Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 8

message: Okay guys.  I've been struggling here in the next paragraph of the introduction.  The facts that I have left to work with don't really go together well, so bear with me while I throw something out there.  Once it's down there, you can go through it with the fine tooth comb.  I'll try to keep it as neutral as a mixer chiro can, but i do want it interesting. Any input you guys want to put in is fine with me, just throw it in there - the same rules apply.  I'm not going to get too deep in the intro, but I think I'm going to have to touch on some of the politics within and/or without the profession to bring it up to the 21st century.  You know we have to be real, painful or not.  No judgements about any of it - it is what it is.  We made it through the first part.  Mccready, do me a favor, I'm not going to have the time to look for references this first time around, so pls don't just delete it - note it for me and maybe one of us knows where to find it - you guys are all powerhouses of knowledge, so do your thing!--Dematt 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with your statement, I personally don't consider myself as believing in a religious sense rather than waiting for science to catch up. To reasoning that if it is not scientific then it must be religious would make it an either/or logical fallacy.--Dematt 17:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction - next paragraph 

message: I'm looking at the History section.  I think this is where we can really spruce this thing up.  DD was a very colorful man and apparently there was lots of contoversy and deceit, both for and against chiropractic.  No-one really knows the truth here.  I learned the watered down version at school, but now that I have read some of the Fyslee stuff, I am even more intrigued.  I don't know the details like you guys do, so as I lay out the timeline, pls make any additions that you feel are necessary.  We need it all, the osteopath link, the religious stuff, christian scientists, AMA attacks, DD's responses, the UCA, science of spinal manipulation, etc..  The problem is that I don't know where all the references are so I need you guys to put them in after I'm done.  In other words, don't just delete something because it hasn't been referenced yet.  Let me know where it came from or ask someone else to clear it up.  If we have a conflict, we can discuss it here.
The important thing is that it all makes sense when we're done.  When we put it into perspective of when all this was all happening, we should be able to get a feel for why it has happened.  The amazing thing about chiropractic is that is still here.  What is it that has allowed it to endure?  Is it something special or is it stupid people who just don't know any better(you know what I mean:)?  It is not up to us to decide.  But, the premise of this exercise is that wikipedia has the potential of getting the story more right than it ever has been. 
We should end it just after the Wilk case, somewhere before the beginning of managed care.  The net effect should feel exactly like chiropractic is now.  Not Gods gift to man, but not the devil either.  Then we can make the new section that Fyslee talked about with the future of chiropractic.
What do you think? If we do it the same way we did the intro, we should be okay.  I know you guys have worked hard here.  If you would rather I left it alone, say so now.  Otherwise, do we need to have the bid bold section saying "conflicting statements for..." or can we just work the conflict into the narrative?--Dematt 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your track record speaks for itself. Go for it! (A little at a time....;-) When in doubt, try it here first. -- Fyslee 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History revisited 

message: I am not comfortable with the sentence. "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine."  Since evidence does exist, e.g. AHCPR guidelines, among others, then this sentence is not accurate. I feel it should be removed.  Steth 22:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a BIG difference between "clinically effective" and "statistically effective". I agree with Steth, there is evidence to show that chiropractic is clinically effective. -AED 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too, there is a lot of clinical data showing the effectiveness for chiropractic care.  It should be said why it's difficult to test chiropractic with a double blind rct.--Hughgr 00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it it essentially agreed that this is inaccurate, so I will remove it. ThanksSteth 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are the AHCPR guidelines evidence of anything? In any case what makes you think this evidence is up to the standards of evidence based medcine.Geni 01:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (Regarding that last link, the two non-chiropractors authors, Shekelle and Cherkin, appear to have good credentials.) In my opinion there are a number of problems with this statement: "As with many alternative/complementary treatments, chiropractic is controversial, with sceptics claiming that evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine." First of all, the inclusion of "sceptics claiming..." without a source or without specifying which skeptics believe that could be considered weasel wording. Secondly, it conveniently dismisses chiropractic in one fell swoop without addressing specific techniques and specific problems. Even Quackwatch's sister site, Chirobase, cites a summary of spinal manipulation that indicates chiropractic spinal manipulation has some efficacy in the treatment of neck and low back pain. If that summary, which suggests that spinal manipulation appears to be "extremely dangerous", is accurate, then the statement as written above is inaccurate. -AED 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction - First paragraph -2 

