No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
:::::::I missed where your perspective has changed from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&type=revision&diff=781236289&oldid=781235698 this diff] on the 19th or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=781944918 here] on the 24th where you cited that diff. But OK fine, thanks for clarifying that you do not support using "profession" in the lead. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 12:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::I missed where your perspective has changed from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&type=revision&diff=781236289&oldid=781235698 this diff] on the 19th or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=781944918 here] on the 24th where you cited that diff. But OK fine, thanks for clarifying that you do not support using "profession" in the lead. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 12:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
: I wouldn't have a problem with calling chiropractic a profession. After all, it's beyond doubt that some people make a living practising the art. But then again, so do confidence tricksters and witch doctors. However, I do object to these constant attempts by POV-pushers to pretend that it's something that it is not. It's [[alternative medicine]] and plenty of sources tell us that. Here's how our page introduces the subject: "Alternative medicine — or fringe medicine — includes practices claimed to have the healing effects of medicine but which are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or can not, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims ...". Who is going to maintain, in the face of all of the evidence, that chiropractic claims to heal everything but has not been shown to be effective for anything beyond chronic LBP? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 12:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC) |
: I wouldn't have a problem with calling chiropractic a profession. After all, it's beyond doubt that some people make a living practising the art. But then again, so do confidence tricksters and witch doctors. However, I do object to these constant attempts by POV-pushers to pretend that it's something that it is not. It's [[alternative medicine]] and plenty of sources tell us that. Here's how our page introduces the subject: "Alternative medicine — or fringe medicine — includes practices claimed to have the healing effects of medicine but which are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or can not, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims ...". Who is going to maintain, in the face of all of the evidence, that chiropractic claims to heal everything but has not been shown to be effective for anything beyond chronic LBP? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 12:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
::See "A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[9]" The reason this is in the lede is because I wrote it. It takes a person to summarise the sources and summarise the body. That's what I have been doing. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 14:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:37, 31 May 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017
Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine[1] concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of --75.118.73.140 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)unverified mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[2] Proponents believe that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.[2] The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), manipulations of other joints and soft tissues.[3] Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence".[4][5][6][7][8]
References
|
---|
References
|
Please remove "unverified" from "treatment of unverified mechanical...". Modern chiropractic education, except education from a few schools, teaches the identification and treatment of mechanical disorders, i.e. fixations, hyper and hypomobility vs the subluxation focused schools--who do treat "unverified" subluxations. "unverified" paints a broad brush to a profession with many schools and leaders rejecting the unproved vertebral subluxation complex. "unverified" should more accurately be used when using the term "subluxation".
Please add "Some" before "Proponents" in "Proponents believe that some ...". Not all practitioners believe "subluxations" have an effect on general health. Some organizations (in the US, Australia and Great Britian as well as some colleges) have rejected the "subluxation" theory and no longer use the term and/or don't teach it. Msimone (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- (1) As far as I can see "
a form of of alternative medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders
" wouldn't be alternative medicine, it would be medicine. I disagree that such a definition would be an accurate representation of a body of thought where the majority position depends on the theory of non-existent "vertebral subluxations". Where are your sources that contradict what the sources in the article state? - (2) You need the balance of good sources saying that "only some proponents believe that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system" to add the word "some". See WP:SOME. Adding it would allow the impression to be formed that a large, if unknown, proportion of proponents might disagree with the vertebral subluxations theories. But we know that most of the proponents of chiropractic affirm belief in vertebral subluxations.
- (3) Before you post an edit request, you might at least have to courtesy to see if your request has been asked and answered previously. Just scan through the most recent archive, which you can find at Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 38 and you'll see that your assertions about chiropractic education have already been addressed and placed into context. The lead of the article is concerned with chiropractic practice, not education, and you'll find sources that speak to the mismatch between what is claimed to be taught and the pronouncements of the leading bodies representing chiropractic throughout the world. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done per QuackGuru. ProgrammingGeek talktome 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am curious how long the WP:OR will remain in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Chiropractors do work in a PCP role and are considered by peer reviewed literature as a better source of treatment for spinal disorders based on this study. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Apr 4;166(7):514-530. doi: 10.7326/M16-2367. Epub 2017 Feb 14. Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Qaseem A1, Wilt TJ1, McLean RM1, Forciea MA1; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.73.140 (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- The most common MSK disorder treated by both chiropractic and MDs is non-specific low back pain. This is a diagnosis of exclusion. "Verification" is actively discouraged in the initial 6 weeks if no red flags are present. Additionally for chronic low back pain, often the person has had other issues ruled out by MRI before chiropractic care is initiated.
- "Unverified" is a strange term as I make lots of "unverified" diagnosis following ruling out conditions that can be verified. Just think about chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and IBS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine[citation needed] concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[1][2][not in citation given] Refs do not go at the end of the sentence per V policy and WP:CITEFOOT since both refs do not verify the entire sentence. One ref verifies part of the sentence and the other ref verifies the other part. QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
This ref from the NCCIH says "Chiropractic is a health care profession that focuses on the relationship between the body's structure—mainly the spine—and its functioning."[1] And the fact that it is listed there means it is "alt med" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is a debate over whether it is alt med and NCCIH does not verify it is a type of alt med. QuackGuru (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Lots of sources call it alt med[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is an internal and external debate over how to define the profession. See "Chiropractic still maintains some vestiges of an alternative health care profession in image, attitude, and practice. The profession has not resolved questions of professional and social identity, and it has not come to a consensus on the implications of integration into mainstream health care delivery systems and processes. In today’s dynamic health care milieu, chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay so how would you describe it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- This was not originally about how to describe it. It is about the placement of the refs to verify each specific claim. The part "a form of alternative medicine" describes it without taking sides in the debate. Doing other stuff does not mean they are "mostly" concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders unless the source verifies the claim "mostly". QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm perplexed to see QG arguing that chiropractic is not a form of alternative medicine, but he is correct that there is internal and external debate over how to define it. A very neutral way would be along the NCCIH source, which simply says that "Chiropractic is a health care profession..." DigitalC (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- But wouldn't that be giving a false impression about a set of practices that has virtually no evidence of effectiveness and where the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on a theory of non-existent "vertebral subluxations"? --RexxS (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- No. What false impression would it give? Is chiropractic a health care profession? Yes. Is it alternative medicine? There is internal and external debate about that, yet we are stating it like a fact. Which, speaking of, do you have a source the the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on a theory of subluxations? Because that is not my personal experience. In terms of their practices having no evidence of effectiveness, just recently the American College of Physicians (ACP) released a Guideline on treating Low Back Pain - for acute LBP they recommend nondrug therapy, such as heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation. For chronic LBP they exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, spinal manipulation (among other non-drug treatments). DigitalC (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- But wouldn't that be giving a false impression about a set of practices that has virtually no evidence of effectiveness and where the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on a theory of non-existent "vertebral subluxations"? --RexxS (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm perplexed to see QG arguing that chiropractic is not a form of alternative medicine, but he is correct that there is internal and external debate over how to define it. A very neutral way would be along the NCCIH source, which simply says that "Chiropractic is a health care profession..." DigitalC (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- This was not originally about how to describe it. It is about the placement of the refs to verify each specific claim. The part "a form of alternative medicine" describes it without taking sides in the debate. Doing other stuff does not mean they are "mostly" concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders unless the source verifies the claim "mostly". QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay so how would you describe it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is an internal and external debate over how to define the profession. See "Chiropractic still maintains some vestiges of an alternative health care profession in image, attitude, and practice. The profession has not resolved questions of professional and social identity, and it has not come to a consensus on the implications of integration into mainstream health care delivery systems and processes. In today’s dynamic health care milieu, chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Lots of sources call it alt med[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
As you ask, it would give the false impression that a set of techniques firmly based in mumbo-jumbo about vertebral subluxations has far more validity than it actually has. Is chiropractic a health care profession? No. Health care is based on real medicine, which by definition works. There's no reliable evidence that Chiropractic works. Is it alternative medicine? Yes, because that's how all the reliable sources label it – see the article. That's what is defined as a 'fact' in Wikipedia. As for subluxations, I have a source for this (from Vertebral subluxation):
... the presidents of at least a dozen chiropractic colleges of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) developed a consensus definition of "subluxation" in 1996. It reads:
- "Chiropractic is concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation. A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health. A subluxation is evaluated, diagnosed, and managed through the use of chiropractic procedures based on the best available rational and empirical evidence."[1]
In 2001 the World Federation of Chiropractic, representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries, adopted this consensus statement which reaffirms belief in the vertebral subluxation.[2]
Fortunately, we don't write Wikipedia articles based on your personal experiences.
In terms of their practices having no evidence of effectiveness:
- "An evaluation of the 29 recent reviews of spinal manipulation for back pain concluded that those authored by chiropractors tended to generate positive results, whereas the others failed to demonstrate effectiveness."[3]
- "Collectively, their results fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is effective. The only possible exception is back pain. For this condition, manipulation may be as effective (or ineffective) as standard therapy."[3]
References
- ^ Robert Cooperstein, Brian J. Gleberzon. Technique systems in chiropractic. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2004, ISBN 0-443-07413-5, ISBN 978-0-443-07413-4, 387 pages.
- ^ Donald M. Petersen Jr. WFC Lays Foundation for Worldwide Chiropractic Unity. Dynamic Chiropractic, July 2, 2001, Vol. 19, Issue 14.
- ^ a b Ernst, Edzard (1 May 2008). "Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation". Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 35 (5): 544–562. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004.
In other words, chiropractic is as effective as "exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, etc." for back pain – in other words: no long-term benefit (as any MD will tell you). If you think that being as effective as acupuncture for treating medical conditions is a recommendation, you need to look harder at what pseudoscience is. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi RexxS, if you don't mind, please lay off the condescending dismissive attitude, it isn't appreciated. reliable sources disagree with your original research that chiropractic is not a health care profession. For example, the Meeker & Haldeman source that QG cited/linked above, as well as the NCIIH source from Doc James. Further, your claim that all reliable sources label chiropractic as alternative medicine is demonstrably false, as evidenced by that same Meeker & Haldeman article that QG cited, which back in 2002 stated that "chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine". Thanks for the your links regarding subluxation, although they fails to demonstrate what you state, that the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on subluxations. Instead, it demonstrates that national associations, not practitioners reaffirmed that more than 15 years ago. As for Guidelines not being recommendations, that is a bizarre assertion, especially since the American College of Physicians explicitly uses the words "treatment recommendations" - i.e. "Treatment recommendations include massage, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, tai chi, and yoga".
- In regards to effectiveness, a more recent review than the biased Ernst source you quoted is the very recent JAMA review by Paige et. al, which found that SMT was associated with modest improvements in pain and function for LBP. [1]. DigitalC (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Quit worrying about my attitude, and start focusing on the content. It's the usual tactic for POV-pushers to start making ad hominems to attack those who disagree with them when they have no actual facts to back them up. The reliable sources in the article contradict your assertion that chiropractic is a health care profession; it's actually alternate medicine based on pseudoscience. Look at the article and you'll see PMC 1185558; PMID:18280103; ISBN 978-0-393-06661-6; ISBN 0-07-137534-1; ISBN 978-3-319-21987-5; and more.
- One source from 2002 states "chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine" and you try to use that to justify your claim that not all reliable sources label chiropractic as alternative medicine? Give us a break.
- The Association of Chiropractic Colleges and the World Federation of Chiropractic (representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries) all agree that chiropractic is based on (non-existant) vertebral subluxations and have done so for over 15 years. You try to tell us that doesn't represent the overwhelming majority of practitioners? Pull the other one.
- What are you talking about:
"Guidelines not being recommendations, that is a bizarre assertion"
– I've made no such assertion. You're reading off the wrong cue-sheet. Of course ACP and lots of other bodies are happy to recommend chiropractic (and exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, etc.) for back pain, because they know for most people nothing is going to cure it, and people often feel better after some sort of management, even if it's a placebo. Take a look at Back pain #Management for a fuller discussion. - Of course you try to dismiss Ernst as "biased". All chiro-fans do. But he's a very respected academic, a now-retired Professor of Complementary Medicine, and has many publications in the most prestigious of medical journals. The sources from Ernst used in this article are published by Journal of pain and symptom management, New Zealand Medical Journal, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, etc. I suppose, according to you, those are all biased as well?
- Interestingly, even Ernst also agrees that spinal manipulation is associated with modest improvements in pain and function for lower-back pain. But so is massage, exercise, yoga, heat treatment and any number of other techniques - not to mention pain killers. So what? That's the only claim to efficacy that chiropractic can muster, and that's by proxy, because plenty of other practitioners can carry out spinal manipulation. There's no other condition that chiropractic has been shown to be efficacious for, and that ought to tell you something. It doesn't work and its underlying theory of vertebral subluxations is complete woo-woo. --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The reliable sources in the article contradict your assertion that chiropractic is a health care profession
None of those sources discuss whether chiropractic is or is not a healthcare profession. Those sources discuss the legitimacy of chiropractic. You also saidHealth care is based on real medicine, which by definition works.
The dispute here seems to be a semantic debate about the meaning of the word "healthcare".[Healthcare:] efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially by trained and licensed professionals
Meriam-Webster Dictionary That doesn't mention anything about evidence in the definition. Chiropractic falls under that definition.[Healthcare:] the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind.
Dictionary.com Again, no mention of the evidence you say is implicit with the word. Chiropractors also fall under this definition.- And then there's Wikipedia's healthcare page. Here's the lede:
Health care or healthcare is the maintenance or improvement of health via the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in human beings. Healthcare is delivered by health professionals (providers or practitioners) in allied health professions, chiropractic, physicians, physician associates, dentistry, midwifery, nursing, medicine, optometry, pharmacy, psychology, and other health professions. It includes the work done in providing primary care, secondary care, and tertiary care, as well as in public health.
- you will also find chiropractic listed under the list of healthcare occupations. If you look around Wikipedia, (along with most sources) you will find chiropractic listed as a "Healthcare profession", which in no way ascribes validity to it. You're worried about the "impression" it will make if it says "healthcare", but that term is already used in several pages on Wikipedia to describe chiropractic. Ironically, the chiropractic page is one of the few that does not use the term healthcare"
- Interestingly enough, I wasn't able to find an objective source that validated your opinion on the definition of the word "Healthcare". Do you have one you can provide? or one that explicitly states chiropractic is not a healthcare profession? I'm happy to provide several more that say it is.
- Whether or not chiropractic is defined as alternative medicine is debated in many places and by many people, but the only debate as to whether or not chiropractic is a healthcare profession seems to be here.Jmg873 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- If the definition of healthcare were to be taken as you wish it to be, then witch doctors would meet the definition, as might voodoo priests, white witches, homeopaths, faith healers, and any number of snake oil salesmen, who make a living from their "efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being". If that's how you want to see chiropractic, that's fine with me. Otherwise get yourself a better dictionary. I'm only interested in real healthcare based on medicine that works. Not one based on pseudo-scientific claptrap. --RexxS (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
If the definition of healthcare were to be taken as you wish it to be, then witch doctors would meet the definition
If a country has laws licensing witch-doctors to treat health conditions, then they are irrefutably part of its healthcare system. You tell me to get a better dictionary, yet I can link any number of dictionaries matching the definition of the word I've discussed. I asked you for a definition from an objective source (like a dictionary) that matches the definition of the word healthcare you are using, and you've yet to provide it.If that's how you want to see chiropractic... I'm only interested in real healthcare based on medicine that works.
You can be interested in whatever you choose, but that has nothing to do with chiropractic being a healthcare profession. You're maintaining that this view is unique to me, but it isn't, and it doesn't matter how I see chiropractic. My view of chiropractic doesn't matter, that's why I cited dictionaries. Chiropractic is a profession which deals with the health of the human body. Chiropractors are licensed by the government in the US and many other countries to treat health problems. That licensure is what defines chiropractic as a healthcare profession; That's not my view, it's an irrefutable fact. Jmg873 (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)- Chiropractic is a profession which deals with the health of the human body. No it isn't. Chiropractic is a profession that claims to deal with health, based on the pseudo-science of vertebral subluxations, even though there's no evidence of its effectiveness, nor does any scientifically accepted method of action exist.
- In those respects, it's no different from acupuncture, which has licensed (and certified) practitioners; or homeopathy which has licensed practitioners; or even from witch doctors, who are also licensed practitioners. If licensure is the defining characteristic of a healthcare profession for you, and you're happy with magic as the curative mechanism, then you're welcome to your definition. I'll stick with real doctors for my healthcare, thanks. --RexxS (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Chiropractic is a profession which deals with the health of the human body. No it isn't
- This appears to be another semantic argument. by "deals with", I meant that their treatments pertain to the health of the human body, and attempt to improve it. My phrasing has no implications of efficacy.
In those respects, it's no different from acupuncture, which has licensed (and certified) practitioners; or homeopathy which has licensed practitioners; or even from witch doctors, who are also licensed practitioners.
- In each country that licenses those professions to deal with health-related issues, they are part of that healthcare system. You don't have to use them, you don't have to believe in them, but they are.
you're welcome to your definition
It's not my definition; it's the dictionary you're arguing with. Jmg873 (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)- My phrasing has no implications of efficacy. – Indeed it doesn't. Which is why it's worthless.
- You don't have to use them – Indeed you don't. And our article needs to be clear why not.
- It's not my definition – But it's the definition that you choose to use to justify your advocacy of chiropractic, no matter how ridiculous it is. We don't do readers any favours by pretending that vertebral subluxations, acupunture, homeopathy, or white magic offer the same sort of healthcare as evidence-based medicine does. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- In addition to the sources listed above referring to chiropractic as a healthcare profession, the WHO repeatedly refers to it at a healthcare profession:
As a health care service, chiropractic offers a conservative management approach and, although it requires skilled practitioners, it does not always need auxiliary staff andtherefore generates minimal add‐on costs.
- as well as:
Chiropractic: A health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders ongeneral health. There is an emphasis on manual techniques, including joint adjustmentand/or manipulation, with a particular focus on subluxations.
WHO. - I'm actually surprised that a reference to chiropractic as a "healthcare profession" is even a disputed point. Jmg873 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The dispute is about how we define chiropractic in the opening words of the article. And I'm surprised that it's not described as pseudo-science in that opening sentence. But we all have to make compromises. --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:LEADSENTENCE. I'm curious how long the original research will remain in the first paragragh. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- In the WHO document chiropractic is only referred to as a "healthcare profession" three times: in the glossary on page 3, the same definition repeated on page 5 and in the educational objectives on 10. The introduction section written in 2004 explains that in some countries "there may be no educational, professional or legal framework governing the practice of chiropractic." On the NHS careers website there is only a mention- it is grouped under the section covering complementary and alternative medicine [4]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is not about a document. The pressing concern is about original research. A new editor knows there are problems with the first paragraph since 4 March 2017. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @drchriswilliams, Chiropractic is actually referred to as a "Health care profession" in the document about 40 times. You have to search for "health care" as two words, rather than 1, but QG is right, that isn't the point. Jmg873 (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Jmg873, the word "profession" was in the first paragraph a little while ago along with sourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Jmg873: While you say you are counting the use of a phrase, the WHO document does not use it in the way that you describe. It is most often used to refer to "other health care professionals", for example when describing where chiropractic might be given as "supplementary education". Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The WHO source is irrelevant since it is not being used as the first source in the article. This version uses Nelson. It says "The status of "licensed healthcare profession" confers upon the chiropractic profession certain privileges, but it also imposes upon it a specific set of expectations and ethical obligations."[5] By law a chiropractic is licensed to be a healthcare professional. Can we focus on the real problems now? QuackGuru (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, let's get back to the primary issue: The version that you linked looks good. It removes the WP:OR out of the lede; that revision should stand. Jmg873 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Except that the 2005 Nelson article, published in a chiropractic journal, is an opinion piece which clearly identifies the objective of the authors to "increase market share of the public seeking chiropractic care". Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- We are not trying to continue to discuss adding the word "healthcare" to the first paragraph. The tile of this thread is "Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017". Let's try to address the valid concerns. We are trying to remove the original research. For almost 10 years I have been trying to remove original research and content that failed verification from this page. The only problem remaining is the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Is there any objections? 15:54, 30 May 2017 QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I object to you adding to a 5 day old comment. It gives a misleading impression. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I forgot to sign a new comment. QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I object to you adding to a 5 day old comment. It gives a misleading impression. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Except that the 2005 Nelson article, published in a chiropractic journal, is an opinion piece which clearly identifies the objective of the authors to "increase market share of the public seeking chiropractic care". Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, let's get back to the primary issue: The version that you linked looks good. It removes the WP:OR out of the lede; that revision should stand. Jmg873 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The WHO source is irrelevant since it is not being used as the first source in the article. This version uses Nelson. It says "The status of "licensed healthcare profession" confers upon the chiropractic profession certain privileges, but it also imposes upon it a specific set of expectations and ethical obligations."[5] By law a chiropractic is licensed to be a healthcare professional. Can we focus on the real problems now? QuackGuru (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Jmg873: While you say you are counting the use of a phrase, the WHO document does not use it in the way that you describe. It is most often used to refer to "other health care professionals", for example when describing where chiropractic might be given as "supplementary education". Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Jmg873, the word "profession" was in the first paragraph a little while ago along with sourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- In the WHO document chiropractic is only referred to as a "healthcare profession" three times: in the glossary on page 3, the same definition repeated on page 5 and in the educational objectives on 10. The introduction section written in 2004 explains that in some countries "there may be no educational, professional or legal framework governing the practice of chiropractic." On the NHS careers website there is only a mention- it is grouped under the section covering complementary and alternative medicine [4]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:LEADSENTENCE. I'm curious how long the original research will remain in the first paragragh. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The dispute is about how we define chiropractic in the opening words of the article. And I'm surprised that it's not described as pseudo-science in that opening sentence. But we all have to make compromises. --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- If the definition of healthcare were to be taken as you wish it to be, then witch doctors would meet the definition, as might voodoo priests, white witches, homeopaths, faith healers, and any number of snake oil salesmen, who make a living from their "efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being". If that's how you want to see chiropractic, that's fine with me. Otherwise get yourself a better dictionary. I'm only interested in real healthcare based on medicine that works. Not one based on pseudo-scientific claptrap. --RexxS (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I support QG's revision. Jmg873 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is far better than the current version. The failed verification content has been removed. See Talk:Chiropractic/Proposal to replace the current first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's a complete whitewash of the subject which is never going to be more than alternative medicine. A series of techniques that has been demonstrated to be ineffective and based on a discredited theory is not comparable to real medical professions like dentistry. --RexxS (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017
Please remove all bias claims and fearmongering from this page. Chiropractic is a patient centered alternative form of healthcare. There are claim on this page that chiropractic leads to death. None of those claims are made on Medicine, surgery, or therapy even though they all have blemishes in their history. Get with the times. The last person that edited this was a person named "quackguru." Obviously this page is not being honest or fair. Please fix. LiveHonest (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: The {{edit semi-protected}} tag should only be used when you have a specific request to change the article, such as "change X to Y" or "add X before/after Y". It should not be used for generic requests to fix the article or to request permission to edit the article – such requests will generally be declined. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
profession or form of (alternative) medicine?
How other WP articles start...
- "Dentistry is a branch of medicine..."
- "Surgery... is an ancient medical specialty...."
- In medicine, a surgeon is a doctor who performs operations. Surgeons may be physicians, podiatrists, dentists, or veterinarians. "
- "Veterinary medicine' is the branch of medicine..."
- "A veterinary physician, colloquially called a vet, shortened from veterinarian ..., is a professional who practices veterinary medicine ..."
Am finding it odd to call this a "profession" and not a branch of (alternative) medicine... Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- For the lede sentence we don't need to call it a "profession". We can't call it "alternative medicine" in the lede sentence when there is disagreement. QuackGuru (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see, so your moving toward "profession" is an effort to escape the "(alternative) medicine" problem - is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not moving forward with "profession". I will not escape the "alternative medicine" content. There is no problem with "alternative medicine" content as long as the text follows the body. QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am not saying that in a bad way - artful editing can deal with difficult things. You certainly have been advocating for "profession". (note I said "moving toward" not "moving forward") Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not moving forward with "profession". I will not escape the "alternative medicine" content. There is no problem with "alternative medicine" content as long as the text follows the body. QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see, so your moving toward "profession" is an effort to escape the "(alternative) medicine" problem - is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have a problem with calling chiropractic a profession. After all, it's beyond doubt that some people make a living practising the art. But then again, so do confidence tricksters and witch doctors. However, I do object to these constant attempts by POV-pushers to pretend that it's something that it is not. It's alternative medicine and plenty of sources tell us that. Here's how our page introduces the subject: "Alternative medicine — or fringe medicine — includes practices claimed to have the healing effects of medicine but which are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or can not, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims ...". Who is going to maintain, in the face of all of the evidence, that chiropractic claims to heal everything but has not been shown to be effective for anything beyond chronic LBP? --RexxS (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- See "A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[9]" The reason this is in the lede is because I wrote it. It takes a person to summarise the sources and summarise the body. That's what I have been doing. QuackGuru (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)