| Revision as of 10:03, 16 April 2006 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,514 edits →On chiropractic← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:42, 21 April 2006 edit undoAckoz (talk | contribs)799 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Your comments== | ==Your comments== | ||
| Line 18: | Line 17: | ||
| == Your message == | == Your message == | ||
| Answered at my talk page --] 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | Answered at my talk page --] 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Chiro == | |||
| Would you please check on the chiro article again? The chiropractors are growing stronger again. ackoz ] 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:42, 21 April 2006
Your comments
Time to start over again! Even I couldn't find things on such a long page.... ;-) -- Fyslee 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
RFC on WHaleto
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto You may find it interesting. Midgley 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
On chiropractic
Sorry, I missed your comments on religion. Yes I removed the section (see Talk) but kept the two key, longer quotes, and moved them to relevant places. The other two quotes I deleted simply because I didn't understand them readily, (i.e. not because of what they said but because I didn't quite see what they said) - I didn't feel that they were self explanatory and made a clear point. As for retaining a separate section - fine if it is true that chiropractic is today a religion, otherwise I thought this would be appropriate for the history section. I'm trying to be studiously NPOV, maybe I overcompensate for my private opinions. But in general I feel that more minds are changed by cool, well written, eminently reasonable articles that present unarguable facts in a balanced way than by rhetorical statements, so I tend to take out statements that express viewpoints even if I agree with them when I can't see that they are adequately justified by what is actually cited, rather than by things I think I know. I would offer you a smile if I knew how to do thatGleng 16:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Although many chiropractors treat it as such, and some reform chiropractors actually consider it to be so, I don't consider chiropractic to currently be a real religion (it lacks churches), or actually to have ever been an official religion. DD Palmer never got that far, although he was heading in that direction. Who knows what would have happened if his son hadn't driven him down and likely shortened his life? Too bad BJ didn't get convicted of attempted murder, but the case was thrown out. He simply controlled the whole town of Davenport.
- Chiropractic has many metaphysical elements, and by many definitions could qualify as a religion, and very definitely has many cult aspects as well. I don't think that much of this is appropriate here, but a mention of the religious tendencies in the history section is still important for an understanding of chiropractic, even as it is practiced today. What other health profession has missionaries and missionary tours to other countries to spread the gospel of chiropractic? Just read planetchiro! -- Fyslee 09:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Your message
Answered at my talk page --Yurik 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Chiro
Would you please check on the chiro article again? The chiropractors are growing stronger again. ackoz 
00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)