message: Per Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, try to avoid personal attacks and be concise with your comments. The increased activity here is good, however, I think a bit more adherence to those guidelines will help all of us to follow some of the discussions better. Cheers! -AED 18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: The article was flagged for disputed factual accuracy and neutrality.  I read it, it does not seem too bad - a bit "he-said-she-said" in places, and could do with being about a third shorter, but it did not seem to me to be a horrible article and (wonder of wonders!) it actually cites sources.  There are islands of POV in there, but I would not say it is pushing a barrow.  Perhaps those who dispute the accuracy could identify the individual claims they find problematic?  Or maybe tag them with  so that they can be cited? I'll start:
* the citation for the increasing popularity of chiropractic, which contains insinuations of health benfits, is form the Department of Labor, which is not a recognised medical authority, and is in fact merely saying that if you go into chiropractic the income prospects are good.  The same could be said for bank robbery... 
* Stylistically, the history should be contiguous.  At present it is split in two.  I would say the history should go first, then the discussion of purported benefits and current state of evidence.
What other things need fixing? Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{template|totallydisputed}} 

message: Infant colic is a pretenious manner of saying excessive crying. I'm not disputing than doing things to a baby's spine would stop them crying but it doesn't seem notable enough a claim to include in the intro. Jefffire 14:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am going by what is in Medline. Seems pretty notable to me. Parents with screaming infants might find this information useful and would it seem pretty notable to them, too.  Steth 14:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem notable to me, especially since the paper says "short term".  Shaking a baby usually quiets them, also, even though no tests can ethically be made because of the danger of permanent spinal injury.  I'm not saying dangers are similar, but the results are.  Besides, the previous sentence doesn't say "Evidence suggests benefits only in patients with tension headache and low back pain.".  I wouldn't object if were to be added to a section on specific evidence (positive and negative), but if the lead gets any longer, the fact that many of the claims of chiropractic have not been supported by evidence needs to be there, also. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also did not like how it was worded infant colic instead of excessive crying since most people don't know what infact colic means. Jefffire 15:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Arthur Rubin's statement above, I am removing "only" from intro and moving study to science section. I think since we have conflicting studies it would be nice to use the two studies to show that there is conflict in chiropractic research. Levine2112 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infant colic 

message: How reliable is this journal? Do they have any respect in the scientific community? Jefffire 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, just asking since it was getting refrenced a lot. Jefffire 16:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we've estabilished it's a WP:RS.  Journal of Irreproducible Results is indexed in the appropriate physics indices.  (I guess physicists have more of a sense of humor than health care professionals — of course, for the most part, believing a hoax physics paper will not lead to physical injuries.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 

message: Jefffire cut my edit to add a link to the chiropractic discussion forum saying that it is not a reliable source.  This is ridiculous.  First of all the link is clearly labelled as a discussion forum.  Further, it has the highest decorum of any chiropractic discussion forum on the net.  Logical fallacies are pointed out, evidence is required for statements.  Finally, many of the allowed sources on the chiropractic page do not meet this standard.  For example, the link to Today's chiropractic is just a marketing publication put out by Sid Williams' Dynamic Essentials management group.  Tell you what, how would you like me to delete all of the listed unreliable sources that are trade group affiliates?  
Chirotalk has a lot of information with links to verifiable sources and does not deserve to be called unreliable.
Abotnick
:Until we can decide whether it should stay or go, I moved it to a more appropriate place in the external links... the Critiques section as it is a critical discussion board ("anti-chiro" for our purposes here). I also removed the "#1" part as that is marketing languange. It's like calling a link "The best" or "The premiere resource", et cetera. Levine2112 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reliable sources? Chirotalk Deletion 

message: Levine,
Skeptical is not necessarily critical.  By replacing skeptical with critical you are giving the Chirotalk link a negative connotation.  Good job placing it in the critique section though.
Abotnick
:The link ended up getting removed by another user. According to them, forums don't meet some level of proper external links according to Wikipedia guidelines. I wasn't aware of this. I do realize that the forum to which you were linking was your own - in that it is a anti-chiro forum that you own and operate. That may be a no-no as well...something about self-promoting links. But I think the main issue is that it is a forum and I guess that's not acceptable according to WP guidelines. Anyhow, not to beat a now dead horse, but is "critical" negative? Or any less negative than "skeptical"? Just curious. And I appreciate the remark you left above as opposed to the remark you almost left for me. Thanks for keeping this friendly. Levine2112 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  critical vs skeptical 

message: I just removed "there are currently no studies demonstrating other medical claims". Certainly there are lots of studies out there that "demonstrate" other medical claims. Perhaps this phrase can be included in the intro but it needs to be worded better. I think what is trying to be said is that while there is acceptable scientific evidence of chiropractic's effectiveness with back pain and headaches, there has yet to be enough satisfactory scientific evidence supporting other chiropractic claims. Not that there isn't any evidence or studies that support other chiropractic claims, but that these studies haven't yet met with some level satisfaction of some communities for some reason or another. It is important to recognize that studies do exist that support a lot of chiropractic claims (as we have pointed out ad nauseum throughout this discussion page), but for some reason this research isn't enough yet. So... though research does exist supporting chiropractic's claims, more research will be needed in order to satisfy some people of chiropractic effectiveness. Isn't this the truth? I really don't know how to identifiy or quantify who "some people" are. We can't say the medical community, because chiropractic is accepted by plenty of medical doctors and researchers. We can't say the "scientific community" as there is plenty of scientists who accept chiropractic's claims. I don't know. I'm rambling. I'm sure we can come up with a truthful NPOV statement. Any thoughts? In the meantime, I made an attempt to correct the phrase. Levine2112 21:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the current configuration:
Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. It emphasizes the body's own natural ability to regulate itself and attempts to remove obstructions to the healing process by adjusting subluxations of the spine and/or extremities. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulations termed adjustments.
Studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back painCooperstein R, Perle SM, Gatterman MI, Lantz C, Schneider MJ. Chiropractic technique procedures for specific low back conditions: characterizing the literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001 Jul-Aug;24(6):407-24. . Further research is needed for other benefits.
Under the circumstances, is it too much to ask that changes in the lead be posted to the talk page, and let sit a day or so, before implementing?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I don't think it inaccurate to state that most scientists question the efficacy of chiropractic for other than clearly musculoskeletal system problems.  However, I don't think it needs to be in the lead, unless claims to the contrary also appear. I'll be watching.  (In regard a related comment, the one researcher who found 100% non-reporting of serious effects must be included for balance, as none of the other articles are quoted as touching that issue.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Intro stuff 

message: The article currently states: "Nevertheless, in 2003 90% of chiropractors believed the vertebral subluxation complex played a significant role in all or most diseases, and practiced accordingly.[1]" I believe that statement is asserting something that wasn't asserted in the citation. I believe that citation indicated that 88.1% of chiropractors "want to retain the term 'vertebral subluxation complex'". Thoughts on how this should be changed? -AED 08:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't accurate, then we either delete it or correct it. The decision would be based on whether or not the revised, accurate version would still be suited for the article. Levine2112 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact check

message: The lead image (the angel & scroll) needs a description. Is the image the offical logo of an organisation the defacto logo of chiropractic or something else? Ashmoo 02:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: I expanded on the "pinched hose" in the intro to better clarify, it didn't seem to make sense the way it was written.  I also corrected the numers of chiro's in the intro too.  Please review and post any concerns here.  Thank you and good night.--Hughgr 05:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than the spelling of approximately I didn't see anything wrong. Good work. Jefffire 08:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you sir, good catch, I'll fix it right up.  Yea!  Finally made an edit that didn't get reverted!  --Hughgr 17:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some days I feel I should just print up a t-shirt with "Jefffire - Revert it All!" on the front. Keep up the good work and I won't need to ;). Jefffire 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've done a little editing 

message: In the intro, Arthur Rubin wrote: Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain. Evidence for more substantial claims is inconclusive. At this point in time, I think that is perfectly stated. Good work. Levine2112 20:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, Steth wrote that. Arthur made it even better. Nice work all around. Levine2112 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro comment 

message: I didn't mean to upset you.  I'm just a stickler on references and feel that to change the wording you change the meaning and then you have misquoted the author and that could be a problem.  I thought we had consensus on those first two sentences.--Dematt 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cool. Sorry if I was abrupt. Yes I did think of that but neglected to do it in the final edit, thinking it could be read as based on. I should have make it clear it was no longer a quote. Hope the version now is acceptable to everyone. The challenge was to write a NPOV defn which didn't accept the POV of the proponents (no offence meant to anyone but to do otherwise would be like allowing a child to define childhood). Mccready 07:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken, thank you for your kind response.  In an effort to keep the first sentence clean and professional, I was wondering if you might consider rephrasing it in such a way that omits the phrase "aiming to".  If it is meant to describe the act of perfoming a particular task, it has a colloquial ring that just doesn't give WP the reputation it needs to become a respected source.  If it is meant to diminish the competency of the chiropractor in the act of diagnosing, it would likely be considered POV and needs to be referenced.  Unless, of course, everyone else is okay with it, in which case I won't object.--Dematt 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No surprise but I am not okay with the use of "aiming". It is far too colloquial and completely disingenuous. How am I supposed to assume good faith when everything a particular editor contributes is POV slander - no matter how subtle orr clever that editor believes himself to be? Dematt, your version of that entire section read more professionally, fair and was entirely more accurate. Levine2112 20:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm Sorry Mccready 

message: Thanks for the efforts with the history section. We have to be careful not to be captured by Palmer's POV. eg "He examined the spine and found a misalignment". Again imagine, for the purpose of POV checking, replacing with "He examined the spine and found blue cheese". Or if writing on the flat earth theory, "He examined the earth and found it flat." I don't think that in an encylopedia we can accept this. Perhpas the solution is to quote his exact words. Mccready 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree with you on the "heart trouble" part.  Hughgr, you put that one in, you want to take the first crack at fixing it?--Dematt 05:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll just make it all a quote.  I was trying to not make a long quote to get the point across but I'll meet you halfway :)--Hughgr 06:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History POV

message: Here's the next step in the history.  I got it out a little earlier than I wanted, but Hughgr really seemed to be wanting it:)  I know it was a lot to put in there at one time, but there was a lot of information to try to digest into several short sentences.  Thanks to both Fyslee and Levine2112 for the links.
There is some controversy in the next part between not only the straights and mixers but the AMA that I brought into this because it all defines the how and whys of chiropractic and american healthcare.  If anyone has some input from other countries that they want me to look at, let me know.  I am going to work on the 1920's to 1960's next.  Again, there is a lot of information to get through so don't hold your breath:)  If it looks like it is going in the wrong direction, let me know and I'll find something else to do:)  Otherwise, do your thing and make it all better, but please try to discuss your changes beforehand to avoid totally losing what we started with.
I'm looking forward to everyones input.--Dematt 04:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One word, sweet!  If I had known you were putting in so much effort, I would have been more patient.  Thanks for 'moving' and not 'deleting' my addition :)  The stuff at the bottom looks random and out of place now.  Perhaps instead of deleting them, they can be moved to a more appropriate place.  For example, DD's comments about wanting to make chiro a religion can be put on his page as they certainly are a reflection of his thoughts.--Hughgr 04:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, I have not deleted anything anyone else has written and tried to keep the wording the same way they had it originally just out of respect for their work.  If something sounds POV, there are other ways to address it than changing their words.  I just filled in the blanks. I have also tried to keep the wording as close to the reference as possible.  I haven't used anything that wasn't found in at least two different works.  I'm trying to keep it in a timeline order and then maybe everything will make more sense when it is finished.  It is not what I thought it was going to say when I started, but I think it is as accurate as anything else written.  Now it is up to WP to refine it into something that is even more:0 --Dematt 04:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This new history section is AWESOME! Wow. Nice work, Dematt. Levine2112 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next step in History

