title" is completely inappropriate here. It would be absurd to require Action potential to cite only sources that have the phrase "action potential" in their titles. Chiropractic is similar.

Eubulides (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for squeazing in here, but this seems to be the last of the SYN arguments. Eubulides said "...then the fix suggested by WP:SYN ("a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism")" is not complete. There is an additional sentence that clarifies your discussion; "In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Misplaced Pages by a contributor. (emphasis mine)

This is where your issue lies. The point is that there needs to be one source that says both things - AND they need to be in relation to the topic.

Our Science section violates both of these - we are using two sources to synthesis an implied conclusion AND we are doing it in the wrong article. The rules are there to prevent POV warriors from creating original analysis in the wrong articles such as we have done. We need to respect the spirit of that rule by following its suggestion.

-- Dēmatt (chat) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, no problem squeezing in, we have plenty of room!
• I agree that the fix I gave was incomplete (I just now added a "…" to the quote in my previous comment, to mark that incompleteness) but this doesn't affect my points, which were (1) that a SYN violation does not occur merely because the editor had an opinion, and (2) a SYN violation can be fixed by adding text.
• I disagree that Chiropractic #Scientific investigation is original analysis, unless we change the definition of "original analysis" to be a much broader term than intended ("it's 'original analysis' unless the entire text of the article is transcribed verbatim from a single source external to Misplaced Pages" would be broad enough :-). Similarly, I disagree that Chiropractic #Scientific investigation reflects the work of POV warriors (this is a new allegation, is it not? aren't specific details needed for an allegation like that?) or that it is in the wrong article. If Chiropractic #Scientific investigation is indeed guilty of all these sins, then lots of Featured articles are rife with SYN violations, which is a bit hard to believe.

Eubulides (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for acknowledging the fix. I realize it wasn't intentional, only perhaps wasn't considered in your remarks. However, 1) the SYN violation occurs when the editors opinion gets expressed when the sources were not explicitly expressing the same opinion about the subject at hand. 2) I agree, the Syn violation can be fixed by adding a reference that specifically states the same two arguments and reaches the same conclusion about the subject at hand. It doesn't have to be verbatum, but it should reflect what the author concluded (not what he used to reach his conclusion) or we are doing the author a disservice to reference him/her.
• I wasn't alleging that any of us are POV warriors on this page. Only that the policy was designed to keep it from happening. No, we are pretty tame here on this page. Believe me, two years ago we had a guy who really was pushing to say that chiropractors were pseudoscientists. He referenced one study and said that chiropractors used chiropractic to cure homosexuality. Of course no-one had access to the research but him, but once we got it we found out the study was by a psychiatrist who mentioned the word chiropractor once. When we contacted him, the psychiatrist was upset that we had misrepresented his work. Taken out of context anything can be made to say anything.

-- Dēmatt (chat) 21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dematt is really expressing what my replies would be in a much more eloquent way than I could write. I also agree with Coppertwig's assessment above of the issue at hand. Eubulides, if you still disagree about implied SYN violations, I would request that we take the matter to WP:NOR/N for investigation. Perhaps we just start off by getting feedback on the policy in general (without specific application to chiropractic or SMT or whatever). That way, we know if SYN can be the result of an implied conclusion in general. Then, depending on what the consensus is on that, we can then ask for comment on how and if that applies to the situation at hand. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 00:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If necessary, yes, let's ask at WP:NOR/N. But we may be able to resolve it with discussion here instead. I think it would help, Eubulides, if you would answer my question as to what the pronoun "it" represents in the clause "Jones did not commit it" at WP:SYN. Perhaps you could also give an example of something at a featured article that you think would be a SYN violation according to our interpretation of WP:SYN. Or, maybe you'd prefer that we ask at WP:NOR/N; or, if I have time, maybe tomorrow, I might search there for a similar question having already been asked. If we ask at WP:NOR/N perhaps we should first agree here on the wording of the question. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• "the SYN violation occurs when the editors opinion gets expressed when the sources were not explicitly expressing the same opinion about the subject at hand" Yes, if the editor's opinion is expressed (i.e., explicit, as in the WP:SYN example) rather than implied (i.e., implicit).
• Curing homosexuality? Wow. Well, I've read all the sources to Chiropractic #Scientific investigation and I think it's safe to say that none of them are being misrepresented that badly!...
• Above I wrote, 'I agree that the "it" in WP:SYN's "Jones did not commit it" stands for plagiarism...' Looks like you missed that?
• Above I gave Action potential as an example of an article that would have a SYN violation under the proposed interpretation. As I mentioned, I simply picked the first citation in the alphabetically first medical article I could find; this wasn't chosen as the best or strongest example.
• I like the idea of agreeing on the wording of the question here first. Sometimes, you can resolve the answer to a question simply by resolving the wording of the question.

Eubulides (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we may be able to find the answer merely by agreeing first on the question. Anyone want to take a first stab?

Just so we are clear, we will be formulated a question for WP:NOR/N concerning whether or not the mention of SMT research in Chiropractic causes a WP:SYN violation as the justification for including said SMT research in Chiropractic is based on third-party researchers of the opinion that it is okay to relate SMT efficacy and safety research with Chiropractic's efficacy and safety.

Do we all agree that this is the basic plan we will be following here? -- Levine2112 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The phrases you're using would belong to a formulation of the question from your point of view, which is understandable. I would formulate it as a question whether an article on topic X can cite sources on a different topic Y that is core to X. Clearly, coming up with the wording of the question will be tricky. Perhaps both sides should get a budget of (say) 25 words each? Or whatever budget you like. Eubulides (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that even in your generic formulation, you too are understandably phrasing it from your point of view. We - as editors incapable of OR - know that Y is core to X without some other source Z suggesting that it may be. Does that sound reasonable to say? I don't know that word budgeting is a good idea in terms of limiting expression; however it may help to avoid convolution. Then again, there is a fine line between succinct clear expression and convolution. -- Levine2112 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that was the formulation from the other side. As for the budget, I don't much care what it is, so long as the question is roughly balanced from both sides. How about this idea? You propose specific wording for the question, using as many words as you like, and I'll propose specific wording to add to the question, using no more words than you used. That way, there's no budget, but there's still a rough equality. Other editors are of course free to propose other wordings too. Eubulides (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I tend to work better the other way around. I like to see other people's thoughts first and then see if I can hone my own from there. So please feel free to craft your own question first. Don't worry about budget. That much said, if I am struck with the perfect phrasing, I will jump in a formulate my take. -- Levine2112 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush, and no need to be perfect at the first try. How about if we start with the following phrasing, which is (of course) from my viewpoint: "Does it violate WP:SYN if an article on topic X discusses a different topic Y that is core to X?"? Eubulides (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to contribute lately, but the last few weeks have been very hectic IRL. I don't think that anyone is saying that we cannot cite sources about topic Y on the article for topic X. The problem is that in a section on "Effectiveness of X", we are presenting research on the effectiveness of Y, and that the section is overwhelmingly dedicated to the effectiveness of Y, while sources exist that discuss the effectiveness of X. It is also important to note that Y has its own article, where effectiveness of Y would be better discussed. DigitalC (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft questions would not resolve disagreement

