Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 12

message: The opening statement
"It is now licensed in every state in the United States and practiced in more than 100 countries"
does not represent an international view; it equates a state of the US with a country anywhere else, which is a view which diminishes the importance of other nations and as such could be offensive. Rephrased accordingly. Graldensblud 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice someone put the US back in; I've removed it.  You were right, and your edit were good.  garik 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not worldwide view

message: I am a Tri I student at a Chiropractic college and I noticed that Manipulation has been subistuted for Adjustment with no differentiation made between the two.  From my limited exposure to Chiropractic I have been taught that a difference exists between the two.  A manipulation is, as defined in Gatterman's Foundations of Chiropractic Subluxation second revision pg 12, "a manual procedure that involves a directed thrust to move a joint past the physiological range of motion without exceeding the anatomic limit."  Where as an adjustment is defined as "any chiropractic theraputic procedue that uses controlled force, leverage, direciton, amplitude, and velocity directed at specific joints or anatomical regions."
To me this shows a distiction which should be made clear in the article.  A chiropractic adjustment is not a manipulation.  An adjustment has a specific force, direction, and velocity as well as a specific contact.  A person popping their own knuckles could be considered to be administering a manipulation because afterall the only prerequisites for performing a manipulation involve a thrust and moving the joint past the phsiological range of motion without surpassing the anatomic limit.  That is something that should be made clear.91z4me 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 91z4me, the distinction your seeking is on the Spinal adjustment article. While I agree with your sentiment, an effort is being made to reduce this pages total size, we can't put everything we want on this one page. :)--Hughgr 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree you need to bring that to the spinal adjustment page to help differentiate the two. --Dematt 04:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome 91z4me. You are right. There really should be a separate article for Joint manipulation, where the chiropractic intention (correction of VS) is not included (which is often the only difference). Right now the Spinal adjustment article is the place to make distinctions. The broad definition of manipulation you cite can certainly include non-specific movements, but in practice (for non-DCs) the practice is usually very specific, including specific force, direction, velocity, and specific contact. It involves "controlled force, leverage, direciton, amplitude, and velocity directed at specific joints or anatomical regions," the only difference (from chiropractic) being the intention and the indications and contraindications. -- Fyslee 11:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, now you can check out the new article - Joint manipulation. Much is contained in the Spinal adjustment article, but I have added more refs and information, as well as making sure that readers understand that the risks apply to all professions using manipulation/adjustment, not just to chiropractors, even though they are using it 95%(?) of the time. Some of what I have added there can also be used in the Spinal adjustment article. -- Fyslee 16:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulation vs Adjustment 

message: Things are not going so well on the PS article due to some rather silly and short-sighted arbitration inducing behaviour of some editors. I just added some information to this article that I realize some editor here will not like very much. I will remove it myself if things go more smoothly on the PS article. I trust editors here can cooperate. KrishnaVindaloo 09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooperation

message: Is there any place to get videos of what actual chiropractic procedures are like? All I've seen of them are fictional representations, and am curious what the real thing is like. Identity0 11:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... that was one of the most biased pieces I've ever seen. I would love to find something short that just shows a typical adjustment without the disparaging and low-brow commentary. Levine2112 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Losers, losers, all of them, losers ;P*** --Dematt 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos or detailed photos? 

message: I created a new article Manipulation under anesthesia for the majority of the new information place by anonymous user.  I think one or two paragraphs left here and then more on the spinal adjustment article and then the link to its own article is appropriate.  Also, some can go to the Chiropractic history article if you like. Do we have some references for this stuff? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulation under anesthesia 

message: I do apologise if I have upset contributers to wikipedia - I had no wish to do so. I have tried to use the undo button. My reasons are that as a chiropractor I feel we do ourselves a disservice in the eyes of our clients if we are not strictly honest. There are enough bad chiropractors already giving us a bad name. I say 'belief' because that, strictly, is what it is. There is no proof for the belief, and some well known chiropractors, including myself, do not share the belief. That is why I also say 'some'. I hope this clears things up. Thank you for your patience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.149.241 (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording of that first paragraph was arrived at after long collaboration between numerous editors of varying backgrounds. Your change is unacceptable. Please see the definition of the word premise, "A proposition antecedently supposed or proved; something previously stated or assumed as the basis of further argument; a condition; a supposition." I, for one, feel that fits perfectly. Thank you for your effort but I am reverting your change.--Hughgr 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The reform school is a minority view of chiropractic. The opening paragraph should be a general overview of the article. Vertebral subluxation is a scientific theory. Theories have premises. It is just better semantically. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vertebral subluxation is a scientific theory" might want to tell the editors over at Vertebral_subluxation then :-) Shot info 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you mean? I have been an editor there at times. There is a section there entitled Functional theory of vertebral subluxation. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology 

message: Why do we have so many links to organizations? I would remove them myself since Wikipedia is not a directory, but there are a lot of them and they seem to be long-standing links, so I'm bringing it up here. --Wafulz 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that you be bold and delete those you feel inappropriate.  If others feel differently they will be reverted.  But good call to bring it here however it is unclear which ones you would like to remove, so just remove them and we can all see.  Shot info 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the thing is I want to delete all of them (the organization ones anyway). It doesn't make sense to me to have links where it's not specified how they provide information. Then if I remove some but leave others, I always end up getting "if link x is allowed to be on here then why not link y" and so on. For now I'll remove them all- if people feel that the links are absolutely necessary, I guess they can come here and discuss. --Wafulz 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Hugh,
After much reflection and talking to a few colleagues in the UK, Canada and in the EU, we feel that it is imperitive that a distinction between chirorpractic in the USA and non-subluxation countries be made.  This is due to the following exerpt
"It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health.[2] Treatments typically include spinal adjustments to correct the vertebral subluxation, though some may use other holistic interventions as well. In contrast, the term subluxation as used in conventional medicine is usually associated with specific conditions which are a direct consequence of injury to joints or associated nerves."
Like I mentioned before, no school in Canada teaches/espouses the subluxation theory.  Nor do they do it in the UK from accredited schools.  Hence, like I mentioned previously, there are entire countries that educate their chiropractors differently than the majority of the US schools.  The biggest controversy still surrounding chiropractic medicine is the concept of subluxation and in Canada the new grads and every future DC who is trained here graduates under a different paradigm than the US.  It's not fair that the wiki states unequivocally that ALL DC's correct subluxations.  I'm going to take the initiiative to make a complementary yet distinct Chiropractic entry that recognizes that different countries have different models.
I'm not suggesting that aren't DC's in Canada who don't use the term subluxation, annd those that do are largely either from (a) straight American chiro schools or (b) past generation of DC who graduated under that model.  But, I can assure you that the prevalence of subluxation-based chiropractors in Canada is declining, as we are moving onwards in the evolution of this great profession and not letting a metaphysical construct hold us back towards integration in mainstream health care.
Anyways, I hope that we can cooperate in this manner, and do hope you understand where I am coming from.  Public education is very important; and it is a reality that a lot of people get informed by wiki's since its so convenient.  As always, I will provide references for my entries and I look forward to hearing your input regarding this very legitimate concern.
Marcbronson 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm going to have to agree with Marcbronson. Chiropractic in Canada is not based on spinal joint misalignment (BOOP) or vertebral subluxation. In reality, sublaxation theory and Chiropractic are both based on the same thing. They are both based on spinal manipulation. Subluxation theory did not come until long after spinal manipulation has been practiced, and it also came after the founder of Chiropractic adjusted H. Lilliard. DigitalC 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropractic (USA) 

message: As per the discussions above about the lack of world view of chiropractic of the lead, I think that this is the part that really needs improving:
:"It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health.[2] Treatments typically include spinal adjustments to correct the vertebral subluxation, though some may use other holistic interventions as well."
Many Chiropractors may practice Chiropractic that is based on that premise, but many chiropractors worldwide also do not practice based on that premise. Only those who believe in the VSC practice on that basis. To state that treatments typicaly include spinal adjustments to correct the VS only includes a subluxationist viewpoint. As Marcbronson has pointed out, this viewpoint is taught in most/all? of the schools of the US, but is not taught in other countries. DigitalC 03:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Lead 

message: The policies of Wikipedia were not followed by this author. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not an opinion paper posting site.  Please follow the pillars of Wikipedia when submitting and article.  The pillar not followed by this article is pillar #2 which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)".  I have been impressed by Wikipedias screening process thus far, but this article clearly states opinons of the author, not unbiased facts.  I suggest you revise this article for quality purposes.  
Usgeorgelopez 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be coming in late in the game... which author are you referring to? TheDoctorIsIn 07:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article editing suggestion