Don't do that. Your always cool, level-headed, and good-natured presence will be sorely missed on all sorts of articles. MastCell 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're back (are you back?) MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthony[review] 18:29, April 17, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you remember me but you were a help to me when I first started out. I am still learning slowly but have gotten a lot better. I'm glad to see you back because you are an editor who is calm and has an open mind even if you do not agree. Again, I hope to see you around. --Crohnie 10:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you had time to chime in here.--Travisthurston 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your greeting. Hope all's well. -- Fyslee/talk 20:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the mediation halted, I have put together a compromise in the spirit of good faith here. I know there are other steps of WP:DR we can go through, including another attempt at mediation, but I am hoping we can all settle this amongst ourselves. I would appreciate your opinion on the compromise and/or your ideas of what the next steps may be. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I just want to say you were quite patient and helpful to me. You really are a very nice editor and fair in your responses. Keep up the great work! Please except this barnstar from me for you help. I hope I did it correctly, if not please correct it so it is properly done, still learning this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please except this barnstar from Crohnie, Dematt you deserve this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome but you really deserve the barnstar for being so patient and helping me out. I will let you know what happens via email. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to leave permanently and clear my pages until I saw the barnstar you left me. I don't do arguments very well and run from them. I thought things would be different here then on the net but I guess being attacked is going to happened no matter where I go. Thank you so very much for the barnstar. It actually brings tears to my eyes thinking someone took the time to think of me like this. Thank you very much, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to ask you this: why does the treatment my son gets only last the day, at least it did the last treatment. There is a doc talking about continuing the treatment a bit longer and if it continues to be such short term help then he wants him so see a surgeon to fix it. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Of course you can email me about this. Thanks again for all you help, understanding and helping me understand chiropractic. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like absolutely reasonable advice so far. The timing is about right to be looking to evaluate referral options if things don't work out. I'll email. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it. Will get back to you as soon as I can. I'm really sick right now, a bug I think but it hard to tell a bug from Crohn's! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

saw your note on that talk page about CZ, and i miss you , too, Matt. I've been getting my site together- there is so much to do, and all the distractions of real life, to boot. Anyway, hope to work with you again someday, soon. DrSculerati 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

answered on my talk DrSculerati 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of nominating you to do a little job. Read this section and see my nomination at the end:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Ernst -- Fyslee/talk 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a little change, but this is a sticky one. If we lower the bar, that opens it up to a large amount of data both pro and con that likely will not change the net result but could end up dragging on like the SB pages ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your note on WP:DINO concerning the errors in Citizendium's Extinction article. I'm glad people are working on fixing the issue. I see they have already fixed the italics and spelling. However, the problematic Edmontosaurus-died-from-lack-of-conifers theory is still in the article! The source supposedly cited for that information, this page, does not mention either conifers or Edmontosaurus anywhere in the text. It's a very odd claim, and a false citation.

The thing that worries me the most about errors like this is that there doesn't seem to be an easy way to report errors to Citizendium. Few editors seem to have listed e-mail addresses, the forum approval system doesn't seem to work well (in my experience), and the one e-mail I did get sent off did not receive a prompt response. I realize since Citizendium is new, there are many bugs that need to be worked out, but there should be an easy way to contact the site in the case of errors. Thanks for your attention.

Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on all of these counts. Our challenge is more with the manpower in creating the software variables to help us allow people to do this. There has been lots of discussion, but the changes happen slowly! I can't wait till we get them all going! -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dematt,

thank you for welcoming me into the community. I was interested in the article on Chiropractic. Right now I am living very busy days....I hope to have some time in the future to bring up a conversation on some improvements I think can be made there. For now, I don't have the time to engage in ...debates. Frankly...too much for me right now. But, I hope you are still here then. Thank you.

Demonio71 Sept 7

Hi Matt,

This is Firsfron again. I'm so sorry to bother you with Citizendium stuff on your Wikipedia account, and I realize this could quickly become annoying. I know you are not the "Citizendium complaints department" and you are busy writing articles for more than one encyclopedia. Still, there's just no way for a non-editor to correct errors on Citizendium (no-one has contact information, or if they do, they've already left the project; the forum registration system doesn't work for dubious types like myself, etc). So I come to you again. Sorry in advance for any stress these corrections cause. The last thing I want to do is offend or upset you. You've been quite responsive and helpful.

There's a major problem with Citizendium's article on Television. It's a wonderful article, very well-written, and the author is to be commended for including discussion of the important role the DuMont Television Network played in early U.S. television history. DuMont's prominent role is not well-remembered today, leading to entire books on the history of television to omit it entirely. I was pleasantly surprised to see it included in the Citizendium article. However, there are some errors that should be corrected before this article "goes live" (or whatever the term is). The article states With the collapse of the DuMont network in 1959, its three main affiliates were absorbed into ABC, which remained the smallest of the three networks througout most of this period. None of that is correct.

DuMont collapsed in 1955-1956 (cancelled most programs on April 1, 1955; final broadcast, Boxing from St. Nicholas Arena August 6, 1956). Even though some sources mistate the dates, the 1955 and '56 dates are supported by the most reputable sources: The DuMont Television Network: What Happened?, (Bergmann 2002); The Forgotten Network: DuMont and the Birth of American Television, (Weinstein, 2004); Total Television, (McNeil, 1996); and Clarke Ingram's DuMont site. I'm not aware of any source listing 1959 as DuMont's closure date.

DuMont's three owned and operated stations (WABD, WTTG, and WDTV) were certainly not absorbed into ABC: WDTV was bought by Westinghouse; WABD and WTTG became independent stations until purchased by FOX in 1985/6. DuMont's strongest affiliate stations, WGN-TV in Chicago and KTTV in Los Angeles, never affiliated with ABC. There was no absorbing of DuMont's major affiliates into ABC, and no source that I'm aware of states this. I have eight books on DuMont on my shelf, including Ted Bergmann's. Since Bergmann was an exec at DuMont, he would certainly know what happened to the company at the end.

The article states At the same time, the introduction of UHF frequencies added a new venue for smaller, independent television stations. Actually, UHF was never on a par with VHF, and being located on a UHF station only guaranteed a station would remain both small and independent, as the three post-50s commercial networks avoided affiliations with UHF stations because UHF station turnover was so high. The sentence isn't wrong, but the idea that the introduction of UHF created a "venue" should be avoided entirely: most UHFs from 1952 to the 1980s, even well-funded ventures, quickly folded. Also, in the photo caption, DuMont is spelled "Dumont"; that should also be avoided (Weinstein, 2004: "A note on spelling", in the introduction).

Matt, if you can somehow get these errors fixed, I would greatly appreciate it. I know you are quite busy with Citizendium duties and may not be able to respond immediately. I think Citizendium's television article is off to a great start, and would like to see it improved further. I had considered signing up for membership, but the personal information requirement, along with my duties on Wikipedia, preclude that. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Firsfron, I can take a look. I am not familiar with the article itself or who is working on it (if anyone at this point). If not, I can make the changes myself - it is a wiki ;-). I'm sure if anything is incorrect, and someone actually knows this stuff as well as you, they will change it back, then we can go from there. I am 'young' enough to remember that my television only went to channel 13 and when UHF came out, we could only wish we could see what they were watching on UHF :-). Let me know if I get anything wrong.

You do know that you do not have to publish your CV, just let the constables see it. You do have to use your real name though - but if you are a hit man or something they will let you sign up with a pseudonym :D I think you would be a great addition to our small but growing virtual world. You can stay here, too! ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made some changes, see what you think. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Matt. The changes you made are, in my opinion, quite good. Thank you very much for your time. If you need exact page numbers for book citations, I can certainly provide those as well, though I'm at work right now and will have to go home to get them, and my (admittedly limited) understanding is that Citizendium frowns on Wikipedia's inline citation craze. I'd love to see Citizendium become a well-respected source of information, and it's quick responses like yours which make me think Citizendium is coming along quite well. Clearly, someone cared for this article; things like the old DuMont advert add a beautiful touch. From what I can tell, though, the main editor involved in the creation of the article has since left Citizendium and will not return. If you hadn't intervened, this article would still contain the mistakes, and possibly would for the forseeable future.

Your comment about being young when UHF came out ('52 when it was established, '64 when it was manditory on US TV sets) makes me think you must be quite 'young' indeed! I certainly don't remember it, but I do remember only getting four channels for many, many years. When my TV started picking up a low-quality UHF FOX signal back around 1989, I thought it was some sort of a miracle!

Thanks for the invite to Citizendium; I continue to consider it. Thanks again for all your assistance. I promise not to darken your talk page with further Citizendium critiques. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that we continue to grow as long as we are learning, and begin dying as we stop the learning process. I think it's impossible to learn "everything" about any subject. I'm certainly not an expert (on anything, really), but I know mistakes when I see 'em! At least on a couple of entirely obscure subjects. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you've been here long enough to know better - don't make WP:POINT violations of Quackery. I've given you a 31 hour block, you seem sensible enough, so just don't do it again. Vanished user ^talk 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I am more surprised at you? What makes you think I am trying to make a point? Pasteur, Lister and Semmelwies were all called quacks in their day. I have placed the reference, and there are more. Anyone who knows the history of medicine is aware of this. It is not a bad thing, it is a neutral thing. You have to keep in mind that Pasteur and Lister were chemists, the doctors of the day were very much put off by them; they called them quacks (and worse). That is common throughout history. It is not saying they are quacks, it was saying that they were "notable people that were called quacks".. See what I mean? I think you assumed I was calling them quacks, but it is quite the opposite. Please reconsider and let the collaboration process work. I am sure if I said something wrong, it will get worked out. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 01:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... you didn't do a very good job at justifying them (e.g. there was no mention in the text itself of why they would be considered quacks, or even that they were considered quacks) And the addition was, at least, poorly thought-out. But, well, if it was just a somewhat ill-thought out edit, I can't say any of us haven't had those. You must admit, though, that at the least they looked extremely out of place.

Anyway, I could pontificate a long time, but I suspect you'd rather I get to the unblocking. Vanished user ^talk 02:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Adam, If you click on the edit under that section in the Quackery article, you will see a commented out section that the previous authors of the stable version gave instructions about what to put in that section. Apparently I was not supposed to put the reason in.. so that the reader can decide. I can see how it would look strange. Maybe this should be clarified or something?

Anyway, I am much abliged, but it is time for me to call it a night for now. Thanks for reconsidering, I owe you one ;-) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fo apologise: it's just that there's no real setup for it in the article, and so... well, I worked on various alternative medicine articles. Those are two of the greats of germ theory. Believe it or not, a lot of the alternative medicine proponents reject germ theory in favour of their preferred vitalist theories. And adding germ theory proponents to a list like that that includes a few alternate medicine proponents is just the WP:POINT violation some of the editors I've worked with would make on seeing a favoured quack in a list like that.

See what Wikipedia does to your faith in humanity? Awful, I swear! Vanished user ^talk 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to insert my 2 cents: there are plenty of editors of all stripes on alt-med topics who are probably richly deserving of a WP:POINT block, but Dematt's not one of them. He's always been a solid contributor, and I'm sure any appearance to the contrary was an unforunate misunderstanding. Glad to see it's sorted out. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also shocked to see "blocked" on my watchlist. I'm glad it was all straightened out. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 05:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hi Dematt, I too was shocked by this block esp. with you going out of your way to help me and m son. Is there anyway to remove the histories of this block to give you back a clean slate on the block log? I just think it's fair to have them removed since it was a communication problem. I find you to be very honest and you also listen to others and are fair to try to keep NPOV in mind. I just think it should be removed if possible. I'll send up another update as soon as I can. Again, thank you for helping me understand chiropractic protocols. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this, as it was a misunderstanding. Vanished user ^talk 13:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite support. Dematt isn't the type to make a POINT vio. He's a very solid editor and I would definitely support him if he ever chose to be an admin. BTW Adam, I didn't know you were an admin. How about putting something on your user page to indicate that a bit more clearly. -- Fyslee / talk 15:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Adam! Off to work for me. I hope the change gets made soon. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any way to "purge" the block log; it's pretty much indelible. The best approach at this point is just to note that it was a misunderstanding, as exemplified in the unblock summary, and perhaps save a permalink to this discussion - that way, in case it should ever come up again, you can point people here to get the context. Every now and then I think the developers are asked to implement a way to clear a block log, but I think it's always been rejected as too easily abused. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand their point, but another possibility would be to a enable strikethrough and accompanying explanation and links.-- Fyslee / talk 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks everybody. I am totally touched by all the support, thank you all for making my day! I'm not worried about the block log. When you play with fire, you're bound to get burned occasionally. Adam was doing what he thought was best and lord knows this stuff gets complicated quickly. So no harm, no foul. I'll make sure an use the talk page next time;-) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 00:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it looks like my IP is still blocked, so I have a few hours left. See ya soon. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User_talk:TheDoctorIsIn#Please_consider_re:_your_editing_relationship_with_Levine2112, WP:AGF. See [2]. I'm not sure how to approach this sockpuppet report. Levine will likely not participate in any informal discussion on the issue. I think TheDoctorIsIn should have a chance before a formal report is written. Other suggestions? --Ronz 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I would do in your case, either. Just be careful cause it looks like you are harrassing both of them. Aren't there ways for admins to find these things out? -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to suggest ways to reword what I've written, please do. I'm going forward with my next step in this, to ask for help in a meatpuppet investigation. I don't think TheDoctorIsIn is a sock (the same person using different accounts) of Levine2112. However, I think his edits justify a sockpuppet investigation as a meatpuppet. --Ronz 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Suspected_sock_puppets#Suggestions_for_a_suspected_meatpuppet_investigation.3F --Ronz 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you think there is a meatpuppet, then you should just request an admin check it out. I would probably ask MastCell. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to pop in and say hello. I appreciated your help about how Chiropractic care for my son. Unfortunately it didn't work for him and he has gotten so bad that probably by the end of this week he will be referred to a neurosurgeon to get an opinion about the two ruptures in the mid part of his back. I have to admit, I think this is a good step for him to do. He has been in pain since leaving the army in 2002 and is way past do to feeling better. He suffers miserable these days.  :(

I have to say though, the Chiro he saw could never 'adjust that part of his back'. The muscles fought it and then the spasms he gets went crazy. The massage part though did help ease this for a little while. I did learn and understand a lot from you about what this Chiropractor was trying to do and I appreciate all the help. You are a very kind and patient person. I hope you have a wonderful day. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Feel free to email me if you would like.--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CrohnieGal, good to hear from you. It sounds like you followed a perfectly rational approach to your sons condition and surgery is your next step. I do hope he finally gets some relief. There is nothing more miserable than back pain. Let me know how everything goes!!! In fact I want a play by play, even the specific name of the procedure they perform, okay? Just one question.. did the chiropractor refer him to the neurosurgeon or did he have to look for one on his own? -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neither, his pain management dr is taking it to the next steps. I will email you when I know something for sure. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to clarify the above that I said. He is on a HMO which requires referrals which in his case is very difficult to get from his primary. His pain doc sent him for an MRI of his ankle which is the cause of his back problems, 9+ months on crutches which the back problems were called "crutch leaning injuries". The last that was done, also sent by the pain doc, was a test with needle in different locations, EMG I think it was called but could be wrong with the name of this. Everything was going as expected for over an hour until the final needles went into the mid of his back. The tester said he went of the charts. This area is where he has the most damage, 2 or 3 damaged disks and lots of acute pain. On Thursday we both see the pain doc (I have been seeing the pain doc for around 4 years do to acute chronic pain issues from my many surgeries for Crohn's.) We both trust this doc immensely. The tester tried to explain but then just said that our pain doc would connect the dots for him. So, the next step will probably be med adjustments (maybe) and a referral for an opinion from a neurosurgeon. The doc was saying last month that because things have gotten so bad with his ankle, MRI showed it needed cleaning out) and the back pain is not controllable very well that the neurosurgeon he will see will be doing the kind of surgery less evasive, kind of like a key hole surgery. The surgery is supposed to be something like adding something like cement to stop the problems; at least this is the best analogy I can think of. My son is to the point that he is more than ready for the surgery, he wants and needs something to be done to get some sort of relief to get back to life again. This is the best I can explain right now but I will email you and let you know how the appt on Thursday goes. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see on the Chiropractic article that there is a big discussion about whether adjustment are safe. Well, in case you are interested, his Chiropractic said that adjusting the mid back 'could possibly and most likely' cause big damage to his spine with adjusting it and said massage would be the better option. I know that this is just a testimony from me but I am sure someone could find citations stating this. Also, this Chiropractor was not against pain management and drugs, he just didn't like the amount my son was taking to try control his pain. He was very open and honest about how he dealt with Chiropractic problems. Like I said I don't know if this means anything or is helpful but I thought I would let you know. I lurk this article to see if there is anything I am missing to help my son. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good feedback, it sounds like your son has some good doctors. I am glad to hear that the chiropractor knew when not to manipulate. That is the kind of thing I am interested in hearing from the 'real world'. We read so many different things, I wonder how others treat. Keep me in touch, and I would love to see a icture of that MRI of the midback if you ever figure out how to email one:-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I wouldn't have a clue on how to send you the MRI. Some of these kinds of test come with a CD but unfortunately this one didn't. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I can ask my son about this. He has had many, and I mean a lot of MRI's to the mid back and upper neck. The neck disks are dried out, can't remember the right terminology. One suggestion I can make for you is if you have a patient that you want to do an MRI on, do the one in the tube, not the stapped in sitting one. That one hurt him for days! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. —Whig (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very nice person and I remember the help and support you gave me. I just want to wish you a very happy and healthy holiday. May 2008 bring you much happiness. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice seeing you posting. I just want to wish you a very Happy and Healthy New Year! You were very helpful to me in the past and I just want to again say thank you. Some things have changed for this year with him. If interested drop me a line. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would consider looking at this section, its subsections. [3] I am hoping to get some advice on how to move this discussion forward. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthon01, that looks pretty complicated. Give me a chance to absorb what has been said and I can at least give you my 2 cents, which is worth about 2 cents ;-) Welcome to WP! -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Anthon01. It looks to me as though the Pharmacy source is an attempt to provide its readers with an unbiased evaluation of websites. It appears verifiable and reliable to me as an opinion piece. Having said that, I do think it would be POV to include only the limitations without some of the praise. Crohnie makes a good point about it being from 1999, but then I guess you would have to reconsider the "good" articles that were from before 2000 as well. Since this is an opinion piece, attribution is necessary to have it included I think. At this point, I don't think any of the suggestions have nailed it, yet, but theoretically you are getting closer; provided everyone embraces the idea of an encyclopedia that includes rather than deletes. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that if any of the articles shows that changes were already made like the 'Pharmacy' then they too should be removed. If an article is out dated then it shouldn't be in the article, in my opinion, since it would be false information. I dont' remember any of the other articles being so blatently wrong and outdated as this one is, but I haven't read them for awhile now. But I do agree that picking just one section of the Pharmacy source goes against WP:POV and WP:Weight and probably some more policies. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think more time is needed to allow comments from other editors who edit this article too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt: Thanks for taking a look. As to praise, are you talking primary(from the author) or secondary (from another source that is retold by the author)? Could you point to an example of praise the you see in the article? I don't see any praise coming form the reviewer himself. From my view, the review is written form a NPOV. Some editors have suggested that it is a positive article. I see it as a neutral article with some criticism. Regarding attribution, I believe the text already attributes it to the reviewer. The text states "Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists." Is that inadequate?

Crohnie: The date of an article doesn't make it false. There are 152 references in the AIDS "featured article" and about 50 of them are 1999 or earlier. That is one third of the references. Would you advocate for their removal? Anthon01 (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty much one who "embraces the idea of an encyclopedia that includes rather than deletes." Speaking in principle here, and not just about this subject, the age of the references is immaterial unless other newer references show that the previous ones are outdated and wrong. IOW using one V & RS to properly determine the quality (or now only "former" quality) of another V & RS. That way it isn't editorial inclinations or POV that makes the decision based only on the age of the reference. Some very old references can still be of value. It just depends on the subject and what the reference is used for. -- Fyslee / talk 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that the update on QW shows that it is out dated, thus it is no longer correct or notable. I also believe that some older articles can be included as long as there is no new information showing that the information is incorrect. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I would like to ask Anthon, why is this so important to you? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the Pharmaceutical article appears to be a neutral exchange of information intended for pharmacists as a review of the web sites that concern them. Anytime I use a reference, I work hard to leave the reader with the 'intent' that the author was trying to convey. I think this article was trying to convey QW in as much a neutral light as possible. Yes, he states that there are limitations, but if you notice, he is not saying the site was bad - only that it could be better "if". Having said that, I see no reason why the article cannot be used. I see no reason why the list of limitations that he noted can't be integrated into the QW article as these are verifiable facts/opinions about the site... good or bad, every site has them. If we were writing about the chiroweb site, we would expect someone to note that it was written by chiropractors... and they would be correct, good or bad. The trick is to make sure that we don't write it in such a way that it looks as though we think that is good or bad. Leave that to the reader to decide. It doesn't matter whether you or I think Stephen Barrett writing all the articles is good or not. To some, that is great, to other's it's not. We just state that he does.

As far as 'out of date'.. if the site has improved since then.. and we have verifiable information that says so, then it would be essential that we quote that source as well. Then decide whether the two POVs are worth including.. if not drop them out altogether through consensus.

There is a lot more to this, but rather than telling things that you probably already know, let me know if I've answered any of your concerns. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dematt, I think that is an excellent way to look at things. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie, I think I've mentioned this to you before, and I'll say it again, Dematt is worth listening to. He balances things in a good way, which is the NPOV way. Thanks Dematt. (Travelling again. Why don't friend's PCs save my password?...;-) -- Fyslee / talk 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Dematt has been helpful to me in many ways. I will always listen to what he has to say as he says it because he actually cares. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS:I think your friend's computer probably has cookies blocked. I have this problem sometime when I use my son's computer! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to be editing and noticed this -- one of the nicest wiki-things that's happened to me in a long time! You are too kind! Or, I should say, takes one to know one. ;-) Happy New Year, btw! I'm glad you stayed on WP, too; it's got some major problems, but (a) fighting the good fight and (b) picking one's battles, and of course (c) trying not to see it as a "fight" at all, can make a big difference. Thanks man! cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pleasure has been all mine. I'm sorry I don't have the time to follow through on some of our discussions sometimes, but it is usually because you have already said everything better than I could. If you would ever like to hear my opinion, drop a note here and I will take a look. I can't promise you that I will agree all the time, but I also know that is not what you are looking for. Don't forget the 'happy' in Happy editing! -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt you have still not apologised to me for running off an erroneously claiming I had broken the 3 revert rule. As a simple matter of courtesy and as a demonstration of good faith I hope you can bring yourself to make the apology. I am relaxed about this and realise mistakes happen. I make them to, but an apology would show what you are made of.Mccready (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mccready, I'm thinking you might be mistaking me for someone else. I don't think I have ever accused anyone of violating the 3RR rule. You must be thinking of Hughgr [4]. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was Hugh I apologise to you. All you chiros look the same to me :-) Mccready (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the apology and appreciate the compliment, but I think Hughgr is probably much better looking ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dematt: I notice that the Pseudoscience category is not on the Chiropractic page. I wondering how you were able to keep it off that page and whether you consider it appropriate on the homeopathy page? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthon, keep an eye out here while I look into your question.. more later. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no intention to rush you. Just meant to be a reminder just in case you forgot. Thanks again. Anthon01 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just butting in here and giving my own POV on that one. I think it would be improper to apply the label (and category) to the Chiropractic article as a whole. It is applied, even by chiropractic V & RS, to certain aspects of chiropractic, and I am for doing that, but not the whole profession. It just happens to be an unfortunate fact that the legal and philosophical foundation of the profession (VS) is also correctly considered a pseudoscientific belief, but chiropractic is far more and too complex a matter to glibly label it all "pseudoscience", although many, including myself, might in a weak moment do it because VS is so all-pervasive in the subject in every way. It's not totally fair to many chiros who are diligent, intelligent, honest, and are helping people as best they can.

Here is one chiropractic source on the subject:

• Chiropractic: Science and Antiscience and Pseudoscience Side by Side

Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD, professor at the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic and notable historian of chiropractic, warns of pseudoscientific notions that still persist in the mindsets of some chiropractors

This search is also interesting and no doubt painful reading for many chiropractors, whether they subscribe to VS or not.

BTW Anthon01, you should know that I hold Dematt up on a pedestal as a model Wikipedian and have great respect for him. He has taught me many things, including to show more respect for chiropractors. He has not lived in vain! -- Fyslee / talk 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I am learning a lot today. Forgive me but I have often found your comments to be extremely dismissive of alt-med to an extreme. You are certainly seeming more balance in your view. But regarding your editing behavior on chiropratic, is it based on policy influenced by your POV or policy? Anthon01 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I first came here and didn't know or understand policies, it was definitely based on my POV and what I saw as a chance to get the story right, including making sure the article told the whole story about chiropractic, both positive and negative. Since then I have learned much more about policies and the wisdom of NPOV as a tool to write a real encyclopedia. The subject has been a hobby of mine for many years and I have studied it, participated and lurked on chiropractic discussion groups, and know lots about it. I know so much that I have even been encouraged by MDs, PhDs, and DCs, to write a textbook. I have written over 200 pages, but now I don't dare publish because of threats to myself and my family. Regarding editing, I don't think any of us can say we are to some degree totally free of our own POV when editing, but I try to subordinate my POV under NPOV, which largely involves not being deletionist towards opposing POV. I was thrilled when Dematt arrived here and showed a lightning learning curve regarding NPOV and collaboration. That's when the chiropractic article really took off in many ways. Before that it was a constant battleground and stalemates were the order of the day with little article development. POV warriors ruled and chiropractors held the article hostage by refusing to allow any criticism, even when well-referenced. I really enjoyed just sitting back and watching Dematt work. He didn't exhibit the defensiveness so common (understandably so!) to members of a profession that has always been held "outside", and to some degree tried to stay outside. He has been a model for many of us who have come to respect him as a Wikipedian, chiropractor, and person. I wish he would become an admin. -- Fyslee / talk 17:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote in a heartbeat for Dematt to be an administrator. This is a good hearted person who cares about people, he helped me a lot in the past too. Dematt, go for it, become an administrator, you are the kind of administrator I think is really needed! --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I deserve all that, I'm no different than the rest of you. Anthon01, I have been watching the debate, so sorry for the slow response, but the answer to your question is not simple. As far as I am concerned, pseudoscience is a term used to motivate theorists to prove what they are saying. IOWs, scientists can't do all the work, they need the people who make the statement to do the leg work to prove that what they are saying is reasonable, because no-one wants to be labeled a pseudoscience and after all, if the one who comes up with the idea can't prove it, then who can. Now once a test has been developed and performed, the 'scientific community' will begin to evaluate the quality of the testing. This is what peer review is all about. Generally, as long as it adds to the knowledgebase, then we are all moving another step in the right direction. If it doesn't, the scientific community generally will ignore the information as well as the person that made the statement. My personal opinion is that the word pseudoscience should be used extremely sparingly, but thank goodness my opinion doesn't count at wikipedia. We are bound to V and RS and NPOV.

More later, I am hamstrung by time limits... ---- Dēmatt (chat) 17:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

• The Chiropractic Theories: A Textbook of Scientific Research - By Robert A. Leach

-- Fyslee / talk 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bought that one;-) Let's see where it takes us. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was: this citation is probably not formatted correctly According to your edit summary, it seems like you fixed the reference but you deleted it. Deleting a reference becasue you think it is not formatted the way you like it is not a reason to completely delete the reference. The other references I added are formatted the same way but you did not delete them too. Please explain your edit or fix the reference. Though, I see nothing wrong with the reference. Take a look at closer look at the other formatted refs I added. I formatted the refs the same way. According to what Wikipedia policy you can delete a reference(s) becuase you think it was not formatted the way you like it. Your edit does not make any sense. Quack Guru 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

formatted reference

^[1]

Hi QuackGuru, sorry I didn't explain myself well. What I meant was; Larry Sanger did not write that, we did and it was imported to CZ where I kept it. I don't think giving Larry Sanger credit for all of Citizendium is the way to do it, but I don't know how to fix it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Quack Guru 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is CZ articles reliable to use as references on Wikipedia? See WP:V policy. Quack Guru 03:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QG, this is difficult for me to answer because I was partially responsible for editing the article on CZ. However, I can tell you that it was co-authored by two other reliable experts in their fields, neurophysiology and medicine. But, while one of my hopes is that CZ will be a verifiable and reliable source for wikipedia purposes, I think the community should use their collective judgement and make this decision carefully. I will abide by whatever decision is made. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 06:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "approved article" has undergone a form of peer-review by credentialed topic experts. This confirms it is verifiable. Thanks. Quack Guru 07:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The reference template is used in part for first and last names. The ref name will be Citizendium community. Quack Guru 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back per comment on a noticeboard. Quack Guru 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way you helped me during my time of worrying was special to me. I gained great respect for you during our conversations and all you help and advice.

Well I just read the top of your user page of who you are and I have to say, my respect for you has grown. You are a beautiful person, keep up with those children you have. You are indeed a very special person in your own right. I just want to let you know that. I had only one child, did as many things humanly possible to help him become a wonderful adult, and I think I succeeded, I was a stay at home mom to raise him.

He hasn't set up the appointment with the surgeon yet, though I keep reminding him that even though he sees a surgeon, not all surgeon carry a knife in their back pocket. (my surgeon for my first surgery tried everything he could think of before cutting into me.) You take care and remember that there are people who appreciate all that you try to do, me being one of them. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crohnie, that means more than you think - more than a Barnstar! :-) Thank you. I also got your email and will reply ASAP! -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dematt, I saw this post at the chiropratic article talk page [5] Since you are aware of things would you let me know more about this kind of pain treatment? Is this something viable for the situations you are aware of? I would appreciate your input about this. It of course caught my attentions, feel free to do it via email. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation on my talk page and the email explanation, greatly appreciated. Now kind of on a different note, other than family experiences I don't know much about Chiropractor practices. I just realized that with all the recent edits to the article I need to take the time to reread the article. The lead is much better than it was; which the only part I have gotten to. I will reread it and see if it now is balanced better for the average reader to understand the pros and cons of a chiropractor. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on the vaccination section of the chiropractic article. -- Fyslee / talk 15:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you know me, if we're gonna do this, at least lets get it right :-) Appreciate your staying involved here to! -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt, haven't seen you around these parts in awhile, hope everything is going well... Can't wait to say welcome back! CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dematt! I'd noticed you'd been away for a long time. It's good to see you back!! I just started editing Chiropractic again. We'll see if I have time to keep it up. The volume of discussion at that page can be hard to keep up with. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dematt. I agree with you on what the research says, however I am having a hard time tracking that down. Do you know of any particular sources that state that fact?DigitalC (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious too. I've read that mobilization was somewhat (never absolute!) safer than manipulation, and thus our courses (basic education and post-grad) in manual therapy always included extra precautions regarding this point. -- Fyslee / talk 14:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can dig up. Most of what I pulled up was two years ago when Fyslee and I were working that section. I agree that the risk can be minimized further by using mobilization, but I think we all agree here that anything that stretches a 'susceptible' patient's vertebral artery is risky. From what I am reading recently (i.e. Task Force), it's not so much that spinal manipulation is the cause, but it is not knowing that the neck pain is the result of a dissection in the artery. I have heard opinion that repeated manipulations might eventually cause a dissection, but haven't seen anything conclusive (or even hypothesizing for that matter) in actual research. To claim such to be truth at this point would be misleading and I guess what they call fear mongering. I assume we will see some results in the next decade as we study it more. Of course the other fact also remains - that there are risks with the alternative treatments. So it becomes a risk/benefit issue - especially with real live people who are going to do something to relieve pain. In that case, both manipulation and mobilization are reasonable alternatives provided a proper assessment and diagnosis is made. -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that DCs commonly use not only SMT, but mobs and massage (myofascial techniques) as well. It seems like certain editors are trying to portray that all DCs will always use HVLA manips to deal with mechanical neck pain. Incorrect. Nor is that part of patient-centered care; which is the official position of the MAINSTREAM of the chiropractic profession. I can totally see how a mob held at end range can potentially occlude a structural deficient VA. Hopefully Bolton et al's research on the velocimeter to screen for VA damage will pay dividents for ALL manipulative clinicians (not just chiropractors).—Preceding unsigned comment added by CorticoSpinal (talk • contribs)

Think of it this way. The current state of research is that patients enter our offices complaining of neck pain and headaches. If the cause of those symptoms is dissection of the vertebral or carotid, then any movment of the head is contraindicated - whether by manipulation, mobilization, coughing, sneezing, picking up the family pet, turning to look out the rear window of your car, etc.. This is all that anyone can reliably say. The assertion that manipulation 'causes' stroke - even 'because of the multiple minor "traumas" that it is "supposed" to cause' is purely speculation at this point. It is okay to speculate, but it would be unscientific to create policy, or an article, based on speculation. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Dematt. I've made some changes to some of the sections that have been railroaded in the main article without proper consensus, but rather than blanket revert I have begun chipping away at either puff citations, misattribution and adding vital sources that present an alternative argument. Please feel free to investigate these changes and make any additions, corrections, reversions as you see fit. I'm asking you specifically because it seems like you've proven yourself to be quite adept at finding that middle ground and have the respect of skeptics. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have added you as an involved party at the cabal mediation dispute regarding chiropractic. If you don't wish to partake in the settings then I can delete your name. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for that! ;-) I'll take a look a little later. -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back, Dematt! Your wisdom, collaborative skills and humor are appreciated.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind filling me in on all this talk about "traps". It all looks a bit cryptic to me. Best, Jefffire (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, is there something going on? If people aren't playing fair I'd be quite happy to call them up on it, regardless of who it is. Jefffire (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, after a good night's sleep and looking over the diffs, I think I got disoriented and turned around. I should have just gone to bed;-) But it is good to know I can always use your help! -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the email as well. Jefffire (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Chiropractic, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.[6] QuackGuru 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you're kidding, QuackGuru. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MastCell. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Hopefully, you can see that I have removed a section that I consider synfully inaccurrate that was added last month against consensus. Rather than replace it with the section that was a consensus version from last year, I just took the whole thing out until we can work it out on the talk page. Being that it is pretty much a violation of NPOV and SYN and OR, I think it is better that we don't have that section up for the general public. I am sure we will be able to work something out, but it may take awhile. I don't think anyone will miss it and I don't think anyone else will be concerned as they know we are working on it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The external observers agreed with the NPOV improvements and commented at the RFC on the talk page. QuackGuru 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the Chiropractic page. You do not have consensus for your edit. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.[7] QuackGuru 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw with some disappointment that a major chunk of Chiropractic was removed without discussion, much less consensus. Can you please reconsider that action? I followed up at Talk:Chiropractic#no agreement for blanking entire sections. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just as surprised that you did not support my removal of material that was placed during an edit war without consensus because there were NPOV issues and SYN issues. Do you really think I intend to leave this article without a science section that you and I did not consider NPOV? If you would like to pull a section that you think is not NPOV, by all means please do, I will back you up. Don't you think it is about time we pulled together? -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of pulling together, and I don't think we're that far apart about content. But in this particular case I was leery about the procedure. I didn't think you intended to leave the article without a science section, but as a practical matter I expected that if the deletion had stuck there would have been a long period without a science section, which would have been a real minus. Anyway, it's better to have discussion before major changes like that. It's also much more work, alas; but I don't see any way around the work. Eubulides (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I guess I can't blame you. I was working in a vacuum and just thought everyone would follow my logic. I see now that I probably wasn't clear in my concerns. Part of my problem is that I don't have large blocks of time to clearly write everything I am thinking or reading. For now I'll just place tags in the text on the article page and we can work till we get it right. -- Dēmatt (chat) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a RFC on the NPOV changes. The external observers supported the improvements. QuackGuru 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt wrote in part: I am not reverting anyone's edits.[8] You did revert my edit.[9] QuackGuru 21:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt, there was no consensus for this change. Please consider self reverting. QuackGuru 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QuackGuru, that is the reason for the template. It draws attention to a problem so that we will concentrate on it till we reach consensus, especially since you added that section before we reached consensus and then have edit warred to keep it in, ultimately resulting in the article being protected twice and the blocking of CorticoSpinal, who was a hard working editor. If you would consider reverting that section that you added without consensus, there would be no need for those templates. That would be appreciated. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a RFC and the external observers supported the NPOV improvements. There was no consensus for this change. QuackGuru 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which external observers were those? -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the RFC in which the external observers commented on the chiropractic talk page about the improvements. Do you support the RFC. Do you think you have consensus for this change. QuackGuru 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which RfC? Please show me where I need consensus to tag an article.-- Dēmatt (chat) 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, it really makes no difference in the long run what external observers say, IF the regular editors of the article don't support it. If their arguments are convincing and the regular editors decide to follow the good advice, then great. But if the regulars aren't convinced, then external observers have no trump card in the situation, and you can just as well stop referring to them. Consensus is what rules the day, and it applies ONLY to the regular editors. -- Fyslee / talk 05:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt wrote in his edit summary: replace with most approved version for now

However, more editors prefer draft 7. See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments on Education.2C licensing.2C and regulation 7. Draft 3 was never approved by most editors. QuackGuru 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the NPOV changed on chiro talk. However, Dematt continues to add the disputed long end run of boring WHO quotes and information that is unreferenced.[10] QuackGuru 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have further explained the reasons for using draft 7.[11] This edit by Dematt added the disputed WHO quotes again.[12] Wikipedia is not a place to promote suggestions to become world wide standards. QuackGuru 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the valid reasons with specifics for starting with draft 7. Please consider that my editing practices may be NPOV.[13] QuackGuru 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt wrote: "QuackGuru, when you are ready to talk specifics, let me know, otherwise all I see is tendentious editing that wastes valuable time for all of us, gets good editors blocked and pits good editors against each other. Please consider that your editing practices may be disruptive."[14] However, I have explained specifically why draft 7 is better. I did talk specifics. QuackGuru 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is QuackGuru talking to here? For the record, draft 3 was the most supported version when it was inserted, and as such, the edit summary did match the edit. DigitalC (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DigitalC, sometimes I feel like I'm talking into a large black hole. The words get stretched and distorted into anything he wants. I do hope others see through this. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do, but I just don't have the time or energy to deal with it. I feel with you. -- Fyslee / talk 06:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chiropractic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. QuackGuru 20:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've left me no choice. Please take me to whatever mediation you would like. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt wrote in his edit summary: OM this is getting tiresome, I'm ready if you are. Ready for what? I am confused by your edit summary. Please discuss. QuackGuru 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made four reverts today in a very short period of time (under 24 hours). The WHO quotes were deleted but you have added them in again.

Previous version without the WHO quotes.[15]

Revert 1[16]

Revert 2[17]

Revert 3[18]

Revert 4[19]

Please consider reverting your controversial edit. QuackGuru 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have problems or concerns with draft #3 in mainspace.[20] There are still problems with draft #3. QuackGuru 23:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I've got it watched :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Dematt. I just increased the article Activator technique from a short stub to a very short article, based on one ref. Presuming that you have some familiarity with the subject, would you please read it over and see if I made any glaring errors? Thanks. (I also want to get "activator" mentioned at least once in the Chiropractic article.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement! I've never used the technique myself, but am very aware of its wide use among chiropractors, particularly in younger and older patients whose red and yellow flags require less aggressive techniques. I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to mention it in the treatments section. Now that you say that, we need to make sure we are mentioning others as well (I'm thinking James Cox's Flexion-Distraction particularly). -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

At Talk:Chiropractic, in the education section you said "I've taken a look at the sources and am concerned that we have again reached conclusions that were not reached by the sources. IOWs, we have created a little WP:SYN. The juxtapositioning of the text seems as if we are casting a negative light on something that we should presenting NPOV." Eubulides asked you which phrases you were talking about, and I'm not sure you ever answered. If you think this problem is still present in the current drafts, would you please elaborate, or if you already have, then point me to the part of the talk page where you explain it? If you quote a unique phrase from a talk page comment I can find it by searching for it using control-F on my browser. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped that thread when realized that we were spreading ourselves too thin (or maybe it was just me ;). My major concern is still that we are equating chiropractic care with SMT research. As long as we are on the chiropractic page, it will be next to impossible to weight it properly because we will *have* to discuss all the things that chiropractors do. This will be difficult because we will have to discuss the efficacy of the doctor patient relationship, the efficacy of acupuncture, the efficacy of ice an heat, massage, activator, flexion distraction, etc., etc.. The article will get too long and boring. These things need to be in their own sections of their own respective articles, not on the chiropractic page. The only thing that really makes sense is to only include those things that explicitly talk about chiropractic care per WP:SYN

Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

IOWs chiropractic is more than SMT and we can't make them look equivalent, even if our intentions are good. We also have to be careful how we put our sentences together. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. look at it this way; Let's say that we create an article about Medicine and only examine Vioxx as a treatment. Obviously, no matter how we preface it, patch it up, or try to make it neutral the end result will be that Medicine kills people, because Vioxx killed people. The truth is that Medicine saves lives. The proper way to examine medicine would be to look at studies that compared the world without Medicine and then the world with Medicine, etc., etc., if those studies exist. If they don't, then we have no business guessing about it - that would be OR or SYN. There are too many factors to leave it to one drug that they use to treat one condition. That is what we are doing with chiropractic. Chiropractic care is not SMT. We are synthesizing sentences together to make it look that way. -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt, thanks for the barnstar! Its always nice to know that ones efforts are appreciated, and I think we do work hard over at Chiropractic. Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A RS for the VS article:

Relevance to chiropractic

Chiropractors treat conditions of a neuromusculoskeletal and non-neuromusculoskeletal nature [93]. The majority of conditions treated by chiropractors are neuromusculoskeletal [94]. Much controversy exists about the role of chiropractic in the management of the non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions [95]. These non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions are sometimes referred to as "type O" conditions and the neuromusculoskeletal conditions are sometimes referred to as "type M" conditions. To justify the relevance of the management of the "type O" condition, the chiropractic profession has usually cited the presence of the somatovisceral and viscerosomatic reflexes as being integral to both the cause and potentially the management of the "type O" disorder [96,97]. Despite this dependence on the existence of these reflexes to justify a philosophical approach to management, little evidence exists to warrant the continued support of this justification.

The literature supports the existence of somatovisceral and viscerosomatic reflexes [98-100], but there is little or no evidence to support the notion that the spinal derangements (often referred to as subluxations by chiropractors) can cause prolonged aberrant discharge of these reflexes. Equally unsupported in the literature is the notion that the prolonged activation of these reflexes will manifest into pathological state of tissues, and most relevantly, that the application of spinal manipulative therapy can alter the prolonged reflex discharge or be associated with a reversal of the pathological degeneration of the affected reflexes or tissues [101,102]. The evidence that has been amassed is largely anecdotal or case report based [102-104] and it has attracted much intra disciplinary debate [102,105,106] because of its frequent association with certain approaches to management (largely described as being traditional or "philosophical" in nature).

[21] -- Fyslee / talk 06:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good VS! It's conclusions concern more of the "supraspinal" (brain stem and above) effects of stress and considers that chiropractors should look at whether the effects that they are claiming from their adjustments are more related to affects on the higher centers.... that sounds like BJ stuff :-) But this is a mainstream way to look at old paradigms. Maybe the research is ready to take the next step. -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The authors are definitely expressing a non-traditional and non-philosophical POV, and are looking at what the hard evidence (to date of course) says. Are you familiar with Nansel and Szlazak's 1995 paper on somatovisceral effects?

• Nansel D, Szlazak M. "Somatic dysfunction and the phenomenon of visceral disease simulation: a probable explanation for the apparent effectiveness of somatic therapy in patients presumed to be suffering from true visceral disease." J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995; 18:379-97.

I have a paper copy of it somewhere and it's rather eye-opening. I'm surprised they weren't tarred and feathered at the time, but instead they were ignored. The climate in 1995 just wasn't ready to understand or accept scientific research that so markedly undermined the basic foundation of the profession. If I can find it, maybe I should send it to you. -- Fyslee / talk 14:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm familiar with it, in fact you were the one that turned me on to it in 2006 :-) I think it plays a huge role in what chiropractors do, but that's just me. It probably also plays a role in why some surgeries fail as well; that the symptoms were somatic referred all along. I think any list of explanations of what the possible effects of adjustment are would have to include this Nansel concept. The article from Chiro and Osteo seems to be suggesting that chiropractors evaluate the effects on the already mainstream documented stress reaction that affects health. I remember Gareth suggesting that two years ago. We are so ahead of the curve ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I miss Gareth...! -- Fyslee / talk 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. He will answer your emails and I know for a fact that he would love to hear from you. We talk about the good ole' days and your name always comes up! -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence in the chiropractic lead needs to be corrected:

"In the health sciences, subluxation always means that there is a physical dislocation such that the part is completely out of place."

"Completely" is misleading, since a medical subluxation is a partial dislocation, IOW partially out of place. The WHO definition and footnote make it clear that the medical and chiropractic definitions are different, since a medical subluxation is always visible on x-rays, while a VS isn't necessarily visible. In fact it isn't necessarily even objectively verifiable. -- Fyslee / talk 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, you know that wasn't my choice of words! I has a hard enough time representing the chiropractic part. Experts are just as awnry as we common folk ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It isn't always smooth sailing "over there". You shouldn't get any flack for improving that part. -- Fyslee / talk 00:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can improve it on the draft page, but it won't show up in the approved version until we get it re-approved.... -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, go for it. -- Fyslee / talk 00:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In the health sciences, a subluxation is defined as a much more significant structural displacement and therefore only includes those that are visible on static imaging studies, whereas the chiropractic definition includes stages that may not show any imaging abnormalities.[1])

How's that... you know, this would be easier if... -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current version:

• "(In the health sciences, subluxation always means that there is a physical dislocation such that the part is completely out of place. In chiropractic subluxations, this is almost never the case...)"

My suggested revision:

• "(In the health sciences, anatomical subluxations are so significant structural displacements of joint surfaces that they are always visible on X-rays,^[1] but without the joint surfaces ever totally losing contact with each other. In chiropractic, vertebral subluxations are generally not significant enough to be visible on X-rays....)"^[1]

-- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only change the draft version at this point:

• (In the health sciences, a subluxation is defined as a much more significant structural displacement and therefore only includes those that are visible on static imaging studies, whereas the chiropractic definition includes stages that may not show any imaging abnormalities.[1])

However, your suggested version gives the impression that subluxations are not ever visible on xray, which would still be misleading, only in the other direction. For instance, a chiropractor would consider MRI findings of atrophy of the multifidus as a sign of an early stage of subluxation. Also, as the joint begins to show loss of space and sclerotic changes, these are signs of subluxation degeneration (or medical arthritis). Of course, osteophytes are signs of advanced subluxation degeneration. The feature of subluxation that you are concerned about, and that medical subluxation does not include, is the theoretical neurological consequences that chiropractors claim affect health occurring at any of the stages of subluxation degeneration. Remember, there are chiropractors that doubt these effects exist as well. I'm not sure that any of our definitions handle this well. Especially for the "subluxations" that are not visible on xray or MRI. It would be nice if we could clear all this up on our Vertebral subluxation article. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs:

I am dropping a line because I am a bit confused about the dispute over mentioning SMT at the chiropractic article. I saw Xavex's suggestion and it seems to make sense. Why not treat the article like any other medical practice topic? For example, having a modest section about therapeutic exercise in an article about physical therapy is very unlikely to be controversial, because it is one of the principal modes of treatment. Similarly, I cannot imagine a section about prescription drugs or radiological diagnostics being a problem in an article about general practice medicine. What makes chiropractic distinct in this regard? Why would it be inappropriate to briefly provide an overview of its principal treatment method? So long as its a neutral summary of the subtopic, and treated a distinct subtopic, where would the problem lie? I'm just trying to understand the current disagreement on that count, as while the approach being used to include SMT information seems incorrect, the general point that it is an appropriate subtopic for the article seems valid. Thanks for you time and help in understanding this situation! Vassyana (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vassyana, thanks for taking a look. It's good to know you're keeping an eye out. I'm thinking that we are trying to treat it like other medical practice articles. If we look at Medicine it doesn't include a section on the research base of Medications and Physical therapy doesn't include a section on exercises. I actually used that in my consideration of how to handle this issue.

The other issue is that, while SMT is something that chiropractors use, the procedure itself is not all they do. They combine it with exercise, massage, ice/heat, ergonomics, physical therapy, advice, assurance and re-assurance. Some patients don't get any SMT. If we present SMT as being equivolent to chiropractic care in general (SMT = chiropractic), we are misrepresenting chiropractic because SMT has limitations by itself. Just like all healthcare professionals, chiropractors have different treatment options and protocols depending on the case that presents. We lose this when we only present one modality for the reader because that is all they are going to learn about. Of course the other option is to include all the treatment modalities so that we are providing the proper weight to each and the end result should look about the same, but there are studies that evaluate the total chiropractic care model so we can use them instead. For instance, the UK Beam Trial studied spinal manipulation in the chiropractor/osteopath/physical therapy office environment where the other factors were part of the care model. The SMT studies can be used on the Spinal manipulation article; exercises on Exercise; and Massage, Cryotherapy, Spinal adjustment on their respective articles where we can discuss each of them totally and NPOV linking them from our brief review of each on chiropractic. I'm thinking that this is the instance that WP:SYN was meant to help us decide.

-- Dēmatt (chat) 02:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. What about a brief (paragraph long) subsection for SMT? It could open up that it's a very common treatment among chiropractors and that it is the practice most strongly associated with them. It could follow up that the principal practitioners of the treatment are chiropractic doctors. Follow that up with a couple of sentences providing a simple overview of SMT. (Answering the basic question of "what is it?") Use a {{seealso}} or {{main}} link at the top of the para. I'm sure all of those types of statements could be easily source to high quality references without great difficulty. I think that could avoid original research, clearly explain its relevance, address its prominence in the public mind and provide a brief neutral summary without providing an inaccurate picture of chiropractic by muddling the medical practice with the broader treatment. Do you think that would be doable? Do you think that would still be problematic? I'm just brainstorming and thinking this out. Vassyana (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is very close to what I was thinking. Our problem becomes when we try to dissect the research. So let me ask, are you thinking that it would include anything like this. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt is spot-on with his analysis here, but I'd like to explain also why we have a SYN violation.

First, some background: SMT is a procedure which is performed by any number of practitioners. Chiropractors certainly are the most common practitioners to employ SMT; however you will also find PTs, DOs, and other healthcare professionals performing such procedures. Chiropractors, by way of education, are arguably the most qualified to perform SMT. Adjusting vertebrae is something they spend 4 years focused on learning. Chiropractic techniques for adjusting vertebrae are numerous and precise, and the methods which chiropractors use to adjust the spine are different from manipulations performed by other practitioners. In addition to varying techniques, the diagnosis which leads a chiropractor to perform a specific adjustment on a patient is wholly different from a PT, DO, etc. And - some may argue - that the intent behind a chiropractic adjustment is disparate from other practitioners performing their versions of SMT. With these key differences, in mind, allow me to continue...

In the early 1990s, the RAND Corporation completed a study entitled, "The Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Low-Back Pain", which concluded positively for SMT. When chiropractors jumped on those conclusions to proclaim things such as "Chiropractic works!", the chiropractors were in turn jumped on by the researchers who said that these studies were not about chiropractic specifically, but rather SMT and that chiropractors were in effect misusing these studies. Dr. Paul Shekelle of RAND released this statement:

"...we have become aware of numerous instances where our results have been seriously misrepresented by chiropractors writing for their local paper or writing letters to the editor....RAND's studies were about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic... Comparative efficacy of chiropractic and other treatments was not explicitly dealt with."

Another source from the Annals of Internal Medicine tells us the following:

"The evidence is insufficient to conclude that benefits of manipulation vary according to the profession of the manipulator (chiropractor vs. other clinician trained in manipulation)..."

What I am trying to establish here for you, Vassyana, is though chiropractors employ their specialized form of SMT, in terms of research, chiropractic SMT is not 1:1 with SMT as performed by other practitioners. This means that conclusions from general SMT efficacy or safety studies (as performed by non-chirorpactors) cannot just be blindly correlated to the efficacy or safety of chiropractic SMT.

That said, those in favor of inclusion of general SMT cite chiropractic researchers such as Haldeman & Meeker who stated:

"We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point. Chiropractors use all forms of manipulation. In the United States, more than 90% of all spinal manipulation services are provided by chiropractors, and research on spinal manipulation, like that on any other treatment method, is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it."

Editors in favor of inclusion of general SMT studies are basing their rationale on Haldeman, stating that by presenting general SMT studies to show chiropractic's efficacy or safety, we are merely following in the footsteps of researchers such as Haldeman & Meeker. In my opinion, herein lies the SYN violation.

First, please note that Haldeman states, "...many of the the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself..." I emphasized "we" because I think it should be made clear that Haldeman & Meeker are only referring to the specific studies they reviewed and are not making a blanket statement about all general SMT studies.

Second, lets label Haldeman & Meeker as "Source A". And then let's say we have some other review of general SMT research (as performed by a mix of professionals... DOs, PTs, DCs, etc). Let's call this other review "Source B". While Source B is of high quality and published in very reputable journal, it does not in any way make any specific conclusions about chiropractic SMT; rather its conclusions only deal with general SMT. In fact, other than stating that the reviewers looked at some chiropractic adjustments in their research, the review itself makes no other mention of "chiropractic". Now then, editors in favor of inclusion of Source B are justifying it by citing the rationale in Source A - that the difference between general SMT and chiropractic adjustments isn't significant in terms of research. So now we have the rationale of Source A justifying the inclusion of Source B leading the reader to a conclusion based on original research. Let's say that Source B concluded that SMT is ineffective for treating cooties. Using the rationale of Source A, some editors want to go a step further and conclude that chiropractic is therefore ineffective for treating cooties. We'll call this "Conclusion C", a conclusion which is unsourced and can only be synthesized by combining the rationale of Source A with the findings of Source B. Hence, we have the classic WP:SYN scenario: A and B, so therefore C.

Now some of the editors in favor of inclusion are being slippery and stating that we are not directly stating that these general SMT efficacy and safety studies specifically apply to chiropractic. But I ask you, when the casual reader shows up at Chiropractic and sees a heading labeled "Scientific research" and a sub-header reading "Effectiveness" with an entry beginning, "The effectiveness of chiropractic treatment depends on the medical condition and the type of chiropractic treatment," are we really to expect that reader not to confound the evidence of general SMT with a conclusion specifically about chiropractic? I don't think so. The conclusion which every reader will come to will be based on original research - we, the editors, applying general SMT efficacy and safety studies to the efficacy and safety chiropractic specifically.

Please bear in mind, that there is some general SMT research which is highly-to-slightly favorable to the usage of SMT for certain conditions. There is some research which is not favorable. I favor treating them all equally in that if they are not making conclusions about chiropractic specifically, they do not belong in the Chiropractic article. They would be much better suited to the Spinal manipulation article.

Finally, please note that in addition to spinal manipulation, there is an article - albeit a bit rough - on spinal adjustment. This article is specifically about chiropractic SMT. As Dematt mentions above, chiropractors also employ many other procedures other than spinal adjustments and many of those procedures have their own articles at Wikipedia. My thought is that much of the "Scientific research" into efficacy and safety should be handled on the procedure articles. Chiropractic is big topic. It is a profession which incorporates many procedures. There are studies out there which analyze the efficacy of the entire chiropractic clinical encounter, and I believe - good or bad - those kinds of studies would be perfect for the Chiropractic article. However, going into such detail about spinal adjustment efficacy on the Chiropractic article doesn't seem very efficient especially when we have a spinal adjustment article in need of such content.

In sum, I believe we should excise from Chiropractic any studies which don't focus on chiropractic specifically, but rather general SMT as performed by other practitioners. These studies are out of place here, and the manner in which they are being justified for inclusion violates WP:SYN. As an article about a profession, just as we wouldn't expect the article on Dentistry to go into much detail on the safety and efficacy of fillings, I don't think Chiropractic should go into much detail on the safety and efficacy of any of their employed procedures either. A brief overview and a link to the specific procedure articles will suffice. And one final note, Dentistry doesn't discuss safety or efficacy at all. It certainly isn't based on a lack of available research: Dental efficacy, Dental safety. This begs the question, why is Chiropractic being treated so differently? Is it that Dentisty lacks safety and efficacy sections or is it the other way around? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No specific evidence of WP:OR or WP:SYN has been presented. Edits like this won't work on Wikipedia. QuackGuru 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractors certainly are the most common practitioners to employ SMT. Therefore, SMT research is related to chiropractic. QuackGuru 19:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not speaking in generalities. We are speaking specifically in terms of the research. Are chiropractors the ones employing the SMT in the research? Sure, surgeons perform the most brain surgery, but what if there was a study on the efficacy of brain surgery as performed by monkeys. Would it be fair to use that research to describe the efficacy of surgeons merely because surgeons perform more brain surgery than monkeys do? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you mention on Talk:Chiropractic that you're not allowed to edit in mainspace. I must have missed something. Why is that? MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MastCell, thanks for asking! I'm not banned or blocked from editing! Just haven't been able to make an edit that stays on the article page itself for quite some time. QuackGuru, ScienceApologist and OrangeMarlin make a pretty good tag team that, unless I am willing to revert 3 times, my edits are not going to stay. I am pretty much relegated to the talk page. I'm sure it is an extension of everything else that has been happening around here that I would rather stay out of... -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very sad but true. It shouldn't be this way. Dematt is our most valuable contributor on these subjects, simply because he not only knows his stuff, but also doesn't play favorites. I know the feeling from the other side and haven't been nearly as active for a long time because of similar opposition from certain editors. They made being here at Wikipedia too uncomfortable. Some editors simply forget the essense of NPOV, which is ensuring that both (or all) sides get told. While I may bitch about some chiropractic editors who plague me, I'm also ashamed of some so-called skeptics. -- Fyslee / talk 02:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be careful not to jump to conclusions that something should be reverted without carefully considering the talk page discussion etc. I hope editors' judgement about edits is not unduly coloured by their perception of who is initiating the edit. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted an unfortunate trend towards ahistorical argument in Chiropractic. It is reasonable to question chiropractic on the basis of what its practitioners today believe, but it seems unreasonable to question it on the basis of what its practitioners 100 years ago believed, especially for beliefs essentially indistinguishable from those held by physicians and scientists of the time.

DD Palmer clearly believed that most (95%) of disease were caused by a disruption of the flow of “innate intelligence” through nerves. While the term “innate intelligence” may have been original to Palmer, the idea itself was unremarkable and unoriginal; indeed it was virtually conventional dogma. The leading medical textbook of the early 19th century was that of William Cullen, who in Enlightenment Edinburgh educated almost a generation of American physicians (the poet William Cullen Bryant was named after him by his physician father). The first lines of ‘’The Practice of Physic’’ declare that “almost all diseases considered on a certain point of view could be considered nervous” (Cullen 1790).

DD Palmer certainly failed to recognise the importance of the germ theory of disease, which arose in Europe from the work of Louis Pasteur, Koch and Semmelweiss, and which was put into practice by Joseph Lister. However he was far from alone in this; Lister’s ideas were met with considerable resistance by physicians. In 1876, Lister traveled to the US to the International Medical Congress in Philadelphia, and Angell, writing in 1901, describes his ideas, presented there, as “much criticised and even condemned by the surgeons of America." [22] Fortunately, in the audience was William W. Keen (1837–1932) of Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, who realized the practical importance of infection control, and who became one of the first American surgeons to implement Lister's system.

Pasteur of course, like most scientists of his time, was explicitly a vitalist. His great contribution, in 1858, was to show that fermentation only occurs when living cells are present and, further, that cells only carry out fermentation in the absence of oxygen, leading him to describe fermentation as ‘life without air’. This was, at the time, a victory over the reductionist chemists who believed that fermentation resulted from chemical agents or catalysts within cells. Pasteur thus concluded that fermentation was a ‘vital action’. [23].

We might make fun of Palmer's vitalism now; but he was in very good company indeed in this.Gleng (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so good to hear from you Gleng.. I am so sorry to have to agree with you about chiropractic taking an ahistorical approach. And sadly, I am truly at a loss for what to do about it either. I'll just keep plugging I suppose... and wait for the cavalry to show up ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dematt. As noted on the chiro talk page, I jumped the gun and added a comment in the lead before inclusion in the body of the arcicle. My bad!

Since we know this is basically true content, we just need to add the content, with sources, to the body of the article. We have been quite remiss in ignoring this most fundamental fact, since it is probably the single most uniquely identifiable characteristic of the profession.

The following is a proposed new section in the article. Please help with its development. I hope you don't mind this being done in your userspace. You may even want to move this to a subpage, in which case you can just leave a link here. I'm going to invite Gleng and Eubulides to help here. We may find that some of the references are already used in the article, so they'll need to be formatted accordingly here. -- Fyslee / talk 15:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. This is important.. in many ways.. I would agree with you that this effects every aspect of chiropractic - from the difference between spinal manipulation and spinal adjustment, to differences in frequency and duration of care depending whether your trying to affect pain or health.. IOWs, straights object to reformers guidelines because they are based on minimums that just get pain to decrease, while more time may be necessary to make any changes in function and or possibly effect general health... and then of course the issue and rationale for maintenance care, etc.. It would take a lot of AGF. Dēmatt 16:12, July 12, 2008

You understand it. Fortunately we don't need to go into detail about every possible consequence. Just a short outline of the subject should suffice. It won't take up much space in the article. -- Fyslee / talk 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second level heading (here third level for now). All levels will get "bumped up" when ready for inclusion.

Traditionally chiropractic has always focused its main attention on the spine and has considered analysis and treatment of the spine to be the central key^[1] to diagnosing health problems and improving overall health. This chiropractic hypothesis is summed up in three principles:

• 1. There is a fundamental and important relationship (mediated through the nervous system) between the spine and health.

• 2. Mechanical and functional disorders of the spine (subluxation) can degrade health.

• 3. Correction of the spinal disorders (adjustments) may bring about a restoration of health.^[2]

SAME THING, BUT DIFFERENT REF:

• 1. There is a fundamental and important relationship between the spine and health, which is mediated through the nervous system.

• 2. Mechanical and functional disorders of the spine can degrade health.

• 3. Correction of subluxations may bring about a restoration of health.^[3]

"A sizable proportion of the profession still holds these postulates to be valid."^[4]

[EDITORIAL NOTE: The three points above might be considered a copy vio and may need tweaking, unless we consider it to be fair use.]

In the original (straight) chiropractic model, analysis (diagnosis) and adjustment (treatment) of the spine alone is considered sufficient to affect and effect the health of the entire body, including complaints of non-spinal and non-nervous-system-related portions of the body.

Mixers consider the spine to be an important key to overall health, but are willing to consider other causes of disease, and use more than spinal adjustments to achieve their goals. They use other techniques and treat more than the spine alone.

Reform chiropractors reject Palmer's Postulates and use spinal manipulation as just one of many treatment methods. They do not consider the spine to be the key to overall health, nor spinal manipulation to be a cure-all.

A group of chiropractic researchers and leaders who consider "Palmer's Postulates" to have failed have proposed that chiropractors of the future prepare themselves to fill the role of "spinal care doctors".^[2]. The World Federation of Chiropractic has similar hopes and wishes to get the profession established and recognized as "the spinal health care experts in the health care system."^[5]

Wouldn't it be better to discuss proposed changes to Chiropractic on Talk:Chiropractic? That would let more eyeballs see them. I followed up at Talk:Chiropractic #Emphasis on the spine. Eubulides (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. I'm not suggesting a "change", but a totally new addition. Since it can be complicated to develop, we could develop something here and then copy it to the talk page for discussion and input from a wider audience. I'm not suggesting that no one else can participate here, but there will be a more peaceful, effective, and constructive environment here. There is so much stonewalling and obstruction there that it is often very hard to make any progress. Much of the best work and content on the chiropractic article was done by Dematt and a few others on his subpages, and it met wide acceptance and was very stable until CS came along. That's what happens when people who really know something about the subject do the preliminary work. Then others who don't have as much knowledge can make their input, and finally it can be included in the article. -- Fyslee / talk 21:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our problem with our previous version was that, while we seemed to satisfy the straight perspective, we must have ignored the reform POV. This is what triggered CS to make significant changes.. We have to be able to present all POVs without playing favorites to any of them, including those that we agree with... Can we do that? -- Dēmatt (chat) 23:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We must attempt to do that. NPOV requires it and it will make a better article. We are still committed to writing the best article on chiropractic ever written, because it won't suffer from the "weaknesses" of most other articles which are written from one POV. That's fine on a personal website, but not here. BTW, I never did buy CS's claim to be "reform".... He just tried to repackage old dogma in new words (thus fooling himself into believing that he really was "reform") and then tried to eliminate much of chiropractic history and current practice in an attempt to whitewash the profession of what to him was uncomfortable baggage. It's not that clear cut. It's a very complex and multicolored picture, and it all needs to be told. The straight POV still needs to be given its due share, since it is very much alive in several variations. The same for other POV. His use of "progressive" was in itself a strong (yet subtle) editorializing POV push and not very conducive to creating an NPOV and stable article. Some people might well consider his POV and the reform POV as "progressive", but we shouldn't do that kind of editorializing in the article, unless we have some specific references that use such terminology, and even then it's just one POV. Many chiropractors would consider that POV to be apostasy. We both know this from the various POV that exist within the profession and outside of it. We need to be inclusionists and tell it like it is. -- Fyslee / talk 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm game, but the science section and the history have taken most of my time for now, but we might be getting close to finishing that up. Couldn't figure out that reference section either, huh ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand it, but Coppertwig fixed it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This:

• "Chiropractic has always focused its main attention on the spine and considers analysis and treatment of the spine to be key to diagnosing health problems and improving overall health" (emphasis mine)

Does not agree with this:

• "Reform chiropractors reject Palmer's Postulates and use spinal manipulation as just one of many treatment methods."

I think this could easily be fixed with a "Traditionally...", eg "Traditionally Chiropractic has focused its main attention on the spine...". Incidentally, I had never heard of Palmer's postulates until today. DigitalC (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think one of the reasons that modern chiropractors focus on the spine is that the number one complaint that patients walk in the door with is lower back pain.

• Would an oral surgeon agree that "There is a fundamental and important relationship between the mouth and health."? Would an orthopaedic surgeon agree that "There is a fundamental and important relationship between the spine and health."? DigitalC (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make some really good point. I also agree that "Palmer's postulates" is a neologism that was coined with this new opinion piece. I'm not sure that it even accurately describes the straight position. IOWs, it's more of a strawman set up to fight false demons ;-) I suppose that makes oral/orthopedic surgeons antiscientists as well? -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch there DigitalC. (BTW, any clue as to what inspired your user name?) I have incorporated your catch and tweaked the text a bit more. Palmer's Postulates seems to be a convenient way to summarize in a rather "soft" manner the traditional straight position. Other sources could be used to define the three points more sharply. I'm pretty sure that the ICA and WCA have such position statements. Mixers have a tendency to soften that approach, while reformers clearly distance themselves from certain aspects of it. The "soft" wording is so vague has to be subject to misinterpretation and should probably be sharpened in the straight section. We don't have to use the exact Nelson wording, and could just mention the Postulates below the three points, and use other wordings and source them. The three points do seem to summarize it well though. All the authors of the Nelson paper are quite notable DCs who know their stuff. -- Fyslee / talk 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the neologism "Palmer's Postulates" is only used by this group to make this particular point, let's drop it.
• I don't think anyone considers spinal manipulation to be a cure-all.
• I don't think anyone considers spinal analysis as sufficient to diagnose a non-spinal health problem.

-- Dēmatt (chat) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can drop PP. The other two points are basic to the ultra straight (Palmerian) position. Remember he considered subluxations to be the cause of 95%+5% of all diseases. He claimed to be able to cure all diseases using adjustments. The list is about three pages long, including practically every known serious disease and minor ailment at the time. Most DCs believed him for many years, and a few still do, as attested by the continued use of the Meric system. Yes, probably not many do it in practice anymore, but that's the basic position. Do you have better wording to replace it? Come to think of it, we could just use normal chiropractic subluxation terminology and define each POV by their relation to subluxations. -- Fyslee / talk 06:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how anyone could reject these statements. They are so vague that I can't see how they can be rejected. For instance, would a dentist agree that "disorders of the teeth and gums can degrade health"? Would an orthopaedic surgeon agree that "disorders of the spine can degrade health"? Isn't a disorder evidence of degraded health (which the world health organization defines as abcense of disease)? Would a physical therapist agree that correction of a disorder may bring about a restoration of health? Interestingly enough, don't we usually use the term disorder for psychological diagnoses, such as ADD, ADHD, Bipolar disorder, Panic/Anxiety disorder, etc? DigitalC (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Google results and one finds many if one is liberal with the (un)tying together of the exact phrase:

• chiropractic Palmer's postulates

While searching for more uses of PP, I stumbled across this one that cites them:

• Chiropractic Legal Challenges to the Physical Therapy Scope of Practice: Anybody Else Taking the Ethical High Ground?

Quite an interesting editorial, in light of the fact that PTs generally do not criticize chiropractic. During my whole education little was ever mentioned. This is the first article of its kind I can remember reading from a PT source. -- Fyslee / talk

I'm part way through reading that, and quite confused. The author just explained the a joint dysfunction, and a subluxation are the same thing. He then continues with "But even with all these similarities, who could ever mistake a physical therapy manipulation for a chiropractic manipulation, as the theoretical foundations for both professions and thus the reasons for manipulation are so obviously different?". Isn't the reason to manipulate a clinical entity, as evidenced by this "joint dysfunction"? DigitalC (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if we can figure this out. There is usually a natural explanation for such seeming conundrums. Here are the two quotes I could find:

• "When we review the ACA definition of subluxation, we see how the ACA apparently found the physical therapy definition of joint dysfunction so appealing that it was “borrowed” to describe the category of dynamic intersegmental subluxations."
• "So definitions of the object of manipulation may at times be similar or even the same between the professions. Think of how chiropractic uses a definition for dynamic intersegmental subluxations that is exactly the same as the physical therapy definition of joint dysfunction."

This would indeed be confusing if one didn't factor into it the fact that chiropractic has continually modified and expanded the definition of subluxation to include many conditions that already have diagnostic definitions in physical medicine. Neither medical doctors nor PTs have the option of changing the definition, since the orthopedic definition of a subluxation has such clear and objective criteria as to be unquestionable and above any controversy. OTOH, the chiropractic definition is totally malleable because of political needs, billing regulations, and questions of legal scope of practice, since it is not bound by the same objective criteria. The consequences of the two concepts are contrasted by the author:

• "...that uses as its outcome measures reliable, valid, and responsive patient functional outcome measures rather than indicators of the presence or absence of subluxation with questionable reliability and absence of data on validity?"

IOW, with no definite evidence for the reality of the chiropractic subluxation, subluxation research flounders and produces unreliable and questionable results.

You can see the long list of conditions now included in the ACA definition:

• "TABLE 1. American Chiropractic Association classification of subluxation (modified from Gatterman)."

So we have Palmer's "original rather simplistic bone-out-of-place hypothesis" (which is actually a true orthopedic subluxation, and which is relatively rare), and then the ACA's enlarged definition that includes conditions that have nothing to do with the normal physical medicine (orthopedic) definition of subluxation. So basically a PT might use manipulation as (only) part of the treatment of a joint dysfunction, but wouldn't use it as part of the treatment for an orthopedic subluxation, because joint manipulation (HVLA) would normally be contraindicated for a true orthopedic subluxation. It all comes back to the fact that we are working with very different definitions of subluxation. Does that make any sense to you guys, in the sense that you at least understand what I'm saying (without necessarily agreeing), or am I just muddying the waters? -- Fyslee / talk 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can agree with most of what you say. However, if we accept that a subluxation is that same as a joint dysfunction, then to state that there is no definite evidence for the reality of subluxation is to state that there is no definite evidence for the reality of joint dysfunction. I don't think it matters what word you use for it (spinal boo-boo? somatic lesion? joint dysfunction? facet joint sprain? zygopophaseal joint irritation? clinical entity?), other than that we have expectations surrounding what words are or are not supposed to mean. I believe it was Haldeman that stated that even a stubbed toe meets inclusion into the vague definition of subluxation. Obviously, I don't think a Chiropractor would use SMT for an orthopaedic subluxation either (who knows what DD or BJ would say to that though). Irregardless, I still feel that the author basically stated that Chiropractors had usurped the definition of joint dysfunction into the ACA's subluxation definition, thereby equating them. He later stated that the reasons for manipulations are "so obviously different". DigitalC (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true if one consider's them synonymous, which the ACA does and PTs and MDs do not. To a PT or MD, a subluxation is a well-defined diagnosis with an unchanging definition, and it doesn't include other medical diagnoses like "joint dysfunction". When they speak of joint dysfunctions they wouldn't normally be thinking of orthopedic subluxations. If they want to speak of subluxations they just say "subluxation". I suspect that Haldeman may have been ridiculing the chiropractic subluxation diagnosis as something so malleable and subject to personal interpretation as to allow inclusion of a stubbed toe (and likely anything else like earwax and ingrown toenails). The things some chiros call subluxations, or the things they claim can cause subluxations (thoughts, repressed memories, past life experiences, etc.), are pretty far out sometimes. The definition is so broad as to be practically meaningless, except for a few very important functions: preservation of identity and retention of billing rights. The history of how this all happened (changing definitions) is told here:

• Some Notes on Subluxations and Medicare

-- Fyslee / talk 14:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When they speak of joint dysfunctions they wouldn't normally be thinking of orthopedic subluxations." Just as Chiropractors wouldn't normally be thinking of orthopaedic subluxations when they speak of subluxations. If they wanted to denote that someone had an (orthopaedic) subluxated facet joint, they would use the term "orthopaedic subluxation". I agree with you that the definition is so broad that it makes it meaningless. DigitalC (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google results for PP. That's pretty much what I thought. While I'd agree they are postulates, I'm not sure I'd attribute that wording to Palmer. IOWs, Palmer would have said something like "1) Innate Intelligence keeps the body healthy 2) Subluxation interrupts Innate Intelligence 3) Removal of Subluxation restores health 4) The Chiropractor is the only one trained to remove Subluxation." When we tie the title Palmer to it, we automatically add an element that alienates the mixer and reform perspective and we will lose that audience. While you and I might not have a problem with "Palmer", it stirs emotion from others that draws away from the meat of the postulates, which is that the spine and health are connected. Let me read that PT article real quick. -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means propose better wording. We don't necessarily have to mention Palmer, but the wording should show the primacy of the spinal emphasis in chiropractic. I think we can agree that this is a central theme in chiropractic and probably the single most unique thing about the profession. -- Fyslee / talk 05:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting PT article. I think you and I were probably there a couple years ago. There are some central issues that are weak, but all arguments have weak spots. I can't see that a PT can perform SMT any safer than chiropractors, I don't buy that argument frome either side, as long as training is there for either. I don't buy that PTs can rule out the risk of stroke any better. He, too, obfuscates the use of the word manipulation and manual therapies when discussing the history and research; for the same reasons that chiropractors are concerned with it - the legal authority to practice it. If 95% of manipulation is performed by chiropractors (50,000), and there are what over 300,000? PTs; that would either mean that 5 PTs are using a lot of manipulation or 300,000 are manipulating once a year. I don't disagree that PTs should consider adding HVLA SMT to their list of tools, but they shouldn't practice it till they are qualified to do so... I also have no doubt that PTs will be able to come up with a program that allows them to become qualified and it will be similar to what chiropractors already do... The fair solution would be to make sure each gets paid the same for doing it. Good article though. I'm surprised that there aren't more of these. Though I am also surprised that PTs and Chiropractors are teaming up together to be the portal of entry providers of all musculaoskeletal pain patients. It is the MDs who really aren't treating them right - and don't want them anyway. -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Besides, the Keating source was 10 years old. In EBM years, that is about 70 :-) " [24]
LOL! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be funny if it didn't continue to apply. It will only be after the large majority of currently practicing DCs are dead and gone that it won't apply as much. Keep in mind that the largest chiropractic schools (the Life and Palmer colleges) are straight schools and are still pumping out large numbers of young straight chiros. Life's education was so straight that it lost its accreditation for a short time. Ancient dogma is still being taught to new DCs: "We don't need to concern ourselves with differential diagnosis or medical diagnoses, because we know that there is only one diagnosis, the chiropractic diagnosis of vertebral subluxations." (Paraphrase of Sid Williams, founder of Life) -- Fyslee / talk 16:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, Coppertwig, glad you caught the humor :-) I think sometimes we tend to take these things too seriously. Fyslee, this too, is a disgrace for wikipedia. It is part of the reason wikipedia is not taken seriously. When we apply too much weight to something so trivial that it makes an entire field appear dubious we then have no hope for anything. We pay our professionals to be aware of this stuff and integrate it into their decisions that affect our everyday lives, not discard anything that does not fit into the box. I assure you that every seminar and every association meeting for the last five years in chiropractic has concentrated on the importance of the the evidence base, even in straight circles. Sid is gone and Life is re-accredited after losing its accreditation because of Sid. That is the way it is supposed to work, right. You should see that as a sign that the old guard is on its way out. -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, things are indeed changing, IMO for the better. When the old guard will lose their influence (they are still the college presidents and leaders of associations) is a good question, but there is hope.

That link from the PT article has an interesting history, and I have never deleted it because I believe in NPOV and it is properly sourced. I hope we treat the current subject in the same manner. That section was originally added as a revenge directed against myself (a PT), by a DC here Anthon01, who created a sock puppet (JacobLad) and made the edit during an edit war atmosphere where I was counteracting his newbie attempts to promote Applied Kinesiology. Anthon01 and Levine2112 then continued to edit war for its inclusion. This incidence of malicious sockpuppetry has been noted but never punished. It has been considered a rather dubious addition by many, but I haven't entered that fray. -- Fyslee / talk 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dematt, I have just sent you an email update. This is just to let you know I have sent it to you. Please take your time in responding, there is no rush. As always, thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crohnie, I already replied! :-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dematt. Thanks for fixing my user talk page. I don't know what happened there. I had even read by finished comment. Now it's gone! Weird. -- Fyslee / talk 04:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, me, too. I apparently deleted the whole chiropractic talk page somehow :-) I wasn't even there. I read my response and moved on, then saw your "interesting" comment and wondered why you deleted your page! Then I saw DigitalC restored the chiropage... so I restored yours? -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Bug:_revisions.2Fpagesizes.2Fpagerendering.2Fwikisource_not_matching_up.2C_resulting_in_blanking_or_page_replacements - DigitalC (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Your edit was inaccurate.[25] It is more than just Keating and you do not have consensus. See Inaccurate insertion of "Simon says" phrases. QuackGuru 18:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add you comments on Chiropractic talk where those who reached consensus can discuss it with you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have consensus for your edit and it was a misleading to say it was just Keating. QuackGuru 02:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add you comments on Chiropractic talk where those who reached consensus can discuss it with you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a rough consensus supporting that edit. Please comment at Talk:Chiropractic to help improve it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Slow edit warring isn't the way to go about this [26] [27] [28] [29]. QuackGuru, please consider discussion. And that doesn't mean that you state your point and then do another revert. Discussion should strive to reach a consensus for or against such an edit - and currently, as Coppertwig points out - there is a rough consensus in favor of Dematt's edit. I added a wikilink to his edit (to the Keating article) which I believe will help satisfy your concerns in terms of attribution and NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112, please consider reading the discussion and not ignoring my comment.[30] QuackGuru 07:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, you have made the same comment over and over, and myself and others have replied and refuted it several times. It is unreasonable for us to respond again and again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt, please read the discussion.[31] It is very clear that it is misleading to say it was just Keating. There is more than one source in the article that is being cited. I'm sure you know of this. QuackGuru 03:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt was simply restoring an edit I had originally put in. I still haven't gotten all the sources straight in my mind. Some of the sources don't use the words quoted but other words with similar meaning. At least one source has Keating as one co-author; at least one other source has Keating as the sole author. A number of different wordings have been suggested, some of which make it clear that more than one author has been making a similar point. Have you commented on Gleng's latest suggested version yet? Please discuss at Talk:Chiropractic. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Gleng's latest suggested version.

Again, it was not simply Keating.[32] Read the discussion and this will help to avoid adding misleading text to the article.[33] QuackGuru 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Levine2112 was inaccurate because it was more than Keating.[34] What do you think about the misleading edit. QuackGuru 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that Levine reverted was less misleading because it substituted "chiropractic researchers" for "Keating" which is not any more accurate. It implies that "all" chiropractic researchers think it is antiscience. The source doesn't say that either. Let's keep this on chiro talk so we don't have to answer things 5 and 10 times. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried commenting on the talk page before but it did not help. The edit Levine2112 made was misleading per Dematt. This is easy to fix. We know saying only Keating is misleading. There are two ways to possibly fix this. Remove the attribution or just use the word researchers. I think saying "some researchers" would water down the source. I will try to work this out. But if the misleading text is not fixed within 24 hours I may report it to the neutrality noticeboard. Dematt, if you want you could make a report about the edit to the neatrality noticeboard. QuackGuru 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, we have to come up with something better than researchers before we change it. Researchers infers that all researchers think this, which is even more misleading. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "some rearchers" would be misleading. Saying only Keating is the most misleading. Simons says attribution has not helped. We should remove the attribution until a better idea is given. According to Dematt it is misleading to imply it was only Keating. QuackGuru 00:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears that the only thing to do at this point is to remove the whole sentence until we can get it right then. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The edit that Levine reverted was less misleading" - Dematt. "QuackGuru, we have to come up with something better" - Dematt. Please look at Gleng suggestion and per Coppertwig below: "QuackGuru, would you please comment on this in the appropriate section at Talk:Chiropractic#Speaking as a historian?"

Dematt, that might be the best thing to do for the time being. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit made by Levine2112 was still misleading - QuackGuru

Well, that did not adrress the issue. Removing the entire sentence is worse the watering down the source. There is always the neutrality noitceborad for outside opinion or a RFC or both. There are a lot more options available. I disagree that "it appears that the only thing to do at this point is to remove the whole sentence". Again, we have options available. QuackGuru 01:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course I was talking about until we can get it worked out. Otherwise, there is always the noticeboard but I have never done one of those. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read my edit summary for suggestions.[35] I prefer to fix the inaccurate text by removing the misleading attribution. That would be the easiest way to fix this. Simon says attribution did not work. QuackGuru 01:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would leave the Keating's opinion stated as fact. It needs to be attributed to somebody, we just have to figure out who, right now Keating is the most accurate. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it needs to attributed to somebody? More than one source verified the text. It is not just Keating. QuackGuru 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is an opinion needs to be attributed to a person or group of people. It doesn't matter how many there are. For example, there are people that say that democrats in the USA are unamerican because they don't support the war in Iraq. We can't just say: "Democrats are unamerican" just because there are more than one person who says that. What we should be writing on wikipedia is that "Republican's rhetoric includes that Democrats are "unamerican". That way the reader can understand who said what. That's just an example, but hopefully you can see that that way we avoid taking sides as democrats deserve the same respect as those republicans on wikipedia. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should not attribute everything in the article. Every reliable source could be said to be an opinion. Why attribute this text when other text is not attributed. Moreover, I do not see any relible source disagreeing with the reliable sources. QuackGuru 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I think I've heard that before. Let's return this to the chiro talk page so that we don't have to keep repeating it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously attributing it to only Keating is inaccurate. Using the word researchers is most neutral. If you don't like using researchers for attribution then we can remove all the attribution. Which way do you want to go with this. Attribution or no attribution. QuackGuru 01:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[36]The word researchers is closer to NPOV and does not go far the other way. QuackGuru 07:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<<outdent) I meant this suggestion by Gleng: "the other end rely on postulates that are not part of mainstream science and medicine, and which, according to critics within the chiropractic profession, reveal dogmatic attitudes and uncritical thinking." QuackGuru, would you please comment on this in the appropriate section at Talk:Chiropractic#Speaking as a historian? Please state there what your objection to it is, if you object to this version. It says "critics" plural, so the fact that it was more than Keating is not an objection to this version. Please try to suggest another wording that everyone is likely to agree to. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read a proposal at chiro talk. It explains things in a bit more detail. Is that satisfactory for you. See Talk:Chiropractic#Phillips 2005 speaking as a historian in PPC Haldeman. QuackGuru 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dematt, you are implying that only Keating is sourced and it should only be attributed to Keating[37] but there is evidence on the chiro talk that is was more than Keating and there is evidence I explained this to on your talk page[38] and according to you the current text is still misleading.[39] QuackGuru 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, I haven't made up my mind yet and I don't think I implied that is should only be attributed to Keating with that diff, though I might depending on where the "Evidence based guideline" sentence came from. I still can't figure out where it states that evidence base is supported only by one side. Do you know? -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying here in an attempt to give the archive bot a break. You had said at Talk:Chiropractic, quoting me,: "Coppertwig, It wouldn't make sense to say someone is doing original research simply because they put a sourced statement on a page where it's irrelevant. What would you call it?"
I would just call it an irrelevant statement. It isn't "research". It violates good style or good organization of pages, but I don't think it violates the core policies. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DFTT seems suddenly appropriate. :-) Do you have the Resilient Barnstar yet? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in expanding the Chiropractic#Treatment procedures section. Do you have any suggestions. QuackGuru 07:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]