• Eubulides and Levine2112, thanks for providing draft questions, but answers to those questions would not solve the disagreement we've been having about SYN. I suggest that if necessary, we ask at the noticeboard a question something like "Is it possible for an idea which is expressed implicitly but not explicitly in an article to be a SYN violation?" Talking about Y in an article about X may or may not be a SYN violation.
• Eubulides, where you said: "Yes, if the editor's opinion is expressed (i.e., explicit, as in the WP:SYN example) rather than implied (i.e., implicit). Actually, in the WP:SYN example, the opinion expressed is implicit, not explicit. You agree that "it" means "plagiarism". WP:SYN says "This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it." Therefore, the idea that SYN says is expressed is an idea which involves Jones and plagiarism, i.e. that Jones did not commit plagiarism (according to a certain definition). Yet no sentence in the example paragraph described as a synthesis (the last example paragraph in WP:SYN) mentions Jones and also mentions plagiarism. The idea about Jones and plagiarism is implicit in the juxtaposition of the sentences, yet WP:SYN uses the verb "expresses".
• Eubulides, thanks for the Action potential example. You said, "So Action potential is "violating" SYN here, because it is written with the purpose of leading the reader to the (unstated) conclusion that cations and anions are relevant to the topic of action potential." I respectfully disagree; that sentence does not look to me as if it is written with that purpose. Besides, cations and anions may well be relevant and their relevance may be verifiable by reliable sources
• Re this example provided by Eubulides: ""A-HA! You're violating SYN, by tying together two different sources to make a conclusion! One source talks about anions and cations; the other says that anions and cations are relevant to action potential! That's a SYN violation!"" It's good that you give examples like this, because it gives an opportunity to clear up misunderstandings. As long as the idea is expressed in some reliable source, it's OK to express it in this article (provided due weight and other policies and guidelines are followed).
• Re Eubulides saying "This sort of argument, when taken to such an extreme..." Nobody is suggesting taking arguments to extremes. There is a genuine concern here by some editors that stating something about effectiveness of SMT will mislead many readers into thinking they've just read something about effectiveness of chiropractic and concluding that chiropractic has the level of effectiveness stated. I think this is a reasonable concern and that we need to study the definitions of SMT (thank you, Dematt, Eubulides, Fyslee and Levine2112 for having done some work on that already; I'm sorry that I haven't had time yet) and figure out how to present the information so that it doesn't lead to a SYN violation.
• Since chiropractors also use nutrition and exercise etc., one thing that might help might be to give a brief statement about overall effectiveness of nutrition (with a link to a nutrition article) and a brief statement about overall effectiveness of exercise, etc. This would, in my opinion, avoid conveying to the reader the impression that the statements of effectiveness of SMT are statements of effectiveness of overall chiropractic treatment. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I continue to disagree with that characterization of the example in the WP:SYN example. The example text contains the editor's explicit opinion, and that opinion is key to the example. The explicit opinion is clearly in the sentence "If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted." Remove that sentence, and the following two sentences make no sense whatsoever and would have to be removed as well; this would remove the SYN violation in this example.
• Re Action potential: "I respectfully disagree; that sentence does not look to me as if it is written with that purpose. Besides, cations and anions may well be relevant and their relevance may be verifiable by reliable sources " Of course cations and anions are relevant to action potential: action potential wouldn't exist without them. This is true regardless of whether we can find a reliable source saying "cations and anions are relevant to action potential". So, the only real difference cited between the Action potential example and the Chiropractic example is "that sentence does not look to me as if it was written with that purpose", the purpose being to draw the reader to the (unstated) conclusion that cations and anions are relevant to action potential. I disagree with you: I think the sentence was written with that purpose. But regardless of whether we agree about that sentence's intent, our speculations about the motivation of the author of the sentence are far too slender a reed to prove or disprove a SYN violation. If "that sentence does not look to me as if it was written with that purpose" is all that's needed to disprove a SYN violation for Action potential, why doesn't it also suffice to disprove a SYN violation for Chiropractic?
• "As long as the idea is expressed in some reliable source, it's OK to express it in this article" In that case we are OK here. Every idea that is expressed in Chiropractic #Scientific investigation is also expressed in a reliable source. (The argument here is over implicit ideas, not about ideas that are expressed explicitly.)
• I still think this is really a dispute over assumptions, not over conclusions.
• We could easily add something about exercise therapy. For example:

A 2005 systematic review found that exercise appears to be slightly effective for chronic low back pain, and that it is no more effective than no treatment or other conservative treatments for acute low back pain.

I don't know of any reliable source on using nutrition to treat back pain or similar complaints.

Eubulides (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The core question

Does it violate WP:SYN if an article on topic X discusses a related topic Y that is core to X?

Please answer the above question directly or both the neutrality and SYN tag will be removed very soon.

Me thinks we should not continue a discussion when no evidence of SYN has been presented. QuackGuru 06:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is too simplistic. Of course it is valid to mention topic Y on an article X. However, what we have is a bunch of research on the effectiveness of topic U,W,Y, & Z under the heading of "Effectiveness of X". DigitalC (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

DigitalC claims "what we have is a bunch of research on the effectiveness of topic U,W,Y, & Z under the heading of "Effectiveness of X"."

However, no evidence has been presented to back up the claim. Both tags will be removed very soon if no evidence is presented.

The question below is a core question. Please answer it directly and be specific. Please present specific evidence to back up your comments.

Again: Does it violate WP:SYN if an article on topic X discusses a related topic Y that is core to X? QuackGuru 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DigitalC here. QuackGuru's question is far too simplistic for the matter at hand. We are dealing with research about SMT in general here and using it to make assertions about the efficacy and safety of Chiropractic. Perhaps the question should be asked as such:

Does it violate WP:OR if an article on topic X uses efficacy and safety research about a more general topic Y to make assertions about the efficacy and safety of topic X? Further, does it violate WP:SYN if the justification for making such an assertion comes from some source Z?

