Talk:Chiropractic education

message: Should Chiropractor really redirect here? Isn't a redirect to the more NPOV article Chiropractic better?
The talk page on Chiropractor already redirects to Chiropractic's talk page. 83.176.195.249 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropractor 

message: I have seen several individuals in the U.S. using the designation/honorific "PhDc".  One in particular claimed to be a "chiropractic neurologist".  Upon investigation into chiropractic colleges, however, I can't find any conferring this degree or at least listing the degree program on their websites.  Who/what is going on here?  Are they accredited by the same boards that accredit Palmer and the like?  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.58.147 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Chiropractic degrees are essentially self-created and bestowed by various schools. Palmer called himself a "doctor" and gave DC degrees to his son and other students, and that tradition is still followed. I don't know of any school which currently issues the PhDc degree. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  PhDc 

message: * Chiropractic Colleges Seek Legitimacy Amid Financial Woes, By Andrea Fuller, The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 15, 2012
* Presidential Couple at Chiropractic College Draws Fire Over Wife's Role, By Jack Stripling, The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 15, 2012
Brangifer (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting articles 

message: This article treats chiropractic as a straightforward legitimate medical profession, rather than alluding to any problems with evidence base, efficacy, pseudoscience, or quackery. Isn't that a problem? bobrayner (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, was this article created by a cut-and-paste move? Where is the history before February 2013? bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence base is discussed at length in the article (see evidence-based guidelines).   Efficacy for manual and manipulative therapy is presented at length too, as is safety.  We must be careful about promoting fringe which is why WP:MEDRS guides us in this regard.  Do you have a problem with the sources being used?  DVMt (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence base and the broader problems of chiropractic are discussed at length in the Chiropractic article, but this article seems to go out of its way to avoid linking there, which is quite remarkable for a 31k article on chiropractic education. The new paragraph about the evidence-base is an improvement but the article still skirts around the problem by hinting at some areas where the effectiveness of Chiropractic has been studied, without actually mentioning the results of that study. This article completely avoids the uncomfortable fact that chiropractic is made up and that it's useless for most conditions. bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway. Was this article created by a cut-and-paste move? Where is the history before February 2013? bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, here and here are two separate cases where you delete sourced content about low admissions standards whilst pretending you're doing something completely different in the edit summary. I will restore that content; clearly a lot of work is needed to approach neutral coverage on various chiropractic articles. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, you want a wiki-link to Chiropractic.  That's not a problem. Your assertion that 'Chiropractic is made up' and that it's 'useless for most conditions' is highly POV, but also shows that you've failed to even read the article.  See the "Interventions" sub-article which describes in depth of effectiveness and safety.   The article was renamed from "chiropractic education" to "Schools of Chiropractic" keeping in line with MED manual of style such as Medical school or Veterinary school.  The low American standards are indeed placed in the USA section of education. DVMt (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BRD you must discuss why you are inserting a primary source within the lead that has nothing to do about education and 2) why you are duplicating the USA material in non-USA section? DVMt (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you reverted again "per BRD" without giving any reason for your bizarre notion that the Forbes article is a primary source or that commentary on pseudoscience in chiropractic education is, err, unrelated to chiropractic education. Since you didn't actually mention it here, by trawling through your old edits I found the previous page that you copy & pasted into this one; that's another problem which ought to be fixed. (Although it appears that the size of the text is not exactly equal; did anything else change during the move?) bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You should strongly consider reading this and this prior to editing medical-related content. DVMt (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have notified Bobrayner that he is currently engaged in an edit war here .  He has failed to discuss the concerns listed above for his reinsertion of bold edits using a primary source in the lead then misusing the Meeker reference.  DVMt (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your detailed analysis.  I think it accurately reflects what is going on and your recommendations are sound and logical.  DVMt (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A new page should not have been created for this article. Rather, "Schools of chiropractic" should have been page moved and subsequently edited if it was felt that changes were needed.FiachraByrne (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that by moving pages there would be a loss of edit history.  I had proposed a move a few weeks ago at TALK and no one disagreed so I went ahead and was bold.  I wanted to capitalize the 'C' in Chiropractic as it is a proper title.  Anyway that we can maintain the current content and somehow untangle the attribution problem?  This was my first move page so this is a learning experience for me. DVMt (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - been there & done that myself. What happens during the history merge process? They temporarily delete this article? FiachraByrne (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I have no idea, this in unchartered territory for me.  I don't know how the process works.  Any suggestions?  DVMt (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality problem 

message: I've removed an image which appears to be a copyright violation. Please don't reinsert copyright violations into articles over and over again. bobrayner (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, can you prove this image is copy written?  It was in the public domain and was not obtained from CMCC.  Your edit summary also said "apparent".  Is it customary to delete images before they've been proven to have a copyright?   DVMt (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The image appears at . You have claimed that you are the copyright holder in the image. Did you license that copyright to cmcc so they could post it on their site or did you lie about being the copyright holder? TippyGoomba (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The image should be remain off the article until this issue is resolved.  DVMt, where did you get the image?  You say here that you acquired it from the public domain, but in the image summary, you describe it as your own work.  Given the discrepancy, and its appears on the school's website, the image should be assumed to be copyright protected until proven otherwise.  When you acquire images from the public domain, it is important to demonstrate where you found the image, so its free-use status is clear to other editors, rather than claim it as your own original work.  Rytyho usa (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree and will request it be sent for speedy deletion.  The new image has been approved already, so that should satisfy the matter.  Regards, DVMt (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Bobrayner, can you please explain why you are deleting the interventions taught in chiropractic school?
:Perhaps there has been some confusion. Content with a source is called "sourced". Content without a source is called "unsourced". Reinserting unsourced content whilst insisting it's sourced is called "wrong". bobrayner (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, do we need a source that MDs prescribe drugs or do surgeries?  Do we need a source stating in France they speak French?  You did delete systematic reviews too, as well as common knowledge (i.e. chiropractors learn manipulative and other conservative therapies in school).  What exactly do you dispute?  DVMt (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course those require a source. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly if he is reverting your edits, he disputes it all? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced information, including interventions 

message: The following sections are largely identical:
* Chiropractor#Regulation_and_accreditation
* Chiropractic_education#Licensure_and_regulation
The content should be merged and then moved to their logical place here at Chiropractic_education#Licensure_and_regulation. Please discuss at Talk:Chiropractor#Let.27s_move_duplicated_content_to_Chiropractic_education, not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's move duplicated content to this article 

message: UserQuackGuru please explain your thoughts behind this edit note and tag and this edit note.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the tag at the topic of the page was added because of the off-topic Chiropractic controversy and criticism section and I want to focus on the main problem. The content is not per WP:SYNC. The content is per WP:COATTRACK. Education is not about criticism of chiropractic in general. It is not specific criticism of education. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done here Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: May be up to three sentences is fine. One sentence is better. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  OFFTOPIC tag 

message: User:The Quixotic Potato - you tagged the article for POV; you need to say what you find wrong, or the tag needs to come off.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I type quite slowly. QuackGuru described the inclusion of a Chiropractic controversy and criticism-section as a WP:COATRACK. I think the entire article itself may be a WP:POVFORK. I think we can all agree that Scientology is bullshit. If I split up the main Scientology article into many different articles about aspects of Scientology while ensuring that negativity is limited to a single section near the bottom of the main article then our articles about Scientology would portray Scientology in a far more positive light than most reliable sources do. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying but this is unclear.  What do you think should actually happen to this content?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The best solution would probably be to merge this back into Chiropractic, but that is unlikely to happen because merging articles hasn't been properly implemented in MediaWiki and it is difficult to do it manually WP:HISTMERGE. So the next best thing is probably to mention the fact that systematic reviews of research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective in the WP:LEAD. If the tag really annoys you (I know those tags can be very annoying) then feel free to remove it, but I don't think we've reached the perfect equilibrium of NPOV yet. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  06:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am watching this article - no need to ping me.  I don't understand. The Chiropractic article is very long and merging this there would make that too big; that is why it was split.  Again what do you actually find POV in this article?  Thanks Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the article treats this as if it is a legitimate medical profession. I think the WP:LEAD should start with something like "Chiropractic education is X, Chiropraxy is Y" and then include something like: "Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[5] A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition." (preferably a shorter version) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  06:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that is more clear and actionable, thanks.  How is this? Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that can only be described as "more and better than what I asked for". Thank you. Sorry for being unclear; translating thought into words is sometimes difficult (and I am not a native speaker). Tag removed. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  18:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about education. It is not about chiropractic in general. See WP:COATRACK.  QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

text: This article should focus on the education. Off-topic content is not going to work. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What content is offtopic? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  18:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The content that is not about education. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, like I tried to explain, using that strategy is a bad idea, because it means that someone can write a thousand articles about all aspects of scientology and then demand that the information that explains what the article is about is hidden in the main article somewhere else (because it portrays scientology in a negative light). We shouldn't just describe Scientology education (you know, stuff about Xenu), we should also explain what Scientology education is (relative to the rest of the Universe(s)). If we find multiple reliable sources that say that most math teachers in America are simply writing down random numbers and symbols (imagine that the whole idea of math is some kind of elaborate joke that started in the early 50's) then that information is probably relevant to the math education article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not relevant whether it is or is not effective. The title of this article is "Chiropractic education". That should be the focus of the article. Off-topic content is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is ontopic. The topic is "Chiropractic education", so we should explain what that is relative to other things and concepts in the universe. And the strategy you seem to propose would not lead us towards neutrality (and it is generally a bad idea, like I've tried to explain before). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  21:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Others things are other than "Chiropractic education", which are off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A description of what chiropractic education is relative to other things in the universe is ontopic. Also, please read WP:POVFORK and the stuff I've written above. The metaphor with the math teachers gets stronger when you replace them with dentists. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  21:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Things that are not specifically about education are not relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A description of what chiropractic education is relative to other things in the universe is (obviously) relevant. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  22:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote in part "other things in the universe..." The part "other things in the universe" is other than chiropractic education. It appears you acknowledged it is other than chiropractic education. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you don't understand what I wrote. Also, since the premise is faulty the entire exercise seems kinda pointless to me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not shown why we should include "other things in the universe" not specifically about chiropractic education. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Even worse, I haven't even argued that we should include things not specifically about chiropractic education! Why would I show you why we should do that when I don't really think we should? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  22:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well then. I deleted the off-topic content and added relevant content. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And I undid your edit. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  23:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you agreed to exclude off-topic content. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep using that strategy? The idea behind it is incorrect. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  23:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you restore off-topic content that is obviously not about chiropractic education? QuackGuru (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That horse is dead. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  11:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

text: It's been well past 48 hours, and those templates are not appropriate. I have left a new section below explaining why, and unless there's a reason for them to be there I'm inclined to remove them. Semmendinger (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Hi there. I have added a few templates to the page that I thought were most relevant. While I broadly think that the article is fairly well-written, I also do have some concerns. I will elaborate on this within 48 hours from now. Doonagatha (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been well past 48 hours, and those templates are not appropriate. I have left a new section below explaining why, and unless there's a reason for them to be there I'm inclined to remove them. Semmendinger (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary NPOV subsection

message: I fail to see why this article needs medical references. Is this an article about a specific medical procedure? Is this article even in the realm of medicine? The answer on both those counts is no. This is an article about education, so I fail to see why there is a  template at the top asking for more medically relevant information. It would be like asking for more medically relevant information on a doctorate of education. This is supposed to be an article about education, not healthcare. Semmendinger (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical References 

message: Two sections have templates stating they are not relevant enough to non-first world countries. The only countries in the world with a significant amount of practicing chiropractors are first world countries according to the World Federation of Chiropractichttps://www.wfc.org/website/images/wfc/WHO_Submission-Final_Jan2013.pdf. Arguably, those in non-first world countries won't gain much from this article if the profession isn't quite relevant to them. Nor does it lend any objectivity to reshape those parts of the page to include areas where chiropractic barely exists. Unless a mention of the aforementioned lack of chiros should be added to the page (it should not, it's not relevant to the topic of education) I'm of the opinion the templates should be removed. Semmendinger (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Global tags 

message: Article should be titled Chiropractor.
I would like to elucidate and contribute to the article that lower back adjustments are dangerous, permanent in nature, and unnecessary. Also, I would like to contribute that chiropractic care done as a licensed professional under stringent certifications, not done so commercially, is medically practiced by Cedars-Sinai Hospital and the University of Southern California Medical School. 108.65.249.149 (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be well sourced but WP:OFFTOPIC content can be removed. I would remove off-topic content rather than change the title. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropractor title 

message: Perhaps it's time to include a new section that describes how Chiropractic is lacking in oversight as well as the lack of medical malpractice investigations based on the premise that the patients are confused by the treatment, and because of the mix-up of adjustments and genuine physical therapy. How will you investigate chiropractors if 80% of what they do is correct and you have a remaining 20% of patients being maladjusted? (The answer is you can't). You can't investigate ethical standards without exposing the entire profession as a fraud.
Also, Chiropractic schools (alluding to the discussion about South Korea) are often commercial in nature, and cannot be used a medical reference. 96.40.157.106 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic review of Chiropractic education includes systemic bias 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chiropractic education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070307084041/http://www.cceb.ca/english/exam/index.htm to http://cceb.ca/english/exam/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified