"

 History 

The history section is way too long and covers effectiveness using outdated studies. We need to discuss the WP:WEIGHT problems with the huge and oudated history section.  
 Um, how can history be outdated?   discuss 
Because the studies are too old. We have newer studies available.  
 They are too old for history? Sorry, this doesn't seem to compute.   discuss 
Isn't it discussing effectiveness that's the problem?   
 I don't see any problem with talking about historically important research. My issue there would be that the study should be discussed for its historical importances. Manga, for instance, was landmark research in helping to establish the scientific legitimacy of the profession. I read that somewhere. I'm sure we can dig up the source.   discuss 
If studies are presented for their historical impact then there is no issue. If they are presented as ""establishing scientific legitimacy"", then there is an issue since that's PoV.   
 Historically, establishing chiropractic scientific legitimacy for treating low back pain is exactly what the Manga Report (and the second Manga Report) did. It also showed the cost-effectiveness of such treatments.   discuss 
That's PoV. Providing evidence for it would be a more neutral wording. Also, nudge you again on this - published =/= truth.   
 Oh, sure. I see your point. Manga was one of the first of a few big scientific studies (such as the AHCPR) to come out after the Wilks case ended (and the AMA had been found guilty of suppressing supportive chiropractic research). Certainly Manga provided evidence which has helped to establish a growing trend towards scientific acceptance. Nudge to you... Wikipedia isn't about truth, it is about verifiability. Published information helps to establish verifiability. I encourage you to read [