-- Levine2112 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Again: Does it violate WP:SYN if an article on topic X discusses a related topic Y that is core to X? ". Again - this question is overly simplistic, and is a strawman argument. As for answering it directly, I believe I did when I stated "Of course it is valid to mention topic Y on an article X." There is obviously no consensus to remove to SYN tag at present, and to do so would be disruptive editing, for which you may be blocked. DigitalC (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it violate WP:SYN if an article on topic X discusses a related topic Y that is core to X? Nope.

There is no violation of Syn. If you think the core question is overly simplistic and is a strawman argument then please provide your evidence.

Levine2112 agrees with DigitalC but DigitalC has not provided any evidence of Syn.

It does not violate Syn to use related topic Y information that is a core to topic X.

Justification for using related information does not come from source C. It comes from the fact the spinal manipulation is related to chiropractic.

DigitalC claims "what we have is a bunch of research on the effectiveness of topic U,W,Y, & Z under the heading of "Effectiveness of X"."

So far no evidence has been presented by DigitalC. DigitalC, please present your evidence.

Some editors claim that there is Syn but no evidence has been presented. This may be a case of I don't like it.

DigitalC wrote in part: "There is obviously no consensus to remove to SYN tag at present, and to do so would be disruptive editing, for which you may be blocked."

However, there is no evidence of Syn and no evidence that this is a complex issue has been presented. This is a simple issue. When spinal manipulation is a core to chiropractic it is related. Related information is relevant. Please provide any evidence of Syn or both tags will be removed.

Here is what the current are states: Spinal manipulation is the most common treatment used in chiropractic care and is most frequently employed by chiropractors.

I have provided my evidence that spinal manipulation is core to chiropractic. When topic Y is related to topic X it is relevant. QuackGuru 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question for you to answer: How do we know that we can attribute safety/efficacy research studying SMT as performed by non-chiropractors to the safety/efficacy of SMT as performed by chiropractors? -- Levine2112 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is my point. SMT is related to chiropractic. We can attribute safety/efficacy research studying SMT because it is related to chiropractic. Related information is relevant. Now then, please comment on my questions and provide your evidence of Syn or I will remove the Syn tag very soon. QuackGuru 23:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Just because something is "related" to another thing does not mean that there is a 1:1 correlation amongst their respective research. (Bocce is closely related to pétanque but there is not a 1:1 correlation between player stats. Same goes for bowls.) Including general SMT research in an article about chiropractic is deceptive to the reader. It is too easy for a reader to confound SMT safety/efficacy research with the safety/efficacy of chiropractic. The answer to your question lies with the usage of third-party sources stating that it is okay to confound SMT research with chiropractic. These third-party sources are being used to justify the inclusion of general SMT research (not covered by the third-party source) into this article. I think it is time we post this to WP:NOR/N for a WP:3PO per WP:DR. Let's agree to statement/question which we will post there and then let's wait for third-party input. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing "deceptive" about Chiropractic #Evidence basis: it clearly states when it is talking about chiropractic in general vs SM in particular.
• I disagree that it is "too easy for a reader to confound". The text is worded clearly. We should have some respect for the readers.
• In #Draft questions would not resolve disagreement Coppertwig said he was cogitating about yet another draft at a question for NOR/N or whatever; he wasn't happy with either of our drafts. Others are also welcome to draft a question, of course.

Eubulides (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Levine2112's argument we can never apply any type of related information to any article on Misplaced Pages.

These third-party sources are not being used to justify the inclusion of SMT research. I already explained that before.

When something is related that is core to chiropractic it is relevant. No evidence of Syn has been presented.

DigitalC claims "what we have is a bunch of research on the effectiveness of topic U,W,Y, & Z under the heading of "Effectiveness of X"."

Levine2112 agreed with DigitalC but DigitalC has not presented any evidence of Syn. DigitalC or Levine2112, please present your evidence.

Does it violate WP:SYN if an article on topic X discusses a related topic Y that is core to X? That is the core question. If you think it is too simplistic then provide your evidence that this is a complex issue. There is no evidence that this is complex. We have related research that is core to chiropractic. Related research is relevant. It's simple. QuackGuru 05:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is more complex than your simplistic "core question", because we are not simply discussing a related topic. We are confounding the effectiveness of spinal manipulation with the effectiveness of chiropractic, because we are putting it in a section titled Effectiveness of Chiropractic. The "related research" is not neccessarily core to chiropractic. If a study is performed on SMT by physiotherapists, is that "core to chiropractic"? This has been repeated many times, and you are simply ignoring the input of other editors. You have been warned about WP:IDHT before. DigitalC (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not cite any study "performed on SMT by physiotherapists". And it does not confound the two issues; it states clearly when it is talking about SM and when it is talking about chiropractic care in general. Eubulides (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 agreed with DigitalC but DigitalC and Levine2112 have not presented any evidence of Syn.

Does it violate WP:SYN if an article on topic X discusses a related topic Y that is core to X? That is the core question. If you think it is too simplistic then provide your evidence that this is a complex issue. There is no evidence that this is complex. We have related research that is core to chiropractic. Related research is relevant.

DigitalC claims "The issue is more complex than your simplistic "core question", because we are not simply discussing a related topic." But no evidence has been presented.

Here is what the current are states: Spinal manipulation is the most common treatment used in chiropractic care and is most frequently employed by chiropractors. That is strong evidence that spinal manipulation is core to chiropractic.

DigitalC or Levine2112, please present your evidence. I am still waiting. QuackGuru 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, #1) chiropractic is more than spinal manipulation and #2) chiropractors use different manipulation techniques than do other practitioners and #3) chiropractors diagnose and prescribe spinal manipulation in a manner wholly different than other practitioners. Thus, we can all see the pitfalls in using non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research and applying directly to chiropractic spinal manipulation conclusions. That said (and I hope fully recognized and agreed to), let's start over from the top. The first ref used in Chiropractic#Effectiveness under the first treatment condition (Lower Back Pain) is this one. Does this ref make any conclusions specifically about the efficacy of chiropractic in terms of Lower Back Pain? Were the researchers studying chiropractic manipulation or manipulations performed by other practitioners? Do the researchers say that their conclusions about general SMT can be directly applied to chiropractic with regards to its efficacy in treating Lower Back Pain? Please quote from the conclusions/methodology of this research. (I don't have access to see the research in full.) Thanks. -- Levine2112 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that chiropractic ≠ spinal manipulation. Your questions about the first ref are addressed in the #Murphy et al. 2006 subsection below. Eubulides (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Murphy et al. 2006

Responding to Levine2112's question in the previous subsection about Murphy et al. 2006 (PMID 16949948):

• The sentence we're talking about in Chiropractic #Effectiveness is:

"There is continuing conflict of opinion on the efficacy of SMT for nonspecific (i.e., unknown cause) low back pain; methods for formulating treatment guidelines differ significantly between countries, casting some doubt on the guidelines' reliability."

