Talk:Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n

message: *1)It would be nice to start the article with concise definition of "Wilk v. American Medical Association", then proceed addressing the events that led up to that case, what happened in the case, and how the case affected the AMA, organized medicine in the US, and chiropractic.
*2)The first paragraph is not clear to me:  Until 1983, the American Medical Association (AMA) had made it unethical for medical doctors to refer patients to chiropractors, by classifying chiropractice as unscientific. Prior to 1980, Principle 3 of the AMA Principles of Medical Ethics stated: "A physician should practice a method of healing founded on a scientific basis; and he should not voluntarily professionally associate with anyone who violates this principle."If Principle 3 was dropped in 1980, what made it unethical for MDs to refer to DCs up until 1983?  And the AMA can't "make it unethical" (don't like that wording) for ALL MDs - at best they can only do that for AMA members.
Without better citations it's hard to figure out what's true. I'd be in favor of just deleting all the non-well-sourced claims.Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: A few points to address

message: The insertion of multiple lengthy quotes is a lazy way to build an article. Shortening them to the most important points would be a welcomed change. AED 01:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lengthy quotes

message: The article seems to be entirely sourced from chiropractors' sources. The concluding remarks have been literally lifted from one of their websites. I suspect not everyone would agree with their summary. Rl 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The immediately preceding section complains of too much detail, this one that it is merely a summary.  Surely they can't both be right.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check

message: while i agree that this article needs a pov check by an outsider, i think its a great effort and anything but "lazy." kudos to the editors. Touro OsteopathicFreak T  14:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: good article

message: Have removed tag - pls replace if you consider it still relevant. From quality of editors current and lack of discusion on this page I asssume things are relatively OK. SmithBlue (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POVcheck tag

message: According to the article, "[t]he [Supreme] Court grants certiorari only when a case presents a novel question of law, and the Wilk case was a straightforward application of the Sherman Act."  The last part of the sentence is blatant POV, because it implies that the Supreme Court found the Wilk case to be a "straightforward application of the Sherman Act."  This is incorrect.  NOTHING can be inferred from the Supreme Court's decision to deny the writ of ceritorari.  The Supreme Court is not required to provide reasons for denying certiorari, and it does not.  The ONLY thing that can be inferred from a denial of ceritorari is that the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
John Paul Parks (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Contains Unacceptable POV

message: there is a paucity of information on the AMA's attempts to stamp out chiropractic leading up to the case, how they set up the lead up to stamping out chiropractic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11619004
Andybrave (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the lead up to the case, fishbein, cramp and more on the council on quackery