Talk:Chiropractor

AFD

The AFD was closed.

I've explained in some detail, the basis for the decision, and then decided to make a couple of the more obvious "move things around and add useful sections" edits to speed it on its way towards being a stable article, if that's where it is taken. I havent edited or deleted any text in doing so, just reordered it a bit to kickstart the next bit of cleanup. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFD was closed but things have not changed. The article is worse now. It reads like a promotional advertizement for the chiropractic industry. There was no cleanup. The article has been given a chance. Now its time to merge it or send it straight to the AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed along time ago and things have gotten steadily worse. This article is inflated and redundant. There is the main Chiropractic education article that covers this topic. A lot of text here is unreferenced. This article is a bit of an embarrassment. It is largely a POVFORK of a controversial discipline. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Levine2112's edit summary the article has problems. The article is a promotional piece. It is essentially spam. Me thinks it is a big problem. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to redirect to the chiropractic education article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Too bold. Please join us in the discussion below. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The problems with this article have not been fixed after about a year so I made this change. We should not ignore the problems brought up in this thread. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert warring

E, will you please revert your revert. I gave good reasons in my edit summary. You have not addressed these reasons. I will expand on them for you. The material deleted was repeated, albeit in a slightly different form, on the main chiro page. You know as well as I do that that material is subject to an ongoing POV discussion and the issues are not yet settled. It is thus wrong of you to attempt to reinsert it. A link to the chiro article will serve just as well and avoid making wikipedia look ridiculous by having two or more different definitions of chiro on various pages. Mccready (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns on my talk page. Please refrain from making major edits and discuss your concerns on Talk first, not the other way around. Also, 1RR hardly makes a war, so please don't cry wolf. EBDCM (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Again I have edited your edit to indent. Please remember to do so. No you have not addressed my concerns. Please re-read the above and do so. If you abuse me once more, as you just did on your talkpage, I will consider gathering a list of your recent abuses, the advice you have been given by other editors to desist and my repeated pleas to you to desist and present these to AN/I. Please desist from uncivil behaviour. Mccready (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mccready, how could you possibly find my previous reply to you uncivil? I simply asked that you get consensus on talk pages and bring up major edits there so we can collaborate on them together. I abide by treat others how you want to be treated. You have treated me and other chiropractors with contempt for no other reason than me being a DC. If my tone is short with you it's because you have treated me the same way. I also question the veracity of some of your edits, because you cannot seem to acknowledge when scientific studies refutes your edits and arguments. I would be more than happy to never talk to you again, but because you insist on daily editing of CAM it looks like we're going to have to co-exist. Cheers. EBDCM (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can't see it, please ask someone you trust to point it out to you. Your comment above is uncivil ("I would be more than happy to never talk to you again"). Please address the issue of substance in your edit. This is the third time I've asked. Mccready (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was reversed because major edits require some kind of consensus, preferably, and at least need some discussion in a talk page. The edit was reversed because a quick definition of chiropractic is appropriate in an article about Doctor of Chiropractic. It provides appropriate context for the subject matter. However, I would rather not talk to you (my POV) because it is my personal experience, and other editors, that you are a difficult editor to get along with. Your previous history of blocks (repeat offender) disruptive edits (repeat offender) and accusation of gaming the system makes me somewhat skeptical of your editing intentions. Editors and admins can feel free to go to your talk page and see what I'm saying is factual. I hope I have answered your query. EBDCM (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

QG pov tag

QG, please show with V:RS and not assert your own opinion that Chiropractors are not Doctors.--Hughgr (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to show that chiropractors are doctors. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The name of the degree conferred upon graduates of accredited chiropractic schools is "Doctor of Chiropractic". Enough said. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the USA, chiropractors can legally use the title "Doctor of Chiropractic" (DC). Hughgr and Levine2112 are correct, and the article is properly sourced on that point. End of discussion. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was being implied that Doctor of Chiropractic was the same as a medical doctor, that would be one thing. But, in this case, it's used in the same sense as Doctor of Divinity: To indicate a degree level higher than a Masters degree. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Background to chiropractic section

This section seems to be written in order to advocate chiropracty. It reads like an advertisement, and should probably be at least rewritten extensively, possibly trimmed heavily. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic education seems to cover the same material better, and also explains that degree names vary somewhat by country. I've decided to try out a redirect there, and see what people think. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Too bold. These are separate subjects. Just the same as Doctor of Medicine and Medical education. I agree that this article has issues, but deleting it is just too easy. :-) It needs to be written with more sources for sure. We may want to revisit the BLS source now, since it has recently been updated. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is duplication, spam, and a promtional ad. The article is largely POV too. Please participate in the discussion above. See Talk:Doctor of Chiropractic#AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it here in this discussion. The one above looks like it died last July. I agree that this article needs some work. It is a notable subject though and thus there should exist an article on this topic. Let's work at making this one better. I think the first step is sourcing. Again, the BLS source has been updated by some three years since the one we have used in this article had been published. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed notification at ANI letting them know about the current situation. Please standby. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't mean for this to turn into an edit war. How about I leave this be until the situation settles down a bit? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can resume discussions now. What do you think of using the updated BLS source in order to source more of this article and get it more inline with WP:V? Are there other sources which you'd like to use as well? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of chiropractic, and have been successfully treated for neck pain before. However, I don't see the point of having a "Doctor of Chiropractic" article that's separate from "Chiropractic" -- can someone make a convincing argument for it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't say whether or not it is convincing, but following the lead of Medicine, there are also article for Doctor of Medicine and Medical education. Essentially, there is an article for the discipline, one for the occupation/degree and one for the education. In the same way, Chiropractic has Doctor of Chiropractic and Chiropractic education. I would assume that if we are in favor of deleting Doctor of Chiropractic then we would also be in favor of deleting Doctor of Medicine. Is that the case? Or have I made a convincing argument to preserve (and rework) this article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If we decide to keep/improve this article, then I also think we need to address the redundancies with Chiropractic education which Shoemaker's Holiday has pointed out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There's lots of things we could do to fix the redundancies - move content around, merge, trim material, etc. I think that the first thing we need to do is figure out about how much of the world this article applies to in its current form. If this article describes a situation in North America alone, say, then we need to start being very specific about geographic location. If there are similar but non-identical degrees in many countries, we need to have a lot more use of subsections. If we have a naming problem between countries or jurisdictions, then we need to decide what to do about that. And so on and so forth. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A better parallel would be Osteopathic medicine and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. There's a lot less duplication between those two articles than this and Chiropractic. Are there chiropractic practitioners who are not DC? If so, it makes sense to split them: if not, not so much. (Medical Doctor should be split from Medicine because of Nurses, if for no other reason...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are non-chiropractors performing chiropractic (a lot of times without license to do so - masseuses come to mind). There are even MDs who perform "chirotherapy". I think this is fairly popular in Germany. There are arguments that other professions such as physical therapy, have practitioners performing chiropractic maneuvers. Is this what you are asking? If we are to follow the Osteopathic model you mention above, then would we be keeping this article and rather deleting/merging the Chiropractic education article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm going to combine my responses to several threads here:

- First off, I think we could do better than the BLS source for most of this article, since the Bureau of Labour Statistics is great for discussing, you know, labour statistics, but it's not exactly the first place I'd go for medical advice.

Now, as for the thornier problems:

1. Is Doctor of Chiropractic used worldwide? If it's North America only, say, we need to make that explicit.

1a. If it isn't worldwide, are we better covering this with similar titles in Chiropractic education instead?

1b. If it is reasonably worldwide, should of Chiropractic education be merged here?

2. Do we need the Background of chiropractic section? It's rather off-topic. If we deleted it, would we still have enough context? Could any missing context be set out neutrally in one or two paragraphs instead of the huge multi-page section we have now?

I think answering these questions would be a good first step to deciding what to do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, my answer to 2. is that we probably need some context, but what we have isn't very good. Question 1 is important for figuring out the context and framing of this article, and I'm not sure what the answer is. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend a merge to Chiropractic education, this entire article could be covered by a paragraph in that article, which would avoid the obvious redundancy of having two articles on this rather minor topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tim that a merge might be desirable. The Chiropractic education article isn't very large and can bear the inclusion of this subject. The DC degree isn't universal, and that needs to be made clear. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• One of the problems here is that the "doctor of chiropractic" qualification lacks the recognition of doctor of medicine, but is very obviously used to assert parity by some of the less scrupulous. We already know that there are parts of chiropractic whihc verge on fraud, and other parts which have at least some mainstream support. Comparing this with chiropractic education I see a fair bit of support for the idea that they offer competing POV on the same subject, and it would be fallacious to compare with doctor of medicine since that has a very much wider currency. A merger would seem to make sense, at least in the first instance, with a potential split one day if that article becomes too long. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So far in this discussion only one editor is strongly in favor of keeping this a separate article, the other editors who have commented either are unconvinced of the utility of this article, or support a merge, either to chiropractic or chiropractic education. Do people agree that this a fair summary of this discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem with merging this article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I support a merger with Chiropractic education, but there's way too much material here to merge it all into Chiropractic. There may be one or two points here that are worth mentioning in Chiropractic #Education, but the vast majority of this material should be moved to Chiropractic education, if a merger is to take place.
• There are a few points in Chiropractic #Education that don't seem to be covered either here or in Chiropractic education; it would be helpful to mention them in the merged article, whatever it is. I didn't study the pages carefully but they don't seem to cover WHO guidelines, conversion programs, residency, postgraduate education, which countries have established programs, sources of funding, straight vs. mixer curricula, number of people with degrees, or disciplinary actions. Not that I have time to write a lot of details about that stuff! But for starters these points can be copied from Chiropractic to the merged subarticle.

Eubulides (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually say to go the other way and merge Chiropractic education into Doctor of Chiropractic. This is more aligned with what has been done with the Osteopathic medicine and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine model (There is no Osteopathic education article). In any case, I think we need to do a formal AfD and open this up to the rest of the community. Yes? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See subsection "Merge the other way?" below. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge the other way?

Levine2112 (LV) has said that LV would be in favour of merge if it goes the other way, keeping Doctor of Chiropractic and turning Chiropractic education into a redirect. Is there consensus for doing it this way? (If no objection, then no need to AfD. My own position on the merge is neutral.) ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Merging Chiropractic education into Doctor of Chiropractic because the degree is more notable than the education. Education is part of the degree, not the other way around. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Levine