• There is nothing deceptive about how this sentence characterizes its source. The sentence does not say "efficacy of chiropractic SMT" or "efficacy of spinal adjustment" or anything like that. It says "efficacy of SMT" because the source says "efficacy of SMT".
• The source covers in some detail four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), looking for how these trials' results affected clinical treatment recommendations for low back pain (LBP). Of the four trials, three (PMID 12865832, PMID 12394892, and PMID 12045509) studied chiropractic care, and one (PMID 12838090) studied osteopathic manipulation.
• The source does not come to any conclusions about whether either general SMT or chiropractic care are efficacious. Its conclusions are (briefly) that "the treatment of LBP remains as ambiguous as before and that the way best evidence is being interpreted could play a large role in this."

Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My read on this is that only 2 of the 4 studies looked at chiropractic and neither of those two studied chiropractic independently from other treatments studies. However, that is neither here nor there because we are not citing those four studies but rather Murphy et al. which looks at those four studies and draws conclusions. But these conclusions are not about chiropractic. They are about SMT in general. Including this source here, even if summarizing it faithfully, is inappropriate because it is not saying anything about chiropractic. Rather, we are inferring that it has something to do with chiropractic (even though the source doesn't make this claim). That's OR. Then, the inference which we are making is based on other sources which say it is okay to make such an inference. That's SYN. -- Levine2112 01:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Which of the 3 studies I mentioned (PMID 12865832, PMID 12394892, and PMID 12045509) do you think did not look at chiropractic? I'm guessing the last one (Hsieh et al. 2002), because it doesn't say "chiropractic" in its abstract. But it did look at chiropractic. It split patients randomly into 4 groups: back school, myofascial therapy, chiropractic joint manipulations (the Diversified technique), and combined chiropractic joint manipulation and myofascial therapy.
• Sorry, I don't know what is meant by "neither of those two studied chiropractic independently from other treatments studies". All the studies were conducted independently of each other, and of other studies.
• Conflicts in treatment guidelines that cover the core area of chiropractic are highly relevant to chiropractic.
• Claiming that citing a source like this is "original research" is like claiming that it's original research when Genetics cites sources on evolution (which it does). A critic of Genetics might say "How do we know Darwin's book On the Origin of Species is relevant to genetics? The book never mentions genetics. Citing Darwin on genetics is original research. This citation must be removed from Genetics." If criticisms like this were considered to be valid ones, large chunks of high-quality Misplaced Pages articles would need to be discarded.
• In short, it's not original research to cite a highly relevant source and accurately summarize what it says.

Eubulides (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if all of the four studies Murphy looked at were exclusively about chiropractic techniques performed by chiropractors studied by chiropractors and published in chiropractic journals. We are not sourcing those studies. We are sourcing Murphy. And if Murphy does not make any conclusions about chiropractic specifically then we cannot use his source to make a claim about chiropractic (without violating WP:OR). The only rationales which have been repeatedly provided here are that "we are following the leading researchers" and that "SMT is core to chiropractic". The former is a clearcut SYN violation and the latter has even been refuted by yourself just above (SMT != chiropractic). -- Levine2112 07:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Murphy et al. is not being used "to make a claim about chiropractic". The sentence we're talking about in Chiropractic #Effectiveness does not mention chiropractic. In that respect it is like the following sentence in Genetics, which does not mention genetics: "Mutations and the selection for beneficial mutations can cause a species to evolve into forms that better survive their environment, a process called adaptation."
• It is not a SYN violation to follow the leading researchers here, just as it is not a SYN violation for Genetics to follow the leading researchers and to discuss evolution.
• "SMT is core to chiropractic" is entirely consistent with "chiropractic ≠ spinal manipulation". X can be core to Y even when Y≠X.

Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Of course it is being used "to make a claim about chiropractic". It is in a section called Chiropractic #Effectiveness! This immediatedly confounds the effectiveness of chiropractic with whatever effectiveness is being discussed in this section. DigitalC (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Amen! -- Levine2112 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• That is like saying "Of course On the Origin of Species is being used to make a claim about genetics. That citation is in the Genetics article! But Darwin never mentions genetics. So this is SYN and all the material supported by Darwin should be removed." Similarly for road-safety statistics and Automobile. And so on and so on.
• If it is SYN merely to provide a source on a relevant topic and to summarize that source accurately, then SYN arguments could be used to remove large high-quality chunks of Misplaced Pages. That is not what SYN is for. It is for removing original research, not for removing summaries of what reliable sources say on relevant topics.

Eubulides (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- Well, Murphy is about questioning guidelines. It's title is, "Inconsistent grading of evidence across countries: a review of low back pain guidelines." It's conclusions are, "Treatment recommendations for nonspecific LBP, particularly spinal manipulation, remain inconclusive. Guideline developers need to consider guidelines in neighboring countries and reach consensus on how evidence is graded and incorporated into guidelines. Guidelines should continue to be regularly updated to incorporate new evidence and methods of grading the evidence." Murphy also discusses that using RCTs to decide treatment guidelines for complimentary methods is likely flawed... "When it comes to appraising the evidence with regard to complementary medicine interventions such as SMT, perhaps the time has come to consider that the RCT is less able to show the efficacy of this particular intervention. Other research designs could be considered; perhaps one could suggest a fusion of qualitative and quantitative research designs, or a more pragmatic approach may be required, where clinical trials are conducted in the clinical setting itself, with patients receiving SMT in their usual treatment environment. A recent example of how this treatment intervention can be appraised is shown by the UK Beam Trial Team in 2004.21" Of course the UK Beam Trial was much more complimentary of chiropractic care/physcial therapy/osteopathic care because it studied them in the offices where they were performed - which of course is what this discussion is about. IOWs, the only thing that we should be getting from Murphy is that using SMT studies to create guidlelines for low back pain results in varied guidelines that basically renders the process suspect and therefore inconclusive. It says nothing about whether SMT is a legitamate intervention or not, much less chiropractic care or it's efficacy. Therefore it is not appropriate for use to comment on the effectiveness of chiropractic care. We can use it under the Low back pain article to discuss guidelines quite appropriately. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC) DeMatt us right on point here. . . this research is not bad but it is in the wrong article here. . . much better suited on Low Back Pain article. Eubilide's point about Darwin and Origin of Species is a red herring. . . and - or a strawman here.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit war

