Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chiropractic: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:58, 12 July 2008 editDematt (talk | contribs)5,093 edits EBM← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:31, 4 December 2024 edit undo2607:fea8:4a62:2f00:ac7b:e1d:4396:ebb (talk) →Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{notice|small=no|header=No "new section" button please|In 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 ].}}
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchive=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{Calm talk}} {{Censor}}
{{Calm}}
{{ambox|type=content|text='''Current hot topic:''' ]. (])}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{-}}
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell
|1={{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=A|nested=yes}} {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{Rational Skepticism|class=A|importance=High|nested=yes}}}} {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV and is mostly unverified, and its contents should be treated with caution as this violates core policies of Misplaced Pages. See ] and ].}}
}}
{{Copied|from1=Chiropractic|to1=Chiropractic treatment techniques
|from2=Chiropractic|to2=Veterinary chiropractic
|from3=Koren Specific Technique|to3=Chiropractic
|from4=Chiropractic|to4=Baby colic
|from5=Baby colic|to5=Chiropractic|from_oldid5=801357015|to_oldid5=801349349|to_diff5=801359943}}
{{Trolling}}

{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=acu|style=long}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 500K |maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 25 |counter = 40
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Chiropractic/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Chiropractic/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive Index|mask=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index|mask=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot I|index=./Archive Index|small=yes}} {{Archives|search=yes|auto=short|bot=MiszaBot|age=30|index=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index}}
__TOC__
{{archives|auto=yes|small=yes}}
== The section "History" could use an update ==

== 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 &ndash; or provide more than one link for a topic.''
*<s>], starting 12:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) See also: ] and ] and ].</s>
*Current hot topic: ], starting 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
*Scientific research, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. See also: ]
*]
*]
*]

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

== History is hot topic ==

=== Edits to finished History 2 ===
{{sidebox|This is related to the discussion at<br>]}}
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. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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 ]) 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.
: ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:* Thanks for pointing those out. I made this to try to fix those problems. ] (]) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

===History 4 - section break===
{{sidebox|This is related to the discussion at <br />]}}
:::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. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Re some recent edits: 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.
:::: edit changed "mainstream medicine" to "political medicine". The source cited is Keating et al.'s "". 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.
:::: edit changed ''"However, its future seemed uncertain: as the number of practitioners grew, ] insisted on treatments with demonstrated value, ] restricted payment, and competition grew from ]s 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, ] 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. <span style="color:Green; font-size:1.8em;">☺</span> ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
::OK, thanks, I made to replace "]" with "organized medicine". ] (]) 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

== History ==
{{main|Chiropractic history}}

In 1895, the world was well into the ], marked by innovation and creativity. Health care had recently emerged from the drastic practice of ] and was well into an age of alternatives. All varieties of treatments and cures including ], ], ], ] and ], ], ]s and ] were developing and competing to be the new method for the century. Neither consumers nor many practitioners had much knowledge of either the causes of, or cures for, illnesses.<ref name="MGT-FSU">''"The Chiropractic Profession and Its Research and Education Programs"'', Final Report, pg 41, Florida State University, MGT of America, December 2000 </ref> The theory of modern ], fueled by vitalist ] refutation of the centuries-old ] theory in 1859, was growing rapidly just as ] published his book on ]. The German bacteriologist ] formulated his , bringing scientific clarity to what was a very confused field. All along, drugs, medicines and quack cures were becoming more prevalent and were mostly unregulated. Concerned about what he saw as the abusive nature of drugging in the American heartland just after the Civil War, MD ]<ref></ref> ventured into magnetic healing (meaning hypnotism then) and bonesetting in 1875. He opened the ] (ASO) in ] in 1892.<ref></ref> ] (D.D. Palmer), a teacher and grocer turned magnetic healer, opened his office of magnetic healing in ] in 1886. The centuries old debate as to whether biological systems could be explained through mechanical means continued as ]'s experiments in 1888 boosted the ] view that animals could be explained as complex mechanical systems while similar experiments in 1891 by ] seemed to support the opposing ] view that living objects had a substantial entity controlling their organic processes.<ref name="urlVitalism">{{cite web | url = http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~bill/teaching/philbio/vitalism.htm | title = Vitalism | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | date = | format = | work = | publisher = | pages = | language = | archiveurl = | archivedate = | quote = | accessdate = 2008-07-11}}</ref>

]

After nine successful years,<ref name="lifeline">Keating J. ''D.D. Palmer's Lifeline'' </ref> Palmer hypothesized that manual manipulation of the spine could cure disease. He gave the first chiropractic adjustment to a deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard, on ], ]. Although initially keeping the theory a family secret, in 1898 he began teaching it to a few students at his new ]. One student, his son ], became committed to promoting chiropractic, took over the Palmer School in 1906, and rapidly expanded its enrollment.<ref name=Martin>{{cite journal |journal= ] |author= Martin SC |date=1993 |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=808–34 |title= Chiropractic and the social context of medical technology, 1895-1925 |doi=10.2307/3106416 |pmid=11623404}}</ref> By this time medicine had organized into a major political force creating state laws that limited the practice of medicine. Prosecutions and incarcerations of chiropractors for practicing medicine without a license grew common, and to defend against medical statutes B.J. argued that chiropractic was separate and distinct from medicine, asserting that chiropractors "analyzed" rather than "diagnosed", and "adjusted" subluxation rather than "treated" disease.<ref name=History-Primer/> For early chiropractors, all disease was caused by interruptions in the flow of ], a ] nervous energy or life force that represented God's presence in man; chiropractic leaders often invoked religious imagery and moral traditions. D.D. and B.J. both seriously considered declaring chiropractic a religion, which might have provided ], but decided against it partly to avoid confusion with ].<ref name=Martin/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://chiro.org/Plus/History/Persons/PalmerDD/PalmerDD's_Religion-of-Chiro.pdf |format=PDF |author= Palmer DD |title= Letter to P.W. Johnson, D.C. |date=1911-05-04 |accessdate=2008-06-29}}</ref> Early chiropractors also tapped into the ] movement, emphasizing craft, hard work, competition, and advertisement, aligning themselves with the common man against intellectuals and ], among which they included the ] (AMA).<ref name=Martin/>

]
Although D.D. and B.J. were "straight" and disdained the use of instruments, some early chiropractors, whom B.J. scornfully called "mixers", advocated use of instruments. In 1910 B.J. changed course and endorsed ] as necessary for diagnosis; this resulted in a significant exodus from the Palmer School of the more conservative faculty and students. The mixer camp grew until by 1924 B.J. estimated that only 3,000 of the U.S.'s 25,000 chiropractors remained straight.<!-- <ref name=Martin/> --> That year, B.J.'s promotion of the neurocalometer, a new temperature-sensing device, was another sign of chiropractic's gradual acceptance of medical technology, although it was highly controversial among B.J.'s fellow straights.<!-- <ref name=Martin/> --> Despite heavy opposition by organized medicine, by the 1930s chiropractic was the largest alternative healing profession in the U.S.<ref name=Martin/> The longstanding feud between chiropractors and medical doctors continued for decades. Until 1983, the AMA labeled chiropractic "an unscientific ]" and held that it was unethical for medical doctors to associate with an "unscientific practitioner".<ref>{{cite journal |journal= ] |date=1989 |volume=79 |issue=11 |pages=1569–70 |title= AMA policy on chiropractic |author= Cherkin D |pmid=2817179 |pmc=1349822}}</ref> This culminated in a landmark 1987 decision, ], in which the court found that the the AMA had engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade and conspiracy, and which ended the AMA's de facto boycott of chiropractic.<ref name=Cooper/>

Serious research to test chiropractic theories did not begin until the 1970s, and was hampered by ] and ] ideas that sustained the profession in its long battle with organized medicine.<!-- <ref name=History-Primer/> --> 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 manual therapies for acute low back pain.<ref name=History-Primer>{{cite web |title= Chiropractic history: a primer |author= Keating JC Jr, Cleveland CS III, Menke M |url=http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ahc/ChiroHistoryPrimer.pdf |format=PDF |date=2005 |accessdate=2008-06-16 |publisher= Association for the History of Chiropractic}}</ref> In recent decades chiropractic gained legitimacy and greater acceptance by physicians and ]s, and enjoyed a strong political base and sustained demand for services; like other forms of ], chiropractic became more integrated into mainstream medicine. However, its future seemed uncertain: as the number of practitioners grew, ] insisted on treatments with demonstrated value, ] restricted payment, and competition grew from ]s and other health professions. The profession responded by marketing natural products and devices more aggressively, and by reaching deeper into ] and ].<ref name=Cooper>{{cite journal |journal= ] |date=2003 |volume=81 |issue=1 |pages=107–38 |title= Chiropractic in the United States: trends and issues |author= Cooper RA, McKee HJ |doi=10.1111/1468-0009.00040 |doi_brokendate=2008-07-03 |pmid=12669653}}</ref>

=== History comments ===

* I take it that this section is intended as a working draft to replace ].
* This draft is too long. ] is already overlong as a summary of a subarticle; it should not be made significantly longer.
* The first paragraph of this draft is almost entirely unnecessary in a brief summary. There is no need to talk about details such as when and where Andrew Taylor Still opened the ASO. The ASO is about osteopathy, not chiropractic.
* The phrase "After nine successful years," is not explained. I assume it means that Palmer was successful financially as a magnetic healer for nine years before developing chiropractic? I doubt whether this detail is important at this level, but if so it needs to be explained.
* The sentence "He gave the first chiropractic adjustment to a deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard, on ], ]." is not supported by any reliable source and is almost certainly false.
* The sentence "By this time medicine had organized into a major political force creating state laws that limited the practice of medicine." is not supported by a reliable source and is unnecessary.
] (]) 09:16, 12 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''. ] 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. ] (]) 10:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

== SYN and implicit conclusions ==

{{sidebox|This is related to the discussion at <br/>]}}
(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 ] would be like omitting acupuncture from ].
* I'm not aware of any specific wording proposal that would address the SYN problem. It sounds like a major rewrite of ] section is being considered, but no specific wording has been proposed.
] (]) 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. <span style="color:Red; font-size:1.2em;">☺</span> ] (]) 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 ] 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 ], 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 ], 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 ], not SMT, and that SMT is irrelevant to chiropractic. It is this mainstream ''assumption'' that is being objected to. The objection argues that ], 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 ]. ] says "Electrical signals within biological organisms are generally by ]s, which may be either positively charged ]s or negatively charged ]s." 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 ] 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 ] 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 ].
::* ] 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 ] did not discuss SMT extensively, it would not be encyclopedic. Common sense says that ] should discuss SMT, a core topic, and cite reliable sources about it.
:* I agree that the "it" in ]'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 ] ("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. ] 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 ] to cite only sources that have the phrase "action potential" in their titles. ] is similar.
:] (]) 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 ] ("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.
::-- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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 ] 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 ] 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 ] is indeed guilty of all these sins, then lots of ] are rife with SYN violations, which is a bit hard to believe.
:::] (]) 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.
::::-- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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 ] 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? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::If necessary, yes, let's ask at ]. 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 ]. 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 ]; or, if I have time, maybe tomorrow, I might search there for a similar question having already been asked. If we ask at ] perhaps we should first agree here on the wording of the question. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:1.7em;">☺</span> ] (]) 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 ] example) rather than ''implied'' (i.e., implicit).
:::::* Curing homosexuality? Wow. Well, I've read all the sources to ] 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 ]'s "Jones did not commit it" stands for plagiarism...' Looks like you missed that?
:::::* Above I gave ] 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.
:::::] (]) 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 ] concerning whether or not the mention of SMT research in ] causes a ] violation as the justification for including said SMT research in ] 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? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:08, 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. ] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:30, 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. ] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:10, 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 ] if an article on topic X discusses a different topic Y that is core to X?"? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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 ] 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. <span style="color:Red; font-size:1.3em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:* I continue to disagree with that characterization of the example in the ] 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 '']'', 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 ]: "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 ] example and the ] 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 ], why doesn't it also suffice to disprove a SYN violation for ]?
:* "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 ] 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.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2005 |issue=3 |pages=CD000335 |title= Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain |author= Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Malmivaara A, Koes BW |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000335.pub2 |pmid=16034851}}</ref>
:: I don't know of any reliable source on using nutrition to treat back pain or similar complaints.
: ] (]) 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Any further thoughts? If not, I'm inclined to add the above sentence to ] under ''Low back pain''. I doubt whether this will resolve the SYN dispute but it does seem like an improvement. ] (]) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

=== The core question ===

Does it violate ] 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. ] 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". ] (]) 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 ] if an article on topic X discusses a related topic Y that is core to X?'' ] 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 ] 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 ] if the justification for making such an assertion comes from some source Z?
::: -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:20, 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:10, 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 and provide your evidence of Syn or I will remove the Syn tag very soon. ] 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. (] is closely related to ] but there is not a 1:1 correlation between player stats. Same goes for ].) 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 ] for a ] per ]. Let's agree to statement/question which we will post there and then let's wait for third-party input. Sound reasonable? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::* There is nothing "deceptive" about ]: 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 ] 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.
::::::::::] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 06:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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 ] under the first treatment condition (Lower Back Pain) is . 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: I think we all agree that chiropractic ≠ spinal manipulation. Your questions about the first ref are addressed in the ] subsection below. ] (]) 23:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