message: I feel that Mcready has a difficulty with NPOV.  He changed the lead again to "There is no scientific consensus for chiropractic's more substantial claims or for the effectiveness of chiropractic medicine."  I don't want to get into a revert war.  Anyone have a suggestion?--Hughgr 06:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment on edits, not editors, unless absolutely neccasery please. Jefffire 14:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I would like to have expressed in the intro is that while there is not a scienitific consensus on chiropractic's more substanitial claims, there is in fact supportive scientific evidence. I have added this repeatedly, but users keep removing it. Most recently McCready and Jefffire. Why? If we are going to say a blanket statement like "there is no scientific consensus" then I feel we need need to qualify it by saying there is scientific evidence. Otherwise, what we are presenting can create the impression that there is no scientific basis for chiropractic. Now I have pointed to so much research that even anti-chiro editor extraordinaire Fyslee admits that it is at least a "mixed bag" - meaning it may contain some bad studies along with the good ones. The existence of scientific evidence supporting chiropractic is indisputable. The evidence itself might be disputed, but the existence of the evidence cannot be. There is my comment on the edits. Now then, we need to add this back into the intro. The question is: will it just be reverted again by those wishing to keep this artricle a POV piece biased against chiropractic rather than presenting the neutral facts? Levine2112 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me one piece of "indisputable" evidence which you say exists. If you read the lead carefully you will see it DOES say there is supportive research. Support isn't proof and it is certainly not undisupted. The lead is therefore accurate, though still needs to indicate that not all chiros believe in subluxation. Your personal attacks do you no credit. Mccready 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the troll.--Hughgr 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's uncalled for. Jefffire 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and while I completely agree with Hughgr's assessment of user McCready, I am going to show a little restraint. I think if you look at McCready's checkered talk page and archived talk page, his reputation thoughout Wikipedia speaks for itself. Levine2112 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For those who need the link to Glengs chiropractic science page I personally will be very interested in hearing what your assessment is concerning the status of the scientific data surrounding chiropractic, considering science is your profession.  Your opinion will obviously hold a lot of weight.  Not only to help settle this particular edit war in the intro, but it will likely help to determine the direction of this article in the science section.  Please hurry back:)--Dematt 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mccready, NPOV 

message: In the "Early growth of schools" section, it is stated that, "At the request of some of Palmer's students and with DD's blessing, John Howard would open National School of Chiropractic in 1906 (now National University of Health Sciences in Chicago) across the street from the Palmer School of Chiropractic."  The Ryan building is not "across the street", it is several blocks away and down the Brady hill.  Not sure how to re-word.  Any suggestions?--Hughgr 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done deal, thanks.--Hughgr 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording in history section 

message: Levine has some confusion over the Bureau of Labor and Statistics source that I would like to clarify.  He says that the BLS source should be taken to support increasing utilization of chiropractic.  However I have spoken to the chief economist at BLS and have been told that BLS arrived at that recommendation as a concensus of chiropractic organizations (ACA and ICA) and did not verify the number.  It is outdated and has no source and therefore should not be relied on.  Other more current sources show that chiropractic utilization has greatly decreased-most likely due to managed care restrictions.
Abotnick 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No confusion. I just took BLS for their word. Can you document your claim about the ACA and ICA? That would certainly help us all understand this report. And are we to assume that the information that the ACA and ICA gave the BLS is false? That they lied? Levine2112 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureau of Labor Statistics Source 

message: Gleng, thanks for your contribution. It's POV to say something is "poorly understood" when many dispute its very basis. I think Jefffire made the same point when he reverted. You also quoted a report of a report - not a good idea. Have you had a look at the source you indirectly referenced (Vincent, C. & Furnham, A. (1997) (Op.cit.), 'The quality of medical information and the evaluation of acupuncture, osteopathy and chiropractic')? The problem with many govt reports is they are finalised by politicians who have been subject to lobbying. Although they can be used as a source, they may not be unbiased and should not be preferred over peer reviewed science. 
Dematt, Ashay and others - I can research whether the moon is made of blue cheese, but I'm not sure this entitles me then to say in an encyclopedic article that my research "currently lacks the sufficient quality to garner consensus". I find the blue cheese analogy works quite well whenever I'm testing my own scientific ideas. 
I've tweaked the lead some more, including taking out the health profession phrase because it's much more than a profession, it's an alleged body of knowledge and technique. Fyslee will be able to tell us if my understanding of the reform chiros is correct. Mccready 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reform group might be too small of a minority to have their POV represented here in any great detail. Perhaps, in order to minimize confusion in this article, it would be better to reserve information about the reform movement on its own article. You guys seem more versed in Wikipedia policy, but I believe that it says something about avoiding very small minority views. NACM (the reform organization) is reported to have member in the low hundreds. If there is 70,000 chiropractors in the US alone (~80,000-90,000 worldwide I would guess), the reform movement's POV would seem too small to includde here and would only lead to confusion. Any thoughts on this? Levine2112 04:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Fyslee's web blog, "A small minority of chiropractors - about 1% - have adopted the guidelines set out by the U.S. reformist group, the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM) which is headed by Charles DuVall."   That's a pretty small minority. I'd bet more people believe the moon is made of blue cheese.--Hughgr 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hughgr. I can't find that particular one. Can you provide the precise URL so I can check out who wrote it? The NACM has about the same number of members as the WCA, and neither of those organizations publish their membership figures. Of course they don't represent all chiros who share their viewpoints. There are far more reformers and straights than there are members, with straight chiropractors exerting a very significant influence on chiropractic thinking. Unfortunately only a small portion of chiropractors are members of any organization, with the ACA only mustering about 15,000 (or is it 15%?). -- Fyslee 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that statement on this site. Perhaps Hughgr was mistaken where he saw it or perhaps Fyslee removed it from his site. In either case, the source reads: A small minority of chiropractors - about 1 % - have adopted the guidelines set out by the U.S. reformist group, the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM) which is headed by Charles DuVall. Members of the NACM renounce the chiropractic hypothesis as a basis for their scope of practice. So we are in fact dealing with a small minority, and - correct me if I am wrong - Wikipedia policy doesn't afford space for small minority opinions. That being sauid, I would like to see this side of chiropractic presented. Just perhaps on it's own article. Levine2112 08:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that must have been it.  I was looking through Fyslee's blog in a seperate window and came across that, coincidentally, and had already closed that page when I made the comment.  I think that is a correct URL if he's got a link somewhere on his page to that site, which would explain how I got there.  --Hughgr 19:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is "about 1%" too small of a minority to have their POV represented on the main chiropractic article? Levine2112 19:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  WP admits it's a problem trying to define how small a minority needs to be mentioned.  I suppose since this a paperless encyc., then they can be mentioned, but I would say it should stay out of the lead.--Hughgr 19:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we must consider the official Wikpedia stance on tiny-minority views (NACM representing about 1% of chiropractors qualifies it as a tiny minority... Acutally, I've seen stats that their numbers are in the low 100s which makes it a fraction of 1%. NACM doesn't release their member list.). Here's what Wikipedia has to say: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). I think their viewpoint would be better served on their own page. Wikipedia goes on to say: None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. and In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. Levine2112 21:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gleng's contribution and lead 

message: An anon user added this link twice.  Can someone else double check and see if this is appropriate.  Thanks--Hughgr 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was pretty obvious, I took it out for us.--Dematt 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the evidence section of this website is pretty decent. It lists out some supportive scientific research. The press section ain't too bad either. But the link provided was to the home page which has a big "SHOP" button on it. That's a no-no. Sorry, anon user. Levine2112 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratutitous Link? 

message: I added more history and made several (too many to count) small changes that I hope make it flow better and reduce the redundancies from one section to the next.  Check it out and feel free to make your additions.  Be careful with deletions as most of the article is referenced, mark it with  instead.  But if you feel it is going in the wrong direction, scream now - or forever hold your piece (or is it peace;) --Dematt 06:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since Everyone else was gone:)