I think the edits by 98.24.93.125 are probably an improvement but will look at them more closely when I have time. ScienceApologist, please specify the source that says that early chiropractors (rather than just D.D.) believed ... . Everyone, regardless of whether the edits are good or bad, please discuss it on the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting. Let's not get the article protected again! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(Later comment:) I apologize. I was confused by the edit history when I wrote the above, and thought there were more reverts than there were. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very much in agreement with you here and would like to second your request for ScienceApologist (or some other editor) to produce such a source. -- Levine2112 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a reliable source for early chiropractors. It's the cited source. For more details, please look above in the talk page and scan for the string "The source in question (Martin 1993, PMID 11623404) says (p. 812)". You can also search earlier in this talk page and catch the comparisons to early Christian beliefs (this was when talking about the terminology of what it means to say "Early chiropractors believed". Eubulides (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

People here seem to think that in order to write a Misplaced Pages article we are supposed to leave our brains at the door. We are not a computer program. There is no reason to particularly attribute a well-known belief. We have many "chiroskeptical sources", for example, which confirm the point. And, despite their continual disparagement here, they are unequivocally reliable since they were written by medical professionals. Using a primary source is fine, but trying to claim it is the ONLY source for something that everyone acknowledges is not a singular belief is really problematic. We are editors. We make editorial decisions. Read Quackwatch and Chirobase and realize that these are incredibly reliable sources and that they represent a real understanding of the state of chiropractic. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is your opinion that these are reliable sources. I believe ArbCom has declared them to be highly partisan and thus questionable sources - or rather sources to be used with caution. That said, please produce a source which supports the text you have reverted to. It would be appreciated. -- Levine2112 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom was not making any claim in that decision as to a universal support or denial of any source. They were merely referencing ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE. You can read all about it in the archives at WP:AE. For our purposes those "highly partisan" and "questionable" sources are better than a lot of the nonsense being pushed by self-promoting chiropractors on these talk pages. Why would QW be highly partisan? Is Barrett a member of an opposing political party from the chiropractors? No. Arbcom was talking about editor conduct in a very confined instance: So since I have provided the rationale, I call faker again. Two strikes, Levine. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be ducking our request to produce a source which support your recent reversions. If you would like to discuss the merits of Quackwatch, perhaps it would be logical to first produce a source from Barrett's self-published site which actually supports your reverts. Thanks. -- Levine2112 02:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that if we want to know what chiropractors believed, a source written by chiropractors would be more reliable than a source written by medical doctors. In any case, at the moment in this thread no source has been mentioned supporting the claim. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the source is Martin 1993 (PMID 11623404). Eubulides (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop disparaging reliable sources in general?

Here's the first couplalinks I found:

• etc. etc. etc.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

None of these sources appear to be remotely reliable save the last two. That said, can you located where in those sources your reverted text is supported? Thanks. -- Levine2112 02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All I have to do is show evidence that people other than DD believe in the idiocy. Done and done. Take it up at WP:RSN if you don't believe me. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much that's all you have to do. Specifically you should find a reliable source supporting that early chiropractors believed in this theory. Can you point to where in the reliable sources above (or some other reliable source) this is supported? -- Levine2112 02:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Again, the source is Martin 1993 (PMID 11623404), which is the source currently being cited for the claim in question. I find it amusing, and a bit sad, that so many editors are assuming that the claim about early chiropractic beliefs isn't sourced. That sort of thing used to be common in Chiropractic, but we've come a long way in the past few months in getting things better sourced, and there should not be any such howlers now.
• By the way, I don't know if anyone cares, but Martin is really good: he's a much better writer and thinker than Keating. Martin wrote the chiropractic chapter in The Cambridge World History of Human Disease (ISBN 0521332869).

Eubulides (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on Eubulides :-) Shot info (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I figured I wouldn't be able to edit once History 2 was placed into mainspace without consensus. I am dissappointed that rational well thought out changes are summarily deleted without so much as conversation as to their validity and purpose. No matter what someone wants to call me, chiropractor, quack, true believer, or and editor with a COI, I have done the best I could to represent the sources and check my POV at the door, so much so that I doubt any of you know what I believe. I have represented every POV that exists, even ScienceApologist's so-called rational skepticism. I do not appreciate the lack of AGF, but I will continue to AGF. There were three small edits that were deleted by SA and QG essentially. Two were not supported by the source so were allowed to be deleted and I represented them that way on the edit summary, though I had not signed in, so perhaps QG did not realize that it was me. The other edit was about the "Early chiropractor's believed". I explained myself above by noting that first Martin states it as "Chiropractors believed", so I realize that Eubulidies had graciously added Early to soften the POV somewhat, however, it still does not go far enough to be accurate as it assumes that ALL Early chirorpactors believed... the fact is of course that this is not even remotely possible and Keating does a good job of tellin us what chiropractors believed (he is a psychologist by trade that worked in the chiropractic profession, Martin even uses him as a source) in his paper on the The Meanings of Innate. ScienceApologist was not terribly wrong in reverting the "DD Palmer believed" that I put in as well, but we need to find a way to express that "some" chiropractors believed.. BTW, I don't doubt that Medicine believed that ALL chiropractors believed that God was the source of all health. Maybe we can state it that way. Realistically, though, chiropractors had some really good thinkers back then, too, that were scientific in the way of practicing and evaluating responses, etc.. John Howard for one. Most were MDs before they were chiropractors in those early years. Just for the record, if chiropractors believed this heavenly stuff, and I were a chiropractor, don't you think I would be proud of it and be trying to fill wikipedia with it. Anyway, since I am not allowed to edit in mainspace. Could someone fix that for me? -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dematt, they manifestly ARE supported by the source. Using WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution to try to claim that only DD believed a certain way is ridiculous. We have wonderful sources which show that this is not the case. On the other hand, you seem to think that there existed some group of "early" chiropractors who didn't believe in vitalism mumbo-jumbo. You've got a source for this? You seem to think that Keating is saying that there were early chiropractors who didn't believe in DD's baloney. I don't see Keating saying that at all. I do see him trying to operate apologetics on his spiritual mentor and trying to rescue him from the derision we now heap upon magical claims such as DD were making, but you need a source that submits that there were contemporaries of Palmer that did not take him at his word. Not seen that one yet. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely there were chirorpactors that didn't believe in DD's chiropractic into a religion. John Howard opened National College directly across the street and he was against turning chirorpactic into anything spiritual - though he was quoted as saying how DD needed to protect it with a "veil of secrecy" until science could prove some of it's tenets. However, that is not to say that vitalism was not part of many personal belief systems - including MDs of the time - Louis Pasteur was an avid vitalist. But that does not mean that the 'vital force' was "God's manifestation in man" - only that it was not a testable entity. Many still believe this.. and a lot of those are likely chiropractors, but I don't think you can claim to know either; if you do, let me see it. I don't think Keating had anything to apologize for, but you may be reading something into his writings that I am not seeing. Again, though, we not supposed to do that. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Martin 1993's comment about chiropractors' beliefs is in the context of his section on early chiropractic, e.g., "At the core of chiropractic's early appeal", so there is clear justification in the source for Chiropractic's saying "Early chiropractors believed". But changing this to "Some early chiropractors believed" would go well beyond what the source says. Again, by analogy, it is reasonable to say "Early Christians believed that Christ would soon return" even though obviously some early Christians did not believe that; the point is to document a belief that was widely held among early Christians. If we limited ourselves to describing only beliefs held by each and every early Christian, we would be describing almost the empty set of beliefs, and that would not be useful or encyclopedic. Chiropractic is similar in that respect. Eubulides (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented in the History section. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I followed up there. Eubulides (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Martin's piece was a nice piece on how technology of the time helped to push alternative medicine in general and chiropractic specifically into the realm of mainstream medicine. His point was the dichotomy that chiropractic had to breach as it tried to advance through science while at the same time appeal to the popular patinet base that had strong religious beliefs and disdain for anything big and powerful. It is not an end all piece on chiropractic and wasn't meant to be. He even said he was just trying to make his case for technology in the first paragraph. Our history needs to reflect the full spectrum of the times which includes the atmosphere of the times that produced this vitalistic approach out of the American midwest. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Forest of red links

This change, which I reverted, created more red links than I've ever seen in a Misplaced Pages article. Surely there's a better way to accomplish whatever that change is trying to accomplish. But before discussing improvements, first we need to know what the change was trying to accomplish. Eubulides (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

For one, it accomplished me starting a new article: Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. It's just a stub, so I'd love some more input there. Anyhow, I think Elonka's edit was a good one, in that it encourages more interlinking amongst articles and may also encourage a lot of new article creation. I would suggest keeping her edit. -- Levine2112 20:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have put the links back. Don't worry, they won't be redlinks for long. Many of them are just odd abbreviations, that just need to be set up as redirects to existing articles. In fact, in the infobox for journals, there's even an "abbreviation" line for this kind of stuff. For example, I just linked the (previously red) Am J Public Health to American Journal of Public Health, and added the abbreviation to the infobox there. In short, for all of those redlinks, these are generally major things such as publishing houses or academic journals, for which there should be articles or stubs on Misplaced Pages. If there truly isn't one, then it's usually a simple matter to make a quick stub, which both gets rid of the redlink on this article, and also adds an extremely useful stub to Misplaced Pages, which is probably already being linked to from other pages as well. Plus it makes your contrib list look really good, to show that you are adding needed stubs to the project.  :) --Elonka 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK, now that I see what's being proposed and why, I disagree with it strongly on stylistic grounds. Even if all the red links would turn into blue links, the result would violate the guidelines in MOS:LINK #Overlinking and underlinking, which talks about excessive links. For example, there are many links to J Manipulative Physiol Ther, whereas there should be at most one.
• This idea of wikilinking every journal and source mentioned in an article is not common on Misplaced Pages. I've not seen it used elsewhere. I don't think it's a good idea in any article; but I especially don't think it's a good idea to "try it out" on a controversial article like this one. Please revert the change.

Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point about J Manipulative Physiol Ther, I wasn't aware that I was multi-linking that one. Definitely remove all but the first link on that, or I'll go ahead and get it. Ditto with any others that I multi-linked. --Elonka 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree that this is the way to go, but at minimum please review every change you made and verify that there is at most one link to a particular journal or other source, and that when you follow that link you get something useful. There should be no red links and no bogus links and no duplicate links. It's not reasonable to make a change like this and expect others to clean up the mess afterwards. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks to articles that are likely to soon be created are fine. If someone is planning to create said article soon, the redlink should be left alone. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the links that I added, were to sources, to link either the journal name, or the publishing house for a book. Redlinks are allowable if they are to articles which are likely to be created. If, however, we have a redlink to something that does not look like it's worth an article, then rather than simply removing the link, we should probably look at removing that entire source, since it probably does not meet WP:RS standards. --Elonka 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree that we should remove a source simply because the publishing house does not look like it's worth an article. Should we remove a citation to D.D. Palmer's 1910 book on chiropractic simply because its publisher was minor and went bankrupt long ago?
• I spent a loooong time fixing up the obvious gotchas in the changes that were introduced. Some of these were duplicate wikilinks. Some were wikilinks to a bogus redirect (for example, Soc Sci Med is bogus: it merely points to a publishing house and says nothing about the journal in question).
• It is aggravating that to spend so much time on this problem. I remain skeptical that the benefits of this exercise are worth the pain.
• There are still 32 red links in the article. I'll wait for a day or so for someone to fill them in appropriately. However, we should not have longstanding red links on the off chance that someone will create an article someday. For your convenience, here is a list of the red links:

• Association for the History of Chiropractic
• Aust J Physiother
• BMC Health Serv Res
• Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol
• Canadian Federation of Chiropractic Regulatory and Educational Accrediting Boards
• Chiropr Osteopat
• Chiropractic Diplomatic Corps
• Clin J Pain
• Clin Orthop Relat Res
• Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters
• Cult Med Psychiatry
• Curr Pharm Des
• Demos Medical Publishing
• Dyn Chiropr
• Eura Medicophys
• Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
• Headache (journal)
• J Altern Complement Med
• J Man Manip Ther
• J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
• J Pain Symptom Manage
• Jones and Bartlett
• NCMIC
• Paediatr Nurs
• Pain Res Manag
• Portland Printing House Co This source is not notable; it's a publishing house that closed years ago and I found no reliable source about it despite quite a bit of research. I removed it.
• Scoliosis (journal)
• Semin Integr Med
• The Councils on Chiropractic Education International
• The European Council On Chiropractic Education
• The Journal of Chiropractic Education
• hcPro HCPro

Eubulides (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, thank you for your work in removing duplicate links, and I apologize for any clumsiness on my part in duplicating a few here or there. Thank you also for making a comprehensive list here at the talkpage, it is very helpful. As for the comment about "a day or so", remember there is no deadline. We should not remove redlinks simply because they are, well, red. Indeed, having them in the article can encourage editors to create needed articles, and is a reminder the Misplaced Pages isn't "done" yet. See WP:REDLINK: "In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article." So, if anyone doesn't like having a redlink, they are welcome to create a stub or a redirect, but please do not simply remove the links, thanks. --Elonka 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely there is no deadline. Those other articles can be created whenever someone has the time to create them. But there is no reason to maintain this forest of red links here in the meantime. The red-linked items are not that notable for this subject. I'm not even convinced the blue wikilinks are useful.
• The idea of having Misplaced Pages containing an article on every journal and publisher on the planet is a noble one, but that's a different goal, and Chiropractic should not be held hostage to it. If and when someone takes the time to write up good articles on these journals (most of the articles now being referred to are stubs, which is not that helpful), that would be a different matter. In the meantime the article-on-journals project is detracting from the main goal for this article, which is chiropractic. Writing about chiropractic is not easy, given the subject's controversy, and adding this extra project makes it harder.
• I continue to reject the idea that the red links are a "flag" to the reader that the source may not be that reliable. That is a completely inappropriate way to write an article. The presence or absence of a Misplaced Pages article on a journal has zero bearing on whether the journal is a reliable source, and we should not encourage a new style that suggests otherwise.
• I again suggest trying out the idea of wikilinking to all sources in a less-controversial article first. I suggest trying it out on Oxidative phosphorylation, the most recent featured article on a biomedical subject.

Eubulides (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Three of the red links have been turned into blue ones, which is progress. However, adding these articles appears to be a low-priority task, so in the meantime I removed the 29 remaining red links. These wikilinks can be readded as blue links as the corresponding Misplaced Pages articles become available. Eubulides (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I should mention that I still disagree with this editing style, which (as far as I know) is not used anywhere else in Misplaced Pages, and which should not be tried out first in such a controversial article.
• I have not simply reverted the change; I've kept the links that are obviously useful. Levine2112 commented that it was useful for Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, and that link has been retained. Other links that point to Misplaced Pages articles have been retained as well. If any more articles get created, those links can be restored.
• My biggest objection to this proposal is that it is based on the idea that the red links are a "flag" to the reader that the source may not be that reliable; that is a completely inappropriate use of red links and raises WP:NPOV issues. We already have too much trouble with NPOV in Chiropractic; let's not add some more trouble in this relatively unimportant area. If there is concern that a source is unreliable, it should be addressed with Template:Verify credibility or something like that; it should not be addressed in this backhanded way.

Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the links, per talkpage consensus. As for the questions about sources, I do have concerns about the reliability of several of the sources on this page, and I have brought up two in the below section. I will bring up more as well, as I go through them. The {{vc}} tag is also a reasonable option, which I have already used, and will probably use again. --Elonka 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the forest of red links. I have never seen so many red links in a reference section. This is very odd. QuackGuru 18:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to revert per WP:REDLINK: "In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article". -- Levine2112 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I tagged Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology for several issues, but I guess that notability is not one of them. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The links are all blue now, as I have added articles for each one (with one exception noted above; a non-notable topic for which no sources are likely to be found). I still disagree with this sort of style: the make-work provides little utility for the readers and editors' time would be far better spent elsewhere. Also, for the record, two editors were opposed and two in favor of this change, and hardly any responses were given to the arguments against the change, which is disappointing. I still don't understand why this dubious experiment was tried out on this article. Eubulides (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, I am finding your tone somewhat uncivil, could you please try to do better? The whole "make work" concept is bizarre. This is Misplaced Pages, a volunteer project with thousands of new articles coming in every day. Just having some redlinks in the references section of one article, did not "require" anyone to jump to work. We do things because we want to, no one's required to take on a "make work" task because the boss says so.  ;) Also, I am perplexed by the term "dubious experiment" as though this was the first article on Misplaced Pages where the sources were ever linked. This is definitely not the case.  :) However, thank you for creating stubs. I am also working on expanding some of them, as I am sure you have seen. I would also appreciate more eyes on Social Science & Medicine (Soc sci med), since it has a fairly complex publishing history. There are also differing descriptions at various websites. Pubmed says it ran 1967-1977, then was split into sub publications, which were re-merged in 1982. However, the Elsevier website says simply that publication started in 1978. So I'm not sure how to reflect this in the Misplaced Pages article, and would appreciate other opinions. Thanks, Elonka 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is not uncivil to point out that editorial work is unnecessary. And it is make-work from the point of view of Chiropractic to make this article the guinea pig for an unrelated project that progresses slowly, making Chiropractic look bad. (It is obviously not make-work if one's goal is that unrelated project; but this article is about chiropractic, not about particular journals or publishers.)
• It is uncivil to revert with little or no comment here, to claim "consensus" when there were two editors vs. two, and to ignore these and other important points raised here. The important NPOV issues raised here were not addressed. These NPOV issues are moot now only because of the make-work I did.
• There has been no mention here of any other Misplaced Pages article where this sort of citation style is routinely used.
• I copied the comment about Soc Sci Med to Talk:Social Science & Medicine, a more appropriate location for it.

Eubulides (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of former red link

I have been adding articles for the red links. It's a lot of makework but I see no better way around the problem. One of them, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, has been tagged for speedy deletion. If it is deleted, we should remove the wikilink, for obvious reasons; there is no point redlinking to an article on a non-notable topic. Eubulides (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Stub has been expanded. --Elonka 18:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, I see now that you did the absolute minimum (actually less than minimum), creating one-line stubs for many of the links. The stubs have little more than a title and an ISSN number. I see this as a violation of Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. As a result of your actions, many of the stubs have now been nominated for AfD deletion, which is further wasting community time, requiring a discussion on each one. In the future, when creating a stub, please include at least a few sentences and a couple sources. Otherwise, just leave the link as red, thanks. --Elonka 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating those stubs was not the absolute minimum, since the stubs exceeded what was already there (namely, dozens of red links in Chiropractic). The disruption of Misplaced Pages to make a point, and the wasting of community time, began when those dozens of red links were inserted into Chiropractic, for reasons that still have not been well explained or justified; as far as I can tell, they have something to do with questioning the sources used in Chiropractic, which is an inappropriate use of red links. In the future, please consider gaining real consensus (not two-versus-two "consensus") over changes like that, particularly when making such changes to an already-controversial article like Chiropractic. This will help us all save time in the future. Eubulides (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, I am sorry, but I feel that there is a violation of WP:OWN here. I have seen you oppose every single change since I arrived at this article. When even attempts to add a link are reverted, and the archiving of a 650K talkpage is met with opposition, it is clear that the atmosphere has become very toxic. In the future, I strongly recommend that you try harder to assume good faith, rather than arguing about every single action. If not, you may be asked to completely avoid this article and its talkpage. --Elonka 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

As this page was over 600K (enormous, even by ANI standards), it was well past time to archive. There is an automated archive bot already set up on this page, but it had not triggered in several days. I took a look into the problem, and I am not 100% certain, but I believe that this was related to the levels of section headers that were being used. The bot tends to archive things at a "level 2" (==headername==) degree of granularity. There were a few sections on this page that started at level 2, and then had multiple level 3 and lower subheadings within them. As long as a single comment within those subheadings was within the last 10 days or so, it kept the entire thing from being archived.

To address this, I have manually archived several sections. Where I couldn't find a good place to "cut", I manually demoted some section headers, and added a {{sidebox}} which points to the related discussions in archive. If this caused confusion, I apologize... I was doing my best! If any thread was archived which must be back on this talkpage, feel free to pull it back into the discussion. However, I would prefer if people could instead use links and/or sideboxes to simply point to the archives. Also, in the future, please be cautious about making level-2 sections that are too wide in scope. When a single thread gets to be over 50K in size, then that's too large, and things need to be chopped down. Remember that some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K, in total page size! One other suggestion, is that I noticed that some threads were quoting large amounts of article text here on the talkpage. A better way to handle this would be to make a subpage, and then link to the subpage. Some other places on Misplaced Pages might name this as "/Work" or "/Draft" or "/July 2008 draft subpage" or something like that.

I'll be unprotecting this page shortly after posting this message. Thank you for your patience, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is being overly optimistic about how this talk page will operate. Discussions cover a lot of ground, and people are in a hurry; we can't expect every editor to follow a bunch of relatively-complicated procedures like sidebars and subpages. We can try to break up long level-2 sections, though; that's easy. As for people whose browsers can't handle more than 32K, well, sorry, but nowaays that's simply too small for reasonable web browsing; they'll just have to get a real browser. Eubulides (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are free to bring up that particular argument at WP:SIZE. --Elonka 21:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIZE doesn't talk about a 32K limit for the whole talk page. It talks only about a 32K limit for individual subsections. And even there, it says that the limit is mostly obsolete. Until somebody actually complains about their browser messing up on this talk page, I wouldn't worry about it. Eubulides (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Having a talk page of 650k is ridiculous. And saying if someone's browser can't handle it that they should get a new one/new computer is just plan condescending — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the talk page is large, but that's because there's a lot of talk on this subject.
• Expiring the talk in a week has problems of its own, which are real problems: you can't expect every editor to visit here every week.
• We don't really have time to worry about theoretical concerns. If there is a real Misplaced Pages editor who has a real problem with their browser that would be fixed by the proposed changes, we can worry about the problem. If not, let's move on to something more important.

Eubulides (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

ref

copied the references so there is no confusion on the rewrite. --AdultSwim (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on evidence basis

Chiropractic #Evidence basis has a {{POV-section}} tag, but I don't recall discussion about that here. There's been a lot of discussion about that section's {{Synthesis}} tag (see #Syn and implicit conclusions above for the latest installment) but that's a different subject. With all the recent archiving I suppose I could have missed the discussion. I'm creating this section to be a repository for discussion of this topic, with the goal of resolving that issue. Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Chiropracty vs. Chiropractic

After doing a quick scan through the archives, I didn't see an explanation of why the article is called Chiropractic. Isn't that an adjective? We don't call the article on Homeopathy homeopathic? Or Science scientific? They redirect to the noun version if you type in the adjective form. Shouldn't that be the case here too? Right now it's the other way around. ABlake (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic is a noun . Compare a google search for "Chiropracty" to a google search for "Chiropractic". 1000x the results for Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

While working my way through the sources on this article, I see several are articles published in Dyn Chiropr (Dynamic Chiropractic). This does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal, but instead is more of a tabloid-format periodical, which is heavy on the ads. Has there been a discussion about whether or not this meets WP:RS standards? Please note that I have no strong opinion at this point as to whether it is a reliable source, I'm just acting here as a source-checker, and asking to see if this has been discussed or not? --Elonka 12:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of Dynamic Chiropractic is correct: it's not peer-reviewed and contains a high percentage of biased and unreliable junk. Not every article in Dyn Chiropr is unreliable, though. Do you have concerns about a particular citation? Eubulides (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What criteria are you using to determine which articles in Dynamic Chiropractic are or are not reliable? --Elonka 18:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Similar question with Chiropractic Diplomatic Corps, specifically this pdf. Has this been discussed as to whether or not it meets the standard of "Reliable Source"? Thanks, Elonka 13:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The question hasn't come up. As far as I can tell the Chiropractic Diplomatic Corps is a one-man operation and the source in question should be considered to be self-published. The only news item I found on that source with a quick search is here. Eubulides (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

CDC is not a "one-man operation". It is a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Canada. Other executive members of the CDC are listed here. DigitalC (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but having multiple executive members is not inconsistent with their being a one-man operation. Lots of one-man operations have a large board (that's how you raise money :-). By the way, it may be difficult to find out more about them, as it's not clear that they still exist. Their last newsletter is dated 1Q2006. Their current activities page is dated 2005. The 2007 story I mentioned above, the only item I found for them in the popular press, is the last record I can find for them. Of course their lack of existence now doesn't mean they weren't a reliable source back then. Still, that source very much has the feeling of a self-published paper. Eubulides (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The newsletter may be a one man operation, but CDC is not. For instance, (from the site under current activities, then India) In March of 2004, Dr. Gary Auerbach, past and founding President of the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC), began a dialogue at the invitation of Dr. Roberta Ritson, External Relations officer of the World Health Organization. He was queried as to the ability of the chiropractic profession to provide spinal health promotion to the urban poor in a “Healthy City Initiative” being implemented in Bangalore, India. In addition, it also mentions activity in 2007 - "February 2007 was the inaugural presentation of the Straighten Up! India activities when Dr. Kirk was the keynote speaker at a Bangalore and Karnataka conference on Workers' Health and Occupational Safety. Chiropractic continues to be invited to contribute its special healthcare focus in the state of Karnataka, India." - None of this negates that the source does appear to be self published. DigitalC (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

References

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• A-Class Alternative medicine articles
• A-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles