Wikipedia

Talk:History of chiropractic/Archive 1

< Talk:History of chiropractic
(Redirected from Talk:Chiropractic history/Archive 1)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by QuackGuru in topic Antiquackery

Congratulations to Dematt!

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now you've got an official place to place your whole treasure chest of chiro history. This is going to be a great article. It's a fascinating subject with lots of good sources, both pro and con. Keating's archives can be used extensively. He is one chiropractic historian who has not tried to whitewash things. He has written many articles on chiropractic history, and held many speeches. They can also be referenced and listed in the external links. -- Fyslee 12:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder if anybody will ever read it;) --Dematt 12:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Resources

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


This link is unfortunately a commercial one -- Chirofind.com Chiropractic history -- but the links it contains can be listed and used:

  • Historical Aspects - Larry Spicer, DC, Dynamic Chiropractic, July 13, 1998, Volume 16, Issue 15
From that article:
In 1898 D.D. Palmer, founder of chiropractic, was still teaching and practicing according to his original theory of chiropractic. This seminal idea, a transitional concept from the magnetic hypotheses (Palmer, 1896) that had guided his alternative healing practice since 1886, held that disease was due to displacements of anatomic parts, which caused friction, created heat, and thereby produced inflammation (Keating, 1991, 1992; Palmer, 1897a&b). Not until 1903, while teaching and practicing in Santa Barbara, California, would Old Dad Chiro reduce his chiropractic concept to an exclusive concern for neural influences in health and illness (Keating, 1995). The "bone-pinches-nerve" notion was surely part of Palmer's first theory, but only a part, as he made clear in his discussion of the cause and treatment of cancer:
...The cause is an obstruction to the blood circulation and an injury to certain nerves. Show us a case of cancer -- no matter in what portion of the body that cancer may be -- and we will at once show you two injuries which obstruct the blood circulation and injure certain nerves. It is this combination of injured nerves and obstructions which cause cancers.

-- Have fun! -- Fyslee 13:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead is not a summary

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lead to Chiropractic history should serve as an introduction and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. Currently, the lead doesn't do that; it merely gives the historical background before the history of chiropractic starts. It should summarize all of chiropractic history. I'll insert a Template:Intro-rewrite to mark this problem. Eubulides (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a short lead. It can be added to and modified. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing needed

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This paragraph, in the last section of the article, doesn't appear to me to be supported by the source: "The AMA distributed propaganda to teachers and guidance counselors, eliminated "Chiropractic" from the U.S Department of Labor's Health Careers Guidebook, and established specific educational guidelines for medical schools regarding the "hazards to individuals from the unscientific cult of chiropractic."" The ref given is: Phillips R (2003), Dynamic Chiropractic Truth and the Politics of knowledge ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I found the actual source, which is unreliable conspiracy theory based on a few facts. I wonder if more content has been used from that source! -- Fyslee / talk 05:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Good catch, I rewrote the sentence to reflect closer to the source. Thanks for the interest! I can't imagine that I put that source in, it probably came from when it was on the chiro page.., but nobody's perfect :-) Do check other refs and make sure they are accurate. Isn't it time to put the Wilk suit in this anyway? -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mysticism?

Latest comment: 14 years ago32 comments5 people in discussion

This edit inserts claims that 1) chiropractic is rooted in mysticism and 2) that these roots have led the internal conflicts. This is not in the source given. Here's what's in the source with regard to the internal conflict:

  • These victories (Wilk, etc) came at the price of ‘‘taming’’ and ‘‘medicalizing’’ chiropractic. In turn, this formed the basis of a conflict within the chiropractic profession the dispute between ‘‘mixers’’ and ‘‘straights’' conflict which continues to the present day.

It was court victories etc which led to the internal conflicts according to the source. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what source you are reading. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm quoting from the actual source; not the abstract of the source. I suggest you read the actual source if you have access. It clearly states what I quoted above - that the "victories" formed the basis of a conflict between mixers and straights. So it seems the source is in conflict with its abstract. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Rooted and basis are two different things. It is different points. What is in conflict is chiropractors. Where did it originate from. The mystical ideas. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Levine2112, would you please provide us with a link to the full source, and preferably copy the relevant portion with a little context here? That would be very helpful Since the conflicts between mixers and straights have existed for decades before the legal victories mentioned, the quoted "mystical concepts" makes more sense, and that is the actual quote. If the full text says something different, I'd sure like to read it and figure this out. Maybe it's talking about something different, and possibly two different types of conflicts, because there is no doubt that conflicts have existed for about a century. Without the full text, we'll have to go with what is verifiable for the common public. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have access to the full-text. I cannot give you my access. I have quoted the relevant passage above. If you'd like more context, I can provide more of the quote:

... Eventually, the escalating battle against the medical establishment was won in ‘‘the trial of the century.’’ In 1987, sections of the U.S. medical establishment were found ‘‘guilty of conspiracy against chiropractors,’’ a decision which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990. In other countries, similar legal battles were fought, usually with similar outcomes. Only rarely did they not result in the defeat of the ‘‘establishment:’’ In 1990, a Japanese Ministry of Health report found that chiropractic is ‘‘not based on the knowledge of human anatomy but subjective and unscientific.’’

Internal Conflict

These victories came at the price of ‘‘taming’’ and ‘‘medicalizing’’ chiropractic. In turn, this formed the basis of a conflict within the chiropractic profession the dispute between ‘‘mixers’’ and ‘‘straights’’ conflict which continues to the present day ...

It's clear from this (at least to me) that the abstract doesn't accurately portray what is in the full-text. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for providing some context. There does seem to be a conflict between that quote and the abstract. I suspect that they're talking about two different, but related, conflicts, but I don't know what the second and newer conflict (after the "victories") would be. The abstract clearly identifies "mystical concepts" as the root of internal conflicts. The quote you provide (but is it possible that somewhere else in the source there is something that backs up the abstract?) doesn't mention "mystical concepts", but points to "victories" and "the price...", and the "basis of a conflict" can point to either one or the other, or both. If it's pointing to "the price", that is an old issue that goes to way before the legal victories, way back to the "mystical concepts" origins of chiropractic, when D.D. Palmer got his instructions from the spirit of Dr. Atkinson:
  • "Palmer's interest in spiritulism had a major role in his claims regarding the spiritual origins of chiropractic. He claimed to have received the principles of chiropractic "from the other world" (during spiritistic seances), from a "supernatural source", the long dead medical physician, Dr. Jim Atkinson." [1]
The conflicts between straights and mixers goes way back to the early days, and that is undeniable. The abstract is very accurate in this regard (I'm sure you will agree about that), no matter what the unclear wording in the body of the source says or means, and I'm still not sure about that. There may well be some reference to "mystical concepts" in the body of the reference.
If a few words and a comma were added to the quote you have, there would be harmony between that quote and the abstract:
  • "These victories came at the price of ‘‘taming’’ and ‘‘medicalizing’’ chiropractic. In turn, this taming and medicalizing had formed the original basis of a conflict within the chiropractic profession, the dispute between ‘‘mixers’’ and ‘‘straights’’ conflict which continues to the present day ..."
That version makes sense. A version that attempts to make the victories alone the basis makes no sense, and the original sentence is even awkwardly worded and poor grammar, making it hard to be sure what the author intended. There is no evidence that the victories had any role in starting a new conflict, or being the "basis" of a conflict, but possibly of inflamming the old conflict. The internal conflict has existed from the early days. This is all "Chiropractic history 101".
Another way to understand the quote (without adding more words) is to point to a possible inflammation of the old conflict. The old conflict originated in "mystical concepts", upon which straights and mixers disagreed. Then much later the legal victory had a price tag. It meant that the modern chiropractic profession was forced to clean up its act, and this brought the old conflicts out into the open as the straights found their dominance threatened by reformers who spoke out, and some leaders began to call for a dropping of beliefs in vertebral subluxations. That did happen after the legal victory. That was indeed a price tag. Cultural authority became a goal, and that goal could/can only be achieved by "taming and medicalizing chiropractic", IOW making chiropractic acceptable to mainstream medicine by dropping the straight's "one cause, one cure" idea of VS/adjustments, accepting differential diagnoses, and using other methods (IOW "mixing") than spinal adjustments. This is a constant accusation from the straight side, and is all "Chiropractic history 201".
That's the other way to see it -- an inflammation of the old conflict -- and they all harmonize with the abstract, although the abstract just doesn't mention the modern legal victory. That parsing makes sense of it all. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you suggest we do with regards to the text in question then? I think it puts too much emphasis on the mysticism being the root of the schism, when clearly there are other factors - at least this according to the source given. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the text in question, this shows a basis for intensifying conflict, not the root. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Abstract: Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today.
History: The history of chiropractic is ‘‘rooted in quasi-mystical concepts.’’20
This Abstract and History is from Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mystical ideas sourced

The source states: Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today.[2] QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The text is faithful to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today" is a direct quote from the abstract... so it is sourced... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
[3][4]I think I know who the IP sock is. QuackGuru (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP who made this edit is a similar IP number that made this edit. While he was logged in the suspected sock made edit. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
This IP sock seems to be the same IP sock here. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This IP sock claimed "Undocumented claim". And Levine2112 was quick to claim that, actually I just read the source. It says nothing about Mysticism... see talk..
It seems more and more like Levine2112 is the sock master of IP and puppets accounts, an expert gamer of the system. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Jesus... are you on drugs? those IP addresses are nothing a like... they don't even start with the same number! But doesnt wikipedia have a way of tracking down people who use a bunch of account and IPs? maybe you should post it there instead of here because i dont think many people here can do anything about it 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a checkuser for admins. Did you know it is easy to change your IP number or have a dynamic IP. A person can change their IP number at any time. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Stmrlbs makes a controversial edit and Levine2112 reverts back to the edit made by Stmrlbs. Levine2112 reverts an edit and Stmrlbs reverts to the edit made by Levine2112. Tag teaming or sockpuppetery? Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is another IP sock. This has been going on for a number of months now. QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Pls take this somewhere else... its not related to improving the article & youve been an editor here for long enough to have seen WP:TALK 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

None of these are me. I am not Strmlbs nor any of these IP addresses. Please WP:AGF and realize that other editors don't appreciate your POV pushing and edit war bully tactics. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break, Quackguru. I reverted vandalism 30+ minutes after it was made by 32.174.109.187. And 32.133.106.62 isn't even the same IP! Not even close.
I am not Levine2112. I am not any of these people, and I have no "puppets". I don't appreciate the wild accusations, QuackGuru. You and BullRangifer seem to think everyone that doesn't share your point of view must be a puppet or have puppets (BullRangifer has also alluded to me being someone else). It is bad faith.
--stmrlbs|talk 17:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.174.126.62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.174.185.155
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.154.164.246
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.173.111.155
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.173.129.141
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.174.109.187
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.133.106.62
All the dynamic IPs originate from the same place. All these IPs point to one thing. I think it is obvious who it is. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
and this proves... what? what exactly do you think these IPs point to?
You do know that a person does not have to have an IP to participate on Wikipedia. And you do understand that some people have hosts that rotate IPs.
--stmrlbs|talk 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this comment the text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.191.172.116
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.191.166.100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.191.225.235
This IP sock seems to be the same IP sock here. Here is another IP sock making a revert without discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
QuackGuru, take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. But remember this part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet: "Fishing" – or general trawling of users in a debate for possible sockpuppets – is not supported and requests for such checks are unlikely to be agreed to.
--stmrlbs|talk 22:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This IP sock reverted without explanation. I have been waiting for an explanation from the IP. Or did an editor conveniently forgot to log in. In any event, when no explanation was given to this edit we should revert to the last version prior to the edit made by the IP. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This IP sock made a strange statement asserting that the text was an "Undocumented claim" before Levine2112 claimed the abstract says nothing about Mysticism when the abstract clearly indicates the text is faithfully sourced. And then Levine2112 was quick to support the IP sock with a revert stating, actually I just read the source. It says nothing about Mysticism... see talk..
(diff) 01:07, 9 May 200918:00 The IP 166.191.166.100: Here the IP sock claims... Undocumented claim
(diff) 01:29, 9 May 2009 by Levine2112: Here Levine2112 makes the same claim as the IP 166.191.166.100 and... Reverted to revision 288781918 by 166.191.166.100; actually I just read the source. It says nothing about Mysticism... see talk. using TW
See Talk:Chiropractic#Mysterious IP reverts. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
These aren't me. If you want to file a SOCK investigation, please be my guest. Otherwise, please stop this harrassment. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The cure for all diseases

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The ‘‘straights’’ religiously adhere to D.D. Palmer’s notions of the ‘‘innate intelligence’’ and view subluxation as the sole cause and manipulation as the sole cure of all human disease.

According to D.D. Palmer, manipulation is the cure of all disease for the human race.[1] QuackGuru (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Need a reliable source

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

These papers were the basis of Wilk et al. vs. AMA, the suit brought by Chester Wilk, D.C., of Illinois and five co-plaintiffs against the AMA and several co-defendants. After two trials, on September 25, 1987, Getzendanner issued her opinion that the AMA had violated Section 1, but not 2, of the Sherman Act, and that it had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade "to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession." (Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n, 671 F. Supp. 1465, N.D. Ill. 1987).

This text was recently added without a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, QuackGuru! I never would have noticed that other link was bad if you hadn't pointed this out. --stmrlbs|talk 03:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is res judicata, from the Wilk Suit, and appears in the Court's public opinion. Д-рСДжП,ДС 22:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit did not match the edit summary

Latest comment: 14 years ago41 comments3 people in discussion

This edit did not clarify the text. The edit removed information sourced from the text. The text currently in the article is very close to what the book says. Deleting it with the edit summary clarify/summarize gives me the impression the editor did not read the book. QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is clarifying (that is, making more clear), because it is confusing to the reader to say that it was more likely patricide (and presenting that as fact), then stating it was speculation, then stating that this is an absurd myth. The way I have reworded it clearly presents that there has been some speculation that it was speculation[patricide]. This is exactly what the authors of trick or treatment are doing, is speculating. It is also summarizing the information, rather than giving excessive weight to the views of the authors of Trick or Treatment (and stating basically the same thing twice using different words). DigitalC (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You did not clarify what the source said. You deleted what the source said form the book. You rewrote it that changed the meaning of the sentence. If you read the book then please provide the exact sentence(s) from the book that discusses the patricide. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You are ignoring what I have wrote, and are instead aiming at whether I have read the source or not, which is not important. For the record though, the relevant text says:

D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later - officially the cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son. Indeed there is speculation that this was not an accident, but rather a case of patricide."

First of all, the text does NOT support the claim that "it was more likely", only that "it seems more likely". When the authors say "it seems more likely", they are putting forth an opinion - they are speculating. We already have in the article that "There was speculation it was not an accident, but possibly a case of patricide", so their opinion that it seems more likely does not add anything to the article, and is duplication. DigitalC (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
DigitalC deleted the most important part of the paragraph which explain the disagreement between the two sources and gives and explantion into the patricide. Arguing the text is unsourced when the word "seems" is not there is not a good reason to delete. Anyone could add the word "seems" instead of deleting an explanation about patricide. Now the reader does not understand the meaning of the sentence. The word "patricide" is not a common word which makes it difficault to understand. To explain what the book said without confusing the reader we can include "but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son." There are two sources that disagrees with each other. It is best to give equal weight to both sources rather than delete text that now makes it unclear what the entire paragraph is saying. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The word patricide is not difficult to understand, but I wikilinked it to the relevant article to help any reader who doesn't know what it means or would like to know more. We are giving equal weight to both sources. One states that there was speculation that it was not an accident, and the other states that such speculation is an absurd myth. It is also worth noting that one source is written by a chiropractic historian, best known for his published works as a historian of chiropractic. The other source is written by someone who has been described as "the scourge of alternative medicine", who has a noted bias when it comes to Chiropractic, and whose book has been described as "juvenile and condescending". DigitalC (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The word is difficult to understand. I did not know the meaning of the word without a dictionary. We cannot count on a reader having to click on a link to reader another page to understand what is meant in this article. Adding a little context will fix the problem and give equal weight to both sources. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son. There was speculation it was not an accident, but possibly a case of patricide."
This version above explains what is meant from the source. This version below removed what was meant from the source.
"The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid.[neutrality is disputed] There was speculation it was not an accident, but possibly a case of patricide.[vague]"
Rewriting the text changed the meaning of the sentences and left out important details. QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what the important detail is? The opinion of Edzard Ernst on this matter is not an important detail. Ernst is speculating as to the cause of death. DigitalC (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I can explain again what important details was removed. We can start here. The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but the book disgrees with the conclusion (but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son.) which changed the meaning of the entire paragraph. The text now says "The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid." The book does not agree with that statement so the text is misleading. It is misleading to claim the source agreed with the offical cause of death. QuackGuru (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not misleading, as it then follows to say that there was speculation that his death was a case of patricide. DigitalC (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
What it goes on to say is a different sentence that does not address that the book disagrees with the official cause of death. Why do you think it is not misleading to claim the book agrees with the cause of death when is clearly disagrees it was typhoid. The speculation in another sentence does not explain that the book said "it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son". The conclusion the book made that it seems more likely the son murderered his father is missing from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The book is speculating that the cause of death is patricide. The article already states that such speculation exists. DigitalC (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not generally about the book saying there was speculation that the cause of death was patricide. This is about the book strong disagrees with the the official cause of death as typhoid which was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit did not clarify anything. Now the text is unclear and vague:
  • "The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son. There was speculation it was not an accident, but possibly a case of patricide."
The book does not think is was merely speculation. The book says it seems more like it was murder and not an accident. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary was ("it was more likely" is an unattributed opinion, which clearly conflicts with the information later in the paragraph.).
This is attributed to the 2008 Trick or Treatment book at the beginning of the paragraph. The information conflicts with the information from another source later in the paragraph. Instead of allowing both POVs to be included in the article the editor repeatedely deleted the documented information that has a different opinion. This is a direct violation of WP:NPOV to delete a significant viewpoint. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really interested in settling this disagreement? Well, the sources make it clear that there is a disagreement about the cause of death. No source, even skeptical ones, deny that the official cause of death was typhoid fever. Skeptical sources place emphasis on the injuries inflicted by being hit by BJ's car as being a contributing factor in his death.

Where there is a disagreement, Wikipedia's job is to document that disagreement, not present only one side of the story. The solution is to include sources that document both POV.

It should also include the fact that B.J. Palmer was charged with attempted murder, but the case was thrown out of court. There is of course speculation about why he was acquitted, such as the fact that he controlled the town of Davenport, but such speculation can't be used, as, TTBOMK, it isn't found in a reliable enough source. Most of the available sources are mentioned here. Some of the sources mentioned there can be used.

Our wording should state clearly that there is disagreement about the true cause of death and mention typhoid fever as the official cause of death, but that some consider the accident to have been a contributing factor. It's an unsolved mystery, and it isn't Wikipedia's job to solve the mystery. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit proposal

See D.D. Palmer's last years.

Current version. "A few weeks later D.D. Palmer died. The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid.[dubious – discuss] There was speculation it was not an accident, but possibly[not in citation given] a case of patricide."

Proposed version. The book indicated "D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later - officially the cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son. Indeed there is speculation that this was not an accident, but rather a case of patricide."<ref name="Trick or Treatment"/>

I propose replacing the current version with the proposed version using the exact quotes from the book. QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)(Reformatted proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Your formatting doesn't make it clear which quote is the proposed new content. Is it the first quote or the second one? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Please respond here, not in edit summaries. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This version still does not make it clear that "it seems more likely" was the opinion of the authors of Trick or Treatment. It attributes a fact (that D. D. Palmer died a few weeks later) instead. A better version would be:
"D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later, with the official cause of death recorded as typhoid. [However], according to Trick or Treatment, it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son, and there is speculation that it was not an accident, but [instead] a case of patricide. Chiropractic historian Joseph C. Keating, Jr. has described the attempted patricide of D.D. Palmer as a myth and "absurd on its face" and cites an eyewitness who recalled that DD was not struck by BJ's car, but rather, had stumbled".
This would present both sides of the dispute - some speculate that it was patricide, some say he wasn't even hit by the car. It isn't our job to present on view over the other. DigitalC (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) - edited to add "instead", to help move this forward. DigitalC (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC) - edited to add "However", in relation to a comment by QuackGuru [5]. DigitalC (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This part of the proposal by DigitalC is already in the article. "Chiropractic historian Joseph C. Keating, Jr. has described the attempted patricide of D.D. Palmer as a myth and "absurd on its face" and cites an eyewitness who recalled that DD was not struck by BJ's car, but rather, had stumbled."
There is no reason to propose text that is currently in the article. Why are you proposing to include text in the article you cut and paste from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
What I have proposed is a re-arrangement of the text from the article, which makes the two different points of view clear, rather than separating them. DigitalC (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
What you proposed from Joseph C. Keating, Jr seems like a cut and paste from the article. What is the difference from your proposal in regard to Joseph C. Keating, Jr existing text in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If you cannot see the difference between my proposed paragraph, and the paragraph in the article, then I don't see how we can move forward. DigitalC (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I assumed your proposal for Joseph C. Keating, Jr and the exisitng sentence in the article for Joseph C. Keating, Jr are the same becuase I don't see any difference except for the wikilink to Joseph C. Keating, Jr.. Does anyone else see a difference. I would like to know the difference or it it a cut and paste from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Current version.
"A few weeks later D.D. Palmer died. The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid.[dubious – discuss] There was speculation it was not an accident, but possibly[not in citation given] a case of patricide."
Proposed version.
The book Trick or Treatment indicated "D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later - officially the cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son. Indeed there is speculation that this was not an accident, but rather a case of patricide."<ref name="Trick or Treatment"/>
I have kept the quotes but made it clear it was from the book Trick or Treatment. DigitalC's proposal does not present both sides ogf the dispute. For example, the part about rather a case of patricide was left out in DigitalC's proposal. We have already included in the article Joseph C. Keating, Jr. explanation. By using the exact quotes from the book we are explaining the other side of the dispute which would present both sides of the dispute.
Deleting it with the edit summary clarify/summarize does not make sense. The edit did not clarify anything. Deleting information from the source attempts to misrepresent one side of the dispute which does not present both sides of the dispute.
Another edit alleged ("it was more likely" is an unattributed opinion, which clearly conflicts with the information later in the paragraph.). The text is clearly attributed to the book Trick or Treatment and when we include text that clearly conflicts with the information later in the paragraph we are including both sides of the dispute in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Stating that "it was more likely" is violating WP:NPOV because we are then taking sides in a dispute, rather than describing the various points of view. It is also fails verification, as the text says that "it SEEMS more likely", not that "it IS more likely". This shows that it is clearly an opinion, and as such we need to clearly denote it as an opinion in the article if we are going to include it. DigitalC (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, can we try to move forward, rather than you repeating yourself, and repeating old diffs? I have previously explained how I was attempting to clarify the text. The opinion that "it SEEMS more likely" is not clearly denoted as an opinion, as it needs to be. DigitalC (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
My proposal includes the words "but it seems more likely" from the source. I did not change the quotes from the text but your proposal changes the meaning of the exact quotes. No valid reason was given why the quotes can't be used. The statement from the source is attributed to the book using the name of the called Trick or Treatment.
You are taking sides in the dispute when you are continuing to deleting information from the source that disputes what another source says. In order to achieve NPOV we should include both sides of the dispute. Instead of deleting the portion you disagree with, the proposal is to use the exact quotes from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please stop violating WP:IDHT, and see my proposed paragraph above. My initial edits were much closer to NPOV than what was there, but I have tried to move forward and compromise with you. Unfortunately, you have claimed that it isn't different than what is in the article. DigitalC (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Leaving out text from the source is not NPOV. I am not re-arranging the text. Leaving out the word "rather" or not including a similar word to that affect changed the meaning of the entire sentence. I am using only the exact text from the source. How is that not NPOV. I think the only way to maintain NPOV at this point is to the exact text from the source which is attributed to the book in my proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding me here? "But" is another word for "rather", so I very clearly did include a similar word, and did not change the meaning of the sentence at all. The way that it is not NPOV is that it is not clearly denoted as opinion, as I stated above. Once again, you seem to have ignored what I have said. DigitalC (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
But "instead" was another word for "rather". Since you are continuing to argue about what the text should say the only way I can see to resolve this dispute is to use the extact wording from the source. By attributing it to the source called Trick or Treatment it is an opinion according to WP:ASF.
Please show me where you have talk page consensus for removing text that was in the article for a very long time. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I made improvements to the article. You are the only one to have complained about the changes. I have suggested alternate wording above. I have not seen any reasonable objections to that proposal.
Please also review WP:BRD, since you seem to have forgotten how it works. DigitalC (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Your changes altered the meaning of the Trick or Treatment statements and the only person who agreed with your edit is you. You did not gain consensus by deleting information you disagreed with. Please see WP:CON. Please revert your edit and restore to the established consensus version. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
My changes did not alter the meaning. The only person who has disagreed with the edit is you, and you have not provided any reasonable objections to my proposal above - which I only drafted to attempt to come to some sort of compromise with you. DigitalC (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You claimed you clarfied the sentence when the book believes it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son. The reason you deleted the text was because you don't like it that it conflicts with other information from another source later in the paragraph. NPOV is including information from both sources despite the disagreement. See WP:NPOV. It is not our job to decide which source is correct. It is our job to include both sides of the dispute or information. The part "rather" is still missing from your proposal. The source says "but rather a case of patricide". It was more than just "but". Can you explain why weakening or altering the original meaning attributed to Trick or Treatment is giving equal weight to both sources. Can you explain why you think the authors are the "the scourge of alternative medicine" or the book has been described as "juvenile and condescending". QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
My edit did clarify the sentence. You are mischaracterizing my edits again. The reason I deleted the text was because it was an unattributed opinion, which I believe to be unnecessary, as it is already described by the following sentence, which is "There was speculation it was not an accident, but possibly a case of patricide". We should not present something as fact when it is clearly an opinion, especially it is disputed by reliable sources.
"NPOV is including information from both sources despite the disagreement." - Absolutely, which the article still does, and which my proposal above does as well. Your attempt to represent my edits as anything else are tendentious editing.
"The part "rather" is still missing from your proposal." - It isn't missing, the word "but" is used instead. I don't feel that we need to use a direct quote here, and as such, we don't need to use it word-for-word from the source, as long as the meaning hasn't been changed. It hasn't. However, if it would please you, and help us move towards compromise, we could use "but instead a case of patricide".
"Can you explain why weakening or altering the original meaning attributed to Trick or Treatment is giving equal weight to both sources." - The opinion is NOT clearly attributed, and you know that to be true. Further, there is nothing which changed or altered to original meaning.
I didn't say that *I* think the author is the scourge of alternative medicine, and what I think doesn't matter. However, I do think it is worth noting that the author has been described in such a way, as noted on his wikipedia article. DigitalC (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Patricide controversy

Across different chiropractic pages there is a repeated pattern of weakening the arguments from the reliable source. See here, here, and here. For example, this edit summary claimed to clarify/summarize the sentence. This is far from the truth. The attribution for the text from the book is at the beginning of the paragraph. As a compromise I proposal adding the attribution to the beginning of the sentence. It is worth noting that thinks the text conflicts with other information from another source later in the paragraph. This was whitewashing the text and removing a significant part of the serious dispute including the dispute with the recorded death as typhoid and the dispute it was not an accident at all but rather a case of patricide. It was an unattributed opinion the cause of death as typhoid which has no attribtuion at the beginning of that sentence. Rather than rewritng the text or adding the attribution the editor decided to delete significant parts of the serious dispute but assert it was fact the cause of death. Again, as a compromise I propose using attribution for the entire sentence without splitting it up into different sentences or taking the sentence out of context. We should keep the sentence intact and not weaken the meaning from the original source.

Current version. The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid.[dubious – discuss] There was speculation it was not an accident, but possibly[not in citation given] a case of patricide.

Here is the proposal using attribution in accordance with ASF. The book Trick or Treatment indicated "officially the cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son. Indeed there is speculation that this was not an accident, but rather a case of patricide."[2] The attribution is clearly indicated using the name of the book and using quotations marks. QuackGuru (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I attempted a compromise. See here. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Antiquackery

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This edit removed the word "antiquackery" which diluted the meaning of the entire sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Did the AMA consider the efforts "antiquackery"? I looked and they used the term quackery on their website, so I guess it can stay. Maybe we should put it in quotes, since it is still not a neutral or typically encyclopedic term, or look for a synonym that paraphrases its meaning (anti-fraud, evidence-based, etc.). I'll leave that to you, and whatever you pick should work. Quackery is not my first choice, but I won't revert over it. Ocaasi 06:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I will let you restore it and I can review it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, putting it in quotes is a good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ernst E (2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". J Pain Symptom Manage. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. PMID 18280103.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Trick or Treatment was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_chiropractic/Archive_1&oldid=1057135119"