=== Murphy et al. 2006 ===
Responding to Levine2112's question in the ] about Murphy ''et al.'' 2006 (PMID 16949948):
* The sentence we're talking about in ] 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.<ref name=Murphy>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2006 |volume=29 |issue=7 |pages=576–81, 581.e1–2 |title= Inconsistent grading of evidence across countries: a review of low back pain guidelines |author= Murphy AYMT, van Teijlingen ER, Gobbi MO |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.07.005 |pmid=16949948}}</ref>"
* 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. ] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:41, 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 ] cites sources on evolution (which it does). A critic of ] might say "How do we know Darwin's book '']'' is relevant to genetics? The book never mentions genetics. Citing Darwin on genetics is original research. This citation must be removed from ]." 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.
:] (]) 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 ]). 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). -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 07:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

::* Murphy ''et al.'' is not being used "to make a claim about chiropractic". The sentence we're talking about in ] does not mention chiropractic. In that respect it is like the following sentence in ], 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 ] 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.
::] (]) 08:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::*Of course it is being used "to make a claim about chiropractic". It is in a section called ]! This immediatedly confounds the effectiveness of chiropractic with whatever effectiveness is being discussed in this section. ] (]) 09:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::: Amen! -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::* That is like saying "Of course ] is being used to make a claim about genetics. That citation is in the ] 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 ]. 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.
:::::] (]) 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 ] article to discuss guidelines quite appropriately. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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.] (]) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
::* Dematt pointed out that "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". But this point agrees with what's in ] now. The only thing that the article is getting from Murphy ''et al.'' is the above-quoted sentence about conflict among guidelines and differing methods used to formulate the guidelines.
::* Dematt also pointed out that "it is not appropriate for use to comment on the effectiveness of chiropractic care". But Murphy ''et al.'' is not being used to support a claim about the effectiveness of chiropractic care. It is being used to support a claim about a relevant topic, namely, that evidence-based guidelines disagree in this area (and why they disagree).
:: ] (]) 15:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
::* One more thing: why is the example about ] and Darwin a red herring? Or ] and road safety? The examples seem apropos to the question as to whether an article about X can discuss a relevant (but not identical) topic Y. It would be helpful if someone who thinks these examples are not apropos could explain why they think that way. ] (]) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:::* Eubulides understands my point that Murphy "is not being used to support a claim about the effectiveness of chiropractic care." However, he seems to think that, "It is being used to support a claim about a relevant topic, namely, that evidence-based guidelines disagree in this area (and why they disagree)." What is the "area" that they disagree? -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 01:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::::* The "area" is the use of spinal manipulative therapy to treat low back pain. ] (]) 09:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

=== Why would moving cure SYN? ===

Let's try to look at the problem in a different way. Several times the discussion about ] issues in ] has been accompanied by suggestions to move that section to ] (or some similar article) on the grounds that ] is original research and violates ] policy. I just now thought of a problem with that suggestion: original research is original research regardless of where it's reported. For example, if I reported my original research that one's thoughts can affect one's genetic makeup, it wouldn't matter if I reported that research in ], in ], in ], or in ''Science'' for that matter; it would be original research no matter where it was reported.

What that in mind, if ] is original research, it would remain original research after it's moved. And hence moving the text wouldn't affect the issue as to whether it is a ] violation. So why is moving the text such a common suggestion?

] (]) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:] is a subform of ]. While all SYN is OR, not all OR is SYN. Your thoughts about thoughts changing genetic makeup would be OR no matter where you put it unless you found a source that explicitly came to that conclusion. If you did find a source for it and then placed it in the ] article, a related subject, to make a point that the author did not explicitly intend, it would be SYN. When we place correct information in the wrong article or section, that is SYN. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::When all the sentences are verified that means there never was Syn. ] 06:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::* "If you did find a source for it" But the hypothesis was that my theory is original research; if I find a source for my theory then my theory is no longer OR and it's no longer an example of the problem I had in mind.
::* I agree that not all OR is SYN, but I don't see how that affects the argument (sorry, I don't understand the relevance of ] here).
::* Let me try again. Suppose I expressed my theory (that one's thoughts can affect one's genetic makeup) by a discussion D that stitched together various sources on related topics and then stated my conclusion in a clear SYN violation. And suppose I placed D in ]. Surely we all agree that it would not cure the SYN violation to move D to some other article. It wouldn't matter if I moved D to ], or to a completely irrelevant article like ]; D would be a SYN violation no matter where it appeared.
::* Now, suppose I take the sentence sourced to Murphy ''et al.'' 2006, which is alleged to be a SYN violation in ], and copy this sentence (citation and all) to ], a completely irrelevant article. Would it still be a SYN violation there?
::] (]) 09:16, 12 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! <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 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.'' <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:2.1em;">☺</span> ] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:47, 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". ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:09, 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:25, 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. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
::::: Again, the source is Martin 1993 (PMID 11623404). ] (]) 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.

] (]) 02:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
: None of these sources appear to be ] save the last two. That said, can you located where in those sources your reverted text is supported? Thanks. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 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 ] if you don't believe me. ] (]) 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? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:52, 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 ], 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).
:::: ] (]) 05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::There seems to be a bit of ] going on Eubulides :-) ] (]) 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 . 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? -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 12:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

::Dematt, they manifestly ARE supported by the source. Using ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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 ]'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. ] (]) 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I commented in the ] section. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:1.4em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
:::: Yes, thanks, I followed up there. ] (]) 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. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

== Forest of red links ==

, 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. ] (]) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
: For one, it accomplished me starting a new article: ]. 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:54, 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) ] to ], 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. :) --]]] 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 ], which talks about excessive links. For example, there are many links to ], 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.
:::] (]) 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. --]]] 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 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 ] standards. --]]] 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, ] 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:
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*<s>]</s> 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.
:::*]
:::*]
:::*<s>The</s> ]
:::*<s>The</s> ]
:::*]
:::*<s>]</s> ]
::] (]) 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 ]. 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 ]: "''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. --]]] 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 ] 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 ], the most recent featured article on a biomedical subject.
::::] (]) 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 the 29 remaining red links. These wikilinks can be readded as blue links as the corresponding Misplaced Pages articles become available. ] (]) 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 ], 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 ] issues. We already have too much trouble with NPOV in ]; 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 ] or something like that; it should not be addressed in this backhanded way.
:::::] (]) 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 {{tl|vc}} tag is also a reasonable option, which I have already used, and will probably use again. --]]] 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. ] 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"''. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
: I tagged ] for several issues, but I guess that notability is not one of them. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
: Eubulides, I am finding your tone somewhat ], 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 '']'' (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, ]]] 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 ] to make this article the guinea pig for an unrelated project that progresses slowly, making ] 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 ] to ], a more appropriate location for it.
::] (]) 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, ], 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. ] (]) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
: Stub has been expanded. --]]] 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 ]. 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. --]]] 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 ]). 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 ], 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 ], 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 ]. This will help us all save time in the future. ] (]) 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::: Eubulides, I am sorry, but I feel that there is a violation of ] 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 ], rather than arguing about every single action. If not, you may be asked to completely avoid this article and its talkpage. --]]] 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Elonka, I think you should probably read a bit more of the history of this page rather than just basing your opinion on what has happened since you got here. Could you do that for me? Eubulides is one of the best editors at this page we've got and he's fighting some rather nasty ] problems on the part of others that have been at place at this article for some time. ] (]) 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::* It might be asking Elonka a bit much to read the megabytes of talk-page commentary, and the hundreds of edits to the article, generated in the past few months.
::::::* That being said, Elonka's summary of recent events is misleading. Elonka writes "I have you seen oppose every single change since I arrived at the article." But only one change, the change proposed by Elonka, has been made to the article since Elonka arrived. Two editors (including Elonka) initially supported that change and two (including me) initially opposed. I eventually accepted the change despite real problems with it, which were mentioned here but not addressed by the proposers of the change. Similarly, I did not like the botched job of archiving the talk page, and I still disagree with archiving comments after only 7 days of inactivity, but Elonka's change stuck there as well. And now ''I'm'' being accused of ]? Even if we judge only by recent events, the ownership of the article clearly does not lie with me.
::::::* Elonka's most recent three posts to this talk page all contain accusations against my actions:
:::::::# The abovementioned accusation of ].
:::::::# An accusation of ].
:::::::# A vague accusation that I was ].
::::::* This most-recent accusation needs to be read in context of the longer string of accusations. ] (]) 15:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

::''In general'' there is divided opinion about whether every mention of a peer=reviewed journal should be linked--Personally, I think it unnecessary--Basic information about finding journals is rather easy to find in OCLC WorldCat and elsewhere, not to mention the publishers web pages. The links do not not really help the article, and I think if anything confuse the reader. But some of the other science people I respect feel quite the opposite--that they help the reader evaluate the reference quality--but of course this only works if the journal articles are informative. See my comment below--I am trying to fill in the stub articles to prevent deletion, and it would have been much better to have done this a few at a time. Eubulides, you are correct that things like this done in large batches always attract unfavorable attention and unnecessary drama. ''']''' (]) 02:32, 11 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 {{tl|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, --]]] 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. ] (]) 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
:: You are free to bring up that particular argument at ]. --]]] 21:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
::: ] 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. ] (]) 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<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 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.
: ] (]) 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

== POV tag on evidence basis ==

] has a {{tl|POV-section}} tag, but I don't recall discussion about that here. There's been a lot of discussion about that section's {{tl|Synthesis}} tag (see ] 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. ] (]) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

: There's been no comment on this topic for several days. Any further thoughts? If not, I'm inclined to remove the {{tl|POV-section}} tag. Obviously this would not affect the {{tl|Synthesis}} tag. ] (]) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

::The section needs lots of work, some SYN and some POV. If we fix the SYN, it's likely that the POV will disappear with it, but let's leave it for now. We'll get it all worked out soon enough. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't see any Syn or POV. Vague comments of some POV is unhelpful. Please provide your evidence of POV. ] 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree with QuackGuru about vagueness being unhelpful here. A POV tag should be accompanied by a specific allegation of POV. ] (]) 09:16, 12 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 ] homeopathic? Or ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:: you will find chiropractors discussing this very matter. DigitalC is correct. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

== Reliable sources ==

While working my way through the sources on this article, I see several are articles published in ''Dyn Chiropr'' ('']''). 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 ] 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? --]]] 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? ] (]) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

::: DC is the most widely read of all chiropractic publications. It is very notable, probably the most notable and representative of all chiropractic publications. It is an accurate window into the soul of the profession at any given time. I receive it, and I know chiropractors who line their bird cages with it.

::: It is indeed an advertising rag, including having (to this day) hardly a single page (that's not hyperbole!) without advertisements for some form of quackery or ] "practice building" scheme/scam. This is par for the course in chiropractic and many chiropractors don't consider it problematic, since they believe this stuff. There are historical reasons for this situation. The problem is old and chiropractic's leading historian has scolded the profession for it a long time ago:
:::* ''But the kernels of quackery (i.e., unsubstantiated and untested health remedies offered as "proven") are ubiquitous in this profession.3,4 I dare say that health misinformation (if not quackery) can be found in just about any issue of any chiropractic trade publication (and some of our research journals) and much of the promotional materials chiropractors disseminate to patients. the recent unsubstantiated claims of the ACA are exemplary.''

::: Unfortunately for the profession the editor (Petersen, who is not a DC) owns the magazine and its advertising company and he does nothing to curb the nonsense that detracts from the profession's image (among non-DCs). Little has changed since 1991, at least for DC magazine.

::: In spite of that, it also includes some excellent articles that are good sources for the opinions of leaders and other notable chiropractors. All chiropractic leaders write in it, all subjects of interest are discussed there, all controversies usually get mentioned, and the letters to the editor are very interesting reading ;-) As a source of such opinion it is useful here. Attribution might solve any problems. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Similar question with ], specifically this pdf. Has this been discussed as to whether or not it meets the standard of "Reliable Source"? Thanks, ]]] 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 . ] (]) 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 . ] (]) 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 is dated 1Q2006. Their 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. ] (]) 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) <i>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.</i> In addition, it also mentions activity in 2007 - <i>"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."</i> - None of this negates that the source does appear to be self published. ] (]) 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone to look at ] with respect to these two sources. Surely we can do better than those. ] (]) 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

: If they were making scientific claims, then that would apply. As sources of opinion, and when properly attributed, REDFLAG might not apply. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
::] deals with redflag claims, not with sources. What claims are you objecting to SA? ] (]) 05:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
::*The CDC document is used to reference this claim - <i>"Chiropractic is well established in the U.S., Canada and Australia".</i> This doesn't seem like a suprising claim, it doesn't report a statement that seems out of character, and I don't see this claim being contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community. Do you feel that this claim alters medical or scientific assumptions, even though it is not a scientific claim? For the record, The US, Canada, and Australia have the highest number of practicing chiropractors. They each have a CCE. They all have multiple Chiropractic schools. ] (]) 05:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may make a few comments. From Sackett, writing in the BMJ
"The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. ....
Good doctors use both individual clinical expertise and the best available external evidence, and neither alone is enough. Without clinical expertise, practice risks becoming tyrannised by evidence, for even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient. Without current best evidence, practice risks becoming rapidly out of date, to the detriment of patients."
Is the claim that a significant number of chiropractors would dissent from this verifiable? It is sourced first to an opinion expressed in ''Skeptical Inquirer.''

''Skeptical Inquirer'' perhaps should in all fairness be looked at in the same context as ''Dynamic Chiropractic''; both are frank non-peer reviewed vehicles of opinion, the latter differs in being a vehicle for both skeptical and supportive opinions.

The second source states, in its summary "In summary, the present study found overall positive perceptions of research in a sample of chiropractors and massage therapists practicing in Alberta with most of them acknowledging the importance of research to validate their practice. In contrast, self-reported research use was low, and differed significantly between the 2 professional groups. Based on the data and evidence in the literature, it appears that the more frequent research use reported by chiropractors may be related to the chiropractic profession's relatively research-oriented culture, their more intense research education, and exposure to research during their professional training. As a result of their training, chiropractors may be more confident in their research skills and ability to apply evidence-based findings in their practice."

Does this really support the statement in the article?

On history, I have commented on ahistorical presentation on Dematt's talk page.] (]) 11:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:Hi Gleng. I see that you are speaking in reference to this first section on ].
:*"The principles of ] have been used to review research studies and generate practice guidelines outlining professional standards that specify which chiropractic treatments are legitimate and perhaps reimbursable under ].<ref name=Villanueva-Russell/> Evidence-based guidelines are supported by one end of an ideological continuum among chiropractors; the other end employs antiscientific reasoning and makes unsubstantiated claims.<ref name=Keating-1997>{{cite journal |author= Keating JC Jr |journal= ] |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=37–43 |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n4_v21/ai_19727577 |title= Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side |date=1997 |accessdate=2008-05-10}}</ref> A 2007 survey of ] chiropractors found that they do not consistently apply research in practice which may have resulted from a lack of research education and skills.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |year=2007 |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=109–15 |title= How important is research-based practice to chiropractors and massage therapists? |author= Suter E, Vanderheyden LC, Trojan LS, Verhoef MJ, Armitage GD |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.12.013 |pmid=17320731}}</ref> Evidence-based chiropractors possess the ability to apply research in practice. Continued education enhances the scientific knowledge of the practitioner.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Chiropr Osteopat |year=2006 |volume=14 |pages=18 |title= Effectiveness of an evidence-based chiropractic continuing education workshop on participant knowledge of evidence-based health care |author= Feise RJ, Grod JP, Taylor-Vaisey A |pmid=16930482 |url=http://chiroandosteo.com/content/14/1/18 |doi=10.1186/1746-1340-14-18}}</ref>"''

:*Evidence-based guidelines are supported by one end of an ideological continuum among chiropractors; the other end employs antiscientific reasoning and makes unsubstantiated claims.<ref name=Keating-1997>{{cite journal |author= Keating JC Jr |journal= ] |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=37–43 |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n4_v21/ai_19727577 |title= Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side |date=1997 |accessdate=2008-05-10}}</ref>
::''Is the claim that a significant number of chiropractors would dissent from this verifiable?
::: I doubt we can find anything that says that any group of chiropractors would dissent from Sackett . -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 02:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:*A 2007 survey of ] chiropractors found that they do not consistently apply research in practice which may have resulted from a lack of research education and skills.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |year=2007 |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=109–15 |title= How important is research-based practice to chiropractors and massage therapists? |author= Suter E, Vanderheyden LC, Trojan LS, Verhoef MJ, Armitage GD |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.12.013 |pmid=17320731}}</ref>
::''Does this really support the statement in the article?''
::: No.
::: This is the kind of thing that I see that I consider ]. When we pick pieces of the source and juxtaposition them to infer things that the author did not express. I would appreciate any help in cleaning some of these up!

:::: Thanks for clarifying Gleng's remarks. They seem to be a continuation of a discussion elsewhere, and I couldn't make heads or tails of them without your clarification. Let me follow up, now that I understand them:
::::* The claim "Evidence-based guidelines are supported by one end of an ideological continuum among chiropractors; the other end employs antiscientific reasoning and makes unsubstantiated claims." is sourced to . Keating is widely considered to be a reliable source in the matter of history and philosophy of chiropractic. For example, he wrote the History and Philosopy chapters of ''Principles and Practice of Chiropractic'', the leading chiropractic textbook. I see no reason to doubt this source simply because Keating published it in ''Skeptical Inquirer''.
::::* Like Dematt, I doubt that we can find anything that says that any group of chiropractors dissent from Sackett. But I don't see why that's relevant. After all, I doubt that we can find anything that says that any group of chiropractors ''agrees'' with Sackett either. I don't think chiropractors have been asked about Sackett, by any reliable source.
::::* Suter ''et al.'' (PMID 17320731), the cited source, does support ]'s claim "A 2007 survey of Alberta chiropractors found that they do not consistently apply research in practice which may have resulted from a lack of research education and skills." Suter ''et al.'' wrote in their abstract "It appears that in Canada neither chiropractors nor massage therapists consistently apply research in practice, which may result from a lack of research education and research skills."
::::] (]) 09:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I have been thinking about the ahistorical aspects that you mentioned on page and think maybe we might be able to manage it by bringing over that first paragraph from ] that mentions Louis Pasteur and putting it on top of the history that we have. Then if we move the history section to the top, that would allow us to address the historical aspects of vitalism early and grow the article into the present.. that way the lead would work out the same way. Whatcha think? -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm just an observer here. It seems obvious to me that the three sentences beginning "Evidence based guidelines ..."should just be ditched; they don't say much at all, they just sound as though they're trying to say something important, but what they do say is probably wrong and probably unverifiable even if true. You know the problems with ahistoricism, you know what to avoid; DD Palmer was a man of his times, and what he believed was pretty much the same kind of thing as most scientists and physicians of the time believed. They were mostly vitalists, and mostly believers in God, and in intelligent design as we would describe it now. ] (]) 08:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

: All three sentences are supported by reliable sources. The point they're trying to make is that evidence-based medicine is controversial within chiropractic, and that a significant number of chiropractors don't use it or believe in it. This is a significant point for the ''Evidence basis'' section of ], and the point should not be removed completely. However, I agree that the sentences could be trimmed. The essential point in the four (not three) sentences beginning with "Evidence-based guidelines ..." could be made by keeping the first sentence and omitting the last three. ] (]) 09:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:: I agree with Eubulides. The point needs to be made, but it could be done in a more concise manner. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 14:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::: Evidence-based medicine is controversial in all aspects of health care, including medicine and physical therapy. Are you suggesting that medical doctors and physical therapists are pseudoscientists as well? Just because we have a source that says something doesn't mean we have to use it. Besides, the Keating source was 10 years old. In EBM years, that is about 70 :-) Things have changed a lot in health care since then - including chiropractic. See if you can find a more current source for something like that and then maybe we'd have something to go with. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 20:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

== Emphasis on the spine ==

I just this most fundamental fact about the profession, yet something is missing.

Many could get the impression that the chiropractic emphasis on the spine is solely because of concern for the health of the spine alone, when that is not the case at all. The spine is considered the key to the health of the entire body, IOW, by treating the spine alone (if a straight), a chiropractor believes (s)he can treat dis-ease in other parts of the body, as well as prevent dis-ease in other parts of the body. The spine is not the aim, but the means to an end. How do we get this included? There are plenty of RS discussing this, mostly from the straight perspective, although this thinking is also basic to mixers, and is a fundamental characteristic of the whole profession, with very few exceptions. The only difference is that mixers add other treatments than spinal adjustments to their mix of methods. They will be inclined to consider treatment of the affected area as also of worth, not considering treatment of the spine alone as sufficient. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:We should use a ref from the body of the article and not add a new ref to the lead. ] 06:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Quite true. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


The section "History" could use an update if sources are available.
=== Spine emphasis is poorly sourced and is not in body ===


Looks like the most recent info in that section is from 10+ years ago.
:* This change is poorly sourced. The cited source does not say that chiropractic has a special emphasis on the spine. It says only that the physical examination during the initial visit has a special emphasis on the spine.
:* Special emphasis is a reasonable point to make, but it must have a better source than this.
:* For now, I have a "Failed verification" tag to this new citation. Can you please find a better source? Preferably one published in a peer reviewed journal, or something like that?
:* As per ] the lead should summarize the body, but this new text in the lead does not summarize anything in the body. This should be fixed by adding a discussion of the special emphasis in the body. Can you please write that as well?
:* I agree with QuackGuru that a good rule of thumb is that the lead should never cite any source that is not also cited in the body. This is a corollary of ]. Let's use that rule here. This can be done by citing the better source in the new text in the body.
:] (]) 09:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


- ] (]) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
: All very true. Let's all work on this, because anyone who knows anything about chiropractic knows this to be a fact. We just need some better refs and inclusion in the body of the article. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


:As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. ] (]) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:: I made to work around the immediate problem. ] (]) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
:: In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at ] and ] for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. ] is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. ] is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical , a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:: Just to clarify: this change was just a quick fix to work around the immediate problem of failed verification. I have some qualms about citing Nelson ''et al.'' 2005 (PMID 16000175) so prominently, as it is a prescriptive paper (it proposes a model of the profession) rather than a descriptive paper. It's clearly an improvement over the previous citation, but it would be nice if we could do better. ] (]) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
:::GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are?
:::I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out?
:::Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume?
:::It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. ] (]) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::: I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with ], the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from ]. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic ]! It works like magic! -- ] (]) (''''']''''')


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


The links regarding its "esoteric" roots have nothing to do with esotericism. Also, the references that claim it is a pseudoscience are all just opinion articles. None of them have scientific evidence included. One of them even notes that while chiropractic started with unusual claims, it is now focused on physical therapy and has a scientific basis. If you want to claim it is a pseudoscience because of erroneous thinking in it's origins, then you need to make the same comments about psychology, psychiatry, and many other medical disciplines as well (which obviously are all legitimate by today's standards, as is chiropractic). ] (]) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->


:They're not 'just opinion articles', and all Misplaced Pages requires is that sources meet ]. They do not have to include 'scientific evidence' to your personal standard. ] (]) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
{| class="navbox collapsible" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
::I'm as anti-chiropractic as they come, but saying "we did the bare minimum" is a bad faith argument. There are plenty of high-quality articles discussing chiropractic as a pseudoscience and no real excuse to not accept criticism of the article just because it happens to be right. ] (]) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
|-
:::No one said "we did the bare minimum". What I did say is that Misplaced Pages has standards it follows. We're not going to switch standards and rule out references because someone sets the goalposts in some arbitrary place to get rid of results they dislike. ] (]) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | References
:] is essentially equivalent to an MD, but we still characterize them as practitioners of pseudoscientific techniques. Much of the <s>profession</s> Chiropractic profession has changed to be essentially PT, but much of it has not. Globally, the field is still beset with snake oil, sorry to say. ] (]) 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
|-
:: I think there is some confusion there. Osteopathy is a red herring here, as this is about chiropractic. ]s are not comparable to ]s. DMs are real medical doctors, most of whom have long since rejected the pseudoscientific underpinnings of original ]. The chiropractic profession (except in England) still allows claims for non-existent ]s and "adjusting" patients for every disease imaginable, using claims that regular ]s will put the body in a better condition to self-heal. There is no evidence that adjustments make people more healthy. -- ] (]) (PING me) 05:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
|
:::Yes, I worded that very confusingly. ] (]) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
::::I want to point out that the articles cited after calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" are from SBM which is a blog. While they do good work, they have an implicit bias against chiropractic.
|}
::::The WHO recognizes the World Chiropractic Federation. It also recognizes spinal manipulation as a viable and first step for chronic lower back pain ().
<!-- If you are inserting something below here, STOP PLEASE and instead insert above "== References ==". Thanks! -->
::::I know people get on a high horse, but the body of evidence is massive compared to articles dated in 2008. Nearly 20 years have passed since the articles from Dr. Hall and you're touting it as if it's the end-all.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::Medicine changes and updates. I can't and won't speak for every practitioner, but evidence points towards chiropractic being beneficial for patients. It doesn't work the same way Dr. Palmer indicated it would in 1897, but Dr. A.T. Still wasn't correct either.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::If you're willing to keep your implicit bias against chiropractic, I'm only one person and cannot stop you, but being willing to accept data contrary to your beliefs is what makes Misplaced Pages a great resource. Yet, you're doing readers a disservice by using old data with outdated claims.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::I'm happy to keep providing updated data. I will concede that some chiropractors still subscribe to outdated beliefs, but I am also willing to provide evidence that MDs, DOs, and other medical providers do as well.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::You have a duty to maintain the up-to-date nature of the sources used. Otherwise, what's the point of science if you're going to cling to outdated ideas? ] (]) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
:::::See ]. Chiropractic is woo and that's been long settled &amp; accepted knowledge. ] applies and an exceptional set of sources would be needed to source any change of position. ] (]) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::Lol. I tried. I'm curious who you'll cite as it being "woo." ] (]) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
:::::::The article is well cited at the end of the first paragraph. ] (]) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::I've read the sources. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term. You may not like chiropractic, but slamming something as pseudoscience leaves no room for discussion because you will dismiss evidence out of hand.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::If I gave you a dozen meta-analyses for chiropractic adjustments, would that change your mind? A hundred?
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::If I gave you studies on patient outcomes? On patient satisfaction?
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::Psychiatry is still questionable on what causes depression. Yet it is a medical profession. Podiatry began as chiropody but is now a medical profession.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::This Wiki article cites DD Palmer as a problematic character. Look back at the origins of Osteopathic medicine. At the origins of modern medicine. None of it is good.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::Yet, you still fault them for the sins of those who came before.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::AT Still never went to medical school. Yet DOs are medical doctors.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::So, please, define for me what you consider pseudoscience.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::I have no problem playing this game and changing the edits however much I can. I think it's a disservice to those who seek chiropractic care into scaring them away when modern evidence points to the benefits and validity. ] (]) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
:::::::::Misplaced Pages follows reliable source. If they say something's pseudoscience that is reflected here. End of story. ] (]) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::All pseudosciences of a certain minimum age have studies confirming them, but that is not enough for ], for ] or for Misplaced Pages to say they are not pseudoscience, since primary studies are only the first step of the science process.
:::::::::{{tq|On patient satisfaction}} LOL, that's a good one. If patients were never satisfied, a medical pseudoscience would not even get started.
:::::::::{{tq|What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"}} See ]. --] (]) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I hear your concern, Bonewizard, and I _do_ wish we could strike a slightly better middle-ground. Anyone who ever leaned back in a chair and felt the pleasant sensation of 'crack your bones' knows that there's ''something'' to Chiropractic, however minimal. But unfortunately, Chiropractors as a field are absolutely known for peddling pseudoscience bordering on snakeoil. For the time being, we do have to warn readers that their field is pseudoscientific.
:::::::::I would, however, love to see, say, comparison between things like chiropractic and, say, opioids, which consensus now accepts were often overprescribed to the point of malfeasanced -- IF we could find GOOD mainstream RSes, not cherry picked research. ] (]) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The physical manipulation part of chiropractic (sort of maybe) 'works' for pain, but then that's just ]. Chiropractic, to be distinctively chiropractic, is the whole medical system built on the idea that the spine is the root of all health and that dextrous manipulation can cure all ills. ] (]) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Absolutely. But what fraction of practicing Chiropractors still preach that whole 'joint popping can cure all ills' nonsense? Enough that we still need to warn the reader, no doubt. But I do feel for the 'modern' practitioners who are, in essence, ], helping people reset a rib or crack their back or what not, and nothing more. But we DO need to err on the side of caution, Chiropractors will still totally take money to test your blood for fictitious 'toxins'. But I do wish there were better labelling between 'I'll help pop your back' vs 'I'll help cure all your ills' types. ] (]) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Do you have any evidence to support that? From any leadership in chiropractic? They don't teach that.
:::::::::::The spine is central to the profession but no one of any consequence believes that.
:::::::::::Primary evidence is showing immunological changes but the accepted body of work knows and understands there are limits - as there is in any profession. ] (]) 13:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's how it's sold. A quick search quickly finds this where chiropractic is being sold to treat allergies on the basis it addresses the 'root cause' of diseases. Reliable sources apparently see things for how they are, not some idealised form confected as a front. ] (]) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Does this work?
::::::::::https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910617?form=fpf ] (]) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You were pointed to ] above, you should read it thoroughly. ] (]) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Pseudoscience is descriptive. You can make a chart of fields claiming to be science and easily determine which belong in which category because we all know what the word means even if we don't like it. Just because it's used dismissively doesn't mean it's inherently a pejorative. ] (]) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell {{u|Jjazz76}} was correct when they from the lead on account of not explicitly supporting "esoteric". I get that Simon seems to be hinting at it with "unconventional", but there's too much air between those wording choices. We're in an awkward position where "esoteric" is still present in the body with the same citation.
:Regardless of the language choice, I'd support restoring something brief in the opening paragraph, paired with "pseudoscientific", that nods toward the origins of the practice. I can Google like the best of them, but I'm hoping someone more familiar with the body of sources can point us toward what the good ones say (or don't say) about this. ] (] / ]) 02:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::I'm sorry I didn't also see the mention of "esoteric" in the body, because it is also unsupported by a RS, and I'm going to delete it.
::I'm not going to weight in (yet) on the pseudo-science part of the debate (it is late here), but esotericism has a pretty specific enough meaning, and I'm not seeing a strong enough connection here. If there are some good reliable sources, then that's fine, let's include it, but but the connection as it stands seems tangential at best.
::One might claim that chiropractic is pseudo-scientific and esoteric, and unconventional but I think each claim needs a reliable source to support it, and they terms are different enough in that one can't use a claim of one as proof of a claim of one of the other. ] (]) 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:I think it's important to mention the more comprehensive outlook on patient care that modern chiropractors have. In the UK, every chiropractor I have met and worked with, except for members of older generations, use techniques founded in physiotherapy, osteopathy and other fields of healthcare science; with many chiropractors working with osteopaths and sports therapists. Chiropractic has moved away from the idea of spine manipulation being the 'go-to' and instead tend to a patient's needs in much more versatile ways. I hate the way many people see chiropractic as only 'cracking backs' and I wish more would recognise what a chiropractor actually does. If someone would sit in for a chiropractor's average day at the clinic they would see nutritional advice, soft-tissue work, ultra-scans etc. and many other treatments you wouldn't expect. Healthcare professionals are vital for many people whom couldn't function without their help, many patients being turned away from general practitioners, their stories not being heard; drugs can't solve everything. ] (]) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thats all well and fine, but the costume that chiros put on is still that of a primary care provider, which they are not. There isn't controversy surrounding massusers for example because they don't claim to be doctors. ] (]) 03:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:31, 4 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconChiropractic Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCitizendium Porting (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archiving icon
Archives

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


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

The section "History" could use an update

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

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

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

As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at Chiropractic treatment techniques and Spinal adjustment for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. Activator technique is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. Applied kinesiology is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical , a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are?
I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out?
Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume?
It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. Feoffer (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with Joseph C. Keating Jr., the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from B. J. Palmer. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic hole in one! It works like magic! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

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

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

They're not 'just opinion articles', and all Misplaced Pages requires is that sources meet WP:RS. They do not have to include 'scientific evidence' to your personal standard. MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm as anti-chiropractic as they come, but saying "we did the bare minimum" is a bad faith argument. There are plenty of high-quality articles discussing chiropractic as a pseudoscience and no real excuse to not accept criticism of the article just because it happens to be right. 2603:7081:1603:A300:D56:8C74:C3D7:9391 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
No one said "we did the bare minimum". What I did say is that Misplaced Pages has standards it follows. We're not going to switch standards and rule out references because someone sets the goalposts in some arbitrary place to get rid of results they dislike. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine is essentially equivalent to an MD, but we still characterize them as practitioners of pseudoscientific techniques. Much of the profession Chiropractic profession has changed to be essentially PT, but much of it has not. Globally, the field is still beset with snake oil, sorry to say. Feoffer (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion there. Osteopathy is a red herring here, as this is about chiropractic. DCs are not comparable to DMs. DMs are real medical doctors, most of whom have long since rejected the pseudoscientific underpinnings of original Osteopathy. The chiropractic profession (except in England) still allows claims for non-existent vertebral subluxations and "adjusting" patients for every disease imaginable, using claims that regular spinal adjustments will put the body in a better condition to self-heal. There is no evidence that adjustments make people more healthy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I worded that very confusingly. Feoffer (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I want to point out that the articles cited after calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" are from SBM which is a blog. While they do good work, they have an implicit bias against chiropractic.
The WHO recognizes the World Chiropractic Federation. It also recognizes spinal manipulation as a viable and first step for chronic lower back pain (WHO releases guidelines on chronic low back pain).
I know people get on a high horse, but the body of evidence is massive compared to articles dated in 2008. Nearly 20 years have passed since the articles from Dr. Hall and you're touting it as if it's the end-all.
Medicine changes and updates. I can't and won't speak for every practitioner, but evidence points towards chiropractic being beneficial for patients. It doesn't work the same way Dr. Palmer indicated it would in 1897, but Dr. A.T. Still wasn't correct either.
If you're willing to keep your implicit bias against chiropractic, I'm only one person and cannot stop you, but being willing to accept data contrary to your beliefs is what makes Misplaced Pages a great resource. Yet, you're doing readers a disservice by using old data with outdated claims.
I'm happy to keep providing updated data. I will concede that some chiropractors still subscribe to outdated beliefs, but I am also willing to provide evidence that MDs, DOs, and other medical providers do as well.
You have a duty to maintain the up-to-date nature of the sources used. Otherwise, what's the point of science if you're going to cling to outdated ideas? Bonewizard1 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
See WP:SBM. Chiropractic is woo and that's been long settled & accepted knowledge. WP:ECREE applies and an exceptional set of sources would be needed to source any change of position. Bon courage (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Lol. I tried. I'm curious who you'll cite as it being "woo." 2600:1008:B10C:CC3A:814A:4C81:47D7:99D9 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The article is well cited at the end of the first paragraph. Bon courage (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I've read the sources. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term. You may not like chiropractic, but slamming something as pseudoscience leaves no room for discussion because you will dismiss evidence out of hand.
If I gave you a dozen meta-analyses for chiropractic adjustments, would that change your mind? A hundred?
If I gave you studies on patient outcomes? On patient satisfaction?
What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"
Psychiatry is still questionable on what causes depression. Yet it is a medical profession. Podiatry began as chiropody but is now a medical profession.
This Wiki article cites DD Palmer as a problematic character. Look back at the origins of Osteopathic medicine. At the origins of modern medicine. None of it is good.
Yet, you still fault them for the sins of those who came before.
AT Still never went to medical school. Yet DOs are medical doctors.
So, please, define for me what you consider pseudoscience.
I have no problem playing this game and changing the edits however much I can. I think it's a disservice to those who seek chiropractic care into scaring them away when modern evidence points to the benefits and validity. Bonewizard1 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages follows reliable source. If they say something's pseudoscience that is reflected here. End of story. Bon courage (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
All pseudosciences of a certain minimum age have studies confirming them, but that is not enough for evidence-based medicine, for science-based medicine or for Misplaced Pages to say they are not pseudoscience, since primary studies are only the first step of the science process.
On patient satisfaction LOL, that's a good one. If patients were never satisfied, a medical pseudoscience would not even get started.
What is the limit at which something becomes "science?" See WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I hear your concern, Bonewizard, and I _do_ wish we could strike a slightly better middle-ground. Anyone who ever leaned back in a chair and felt the pleasant sensation of 'crack your bones' knows that there's something to Chiropractic, however minimal. But unfortunately, Chiropractors as a field are absolutely known for peddling pseudoscience bordering on snakeoil. For the time being, we do have to warn readers that their field is pseudoscientific.
I would, however, love to see, say, comparison between things like chiropractic and, say, opioids, which consensus now accepts were often overprescribed to the point of malfeasanced -- IF we could find GOOD mainstream RSes, not cherry picked research. Feoffer (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The physical manipulation part of chiropractic (sort of maybe) 'works' for pain, but then that's just physical manipulation. Chiropractic, to be distinctively chiropractic, is the whole medical system built on the idea that the spine is the root of all health and that dextrous manipulation can cure all ills. Bon courage (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. But what fraction of practicing Chiropractors still preach that whole 'joint popping can cure all ills' nonsense? Enough that we still need to warn the reader, no doubt. But I do feel for the 'modern' practitioners who are, in essence, folk bone-setters, helping people reset a rib or crack their back or what not, and nothing more. But we DO need to err on the side of caution, Chiropractors will still totally take money to test your blood for fictitious 'toxins'. But I do wish there were better labelling between 'I'll help pop your back' vs 'I'll help cure all your ills' types. Feoffer (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support that? From any leadership in chiropractic? They don't teach that.
The spine is central to the profession but no one of any consequence believes that.
Primary evidence is showing immunological changes but the accepted body of work knows and understands there are limits - as there is in any profession. Bonewizard1 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
It's how it's sold. A quick search quickly finds this where chiropractic is being sold to treat allergies on the basis it addresses the 'root cause' of diseases. Reliable sources apparently see things for how they are, not some idealised form confected as a front. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Does this work?
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910617?form=fpf Bonewizard1 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
You were pointed to WP:MEDRS above, you should read it thoroughly. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is descriptive. You can make a chart of fields claiming to be science and easily determine which belong in which category because we all know what the word means even if we don't like it. Just because it's used dismissively doesn't mean it's inherently a pejorative. 2603:7081:1603:A300:D56:8C74:C3D7:9391 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Jjazz76 was correct when they removed "esoteric" from the lead on account of the Simon source not explicitly supporting "esoteric". I get that Simon seems to be hinting at it with "unconventional", but there's too much air between those wording choices. We're in an awkward position where "esoteric" is still present in the body with the same citation.
Regardless of the language choice, I'd support restoring something brief in the opening paragraph, paired with "pseudoscientific", that nods toward the origins of the practice. I can Google like the best of them, but I'm hoping someone more familiar with the body of sources can point us toward what the good ones say (or don't say) about this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't also see the mention of "esoteric" in the body, because it is also unsupported by a RS, and I'm going to delete it.
I'm not going to weight in (yet) on the pseudo-science part of the debate (it is late here), but esotericism has a pretty specific enough meaning, and I'm not seeing a strong enough connection here. If there are some good reliable sources, then that's fine, let's include it, but but the connection as it stands seems tangential at best.
One might claim that chiropractic is pseudo-scientific and esoteric, and unconventional but I think each claim needs a reliable source to support it, and they terms are different enough in that one can't use a claim of one as proof of a claim of one of the other. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it's important to mention the more comprehensive outlook on patient care that modern chiropractors have. In the UK, every chiropractor I have met and worked with, except for members of older generations, use techniques founded in physiotherapy, osteopathy and other fields of healthcare science; with many chiropractors working with osteopaths and sports therapists. Chiropractic has moved away from the idea of spine manipulation being the 'go-to' and instead tend to a patient's needs in much more versatile ways. I hate the way many people see chiropractic as only 'cracking backs' and I wish more would recognise what a chiropractor actually does. If someone would sit in for a chiropractor's average day at the clinic they would see nutritional advice, soft-tissue work, ultra-scans etc. and many other treatments you wouldn't expect. Healthcare professionals are vital for many people whom couldn't function without their help, many patients being turned away from general practitioners, their stories not being heard; drugs can't solve everything. Klondike4 (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Thats all well and fine, but the costume that chiros put on is still that of a primary care provider, which they are not. There isn't controversy surrounding massusers for example because they don't claim to be doctors. 2607:FEA8:4A62:2F00:AC7B:E1D:4396:EBB (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: