..."concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system"... This is what the WHO source says.

..."concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the neuro-musculoskeletal system. This is what the current lede says.

I think this is a WP:COPYVIO. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

As previously discussed above the first sentence is a copyvio from WHO. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kshilts has made edits to the lead (such as this one) that are removing fairly important and well-supported information from the lead. Overall, the edits seem to support a particular POV. Despite some pointers to use the talk page in the edit summaries, a warning on their talk page and a message on their talk explicitly directing them here, they have not started a discussion. I am hoping they will use this to discuss their changes before they get blocked. Ravensfire (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was written in the article that: "Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial, battling with mainstream medicine and sustained by dated dogmatic philosophical beliefs. Some have suggested certain elements of chiropractic philosophy constitutes pseudoscientific ideas. Despite the general consensus of public health professionals regarding the benefits of vaccination, there are significant disagreements among chiropractors, which has led to negative impacts on public vaccination and acceptance of chiropractic. The American Medical Association boycotted chiropractic until 1987, but in recent decades, chiropractic has developed a strong political base and sustained demand for services. Medical guidelines have been developed for the profession, and it has seen coverage by most health plans in the United States."

Here are few references to international publications though, that quite indisputably state that chiropractic is nowadays acknowledged by the traditional medicine as a special field of treatments, as well as included in the Current Care Guidelines on an International basis:

• World Health Organization WHO (Switzerland). Guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic. Geneva; 2005. www.who.org [2]
• Bergman TF, Peterson DH . Chiropractic Technique. Principles and Procedures. 3. edition (US) Elsevier-Mosby. 2011.
• Leboeuf-Yde C, Pedersen EN, Bryner P, Cosman D, Hayek R, Meeker WC, Shaik J, Terrazas O, Tucker J, Walsh M. Self-reported nonmusculoskeletal responses to chiropractic intervention: a multination survey. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Jun;28(5): 294–302. [3]
• Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, Nordin M, Guzman J, Peloso PM, Holm LW, Côté P, Hogg-Johnson S, Cassidy JD, Haldeman S; Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 15;33(4 Suppl):S123–52. [4]
• Rubinstein SM, Terwee CB, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW.Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 1;38(3):E158–77 [5]
• Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD008112. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2. [6]

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...a notion that brings "criticism" from mainstream health care.

Acceptable as hypothesis, the widespread assertion of the clinical meaningfulness of this notion brings ridicule from the scientific and health care communities and confusion within the chiropractic profession.

The source says "ridicule". Without sources in the lede problems like this are continuing. QuackGuru (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the well sourced text in the lede was deleted. I think the sourced text should be restored not deleted. The current lede is poorly written.QuackGuru (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was not my original post to this talk page. You moved my comment from your talk page here without my permission. QuackGuru (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions, with the exception of low quality evidence from one trial demonstrating a significant and moderately clinically relevant short-term effect of SMT on pain relief when compared to inert interventions, as well as low quality evidence demonstrating a significant short-term and moderately clinically relevant effect of SMT on functional status when added to another intervention. In general, side-lying and supine thrust SMT techniques demonstrate a short-term significant difference when compared to non-thrust SMT techniques for the outcomes of pain, functional status, and recovery. ("low quality evidence", pertaining to the GRADE guidelines, which define it as: "Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality"[7][)

The second source[8] states similar:

"The results of this review demonstrate that SMT appears to be as effective as other common therapies prescribed for chronic low-back pain, such as, exercise therapy, standard medical care or physiotherapy. However, it is less clear how it compares to inert interventions or sham (placebo) treatment because there are only a few studies, typically with a high risk of bias, which investigated these factors. Approximately two-thirds of the studies had a high risk of bias, which means we cannot be completely confident with their results. Furthermore, no serious complications were observed with SMT.

In summary, SMT appears to be no better or worse than other existing therapies for patients with chronic low-back pain."

Therefore, I don't quite understand why you removed those sources. Ps. There is also a wikiarticle on the GRADE guidelines, if you are interested: [[9]] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the tags but the text still failed WP:V. The following sentence is sourced text that summarises the 2013 review in accordance with V: A Cochrane review found that spinal manipulation therapy was no more effective than inert interventions, sham SMT or as an adjunct therapy for acute low back pain.<ref name=Cochrane-2013/>QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I quoted the more detailed research results above that demonstrate statistical significance. I'd suggest that you read the abstracts a bit further and in more detail ;) Besides, it is clearly stated there that there is "low quality evidence", i.e. still further research is needed, so what's the problem with you here? It's not an opinion of POV, I am afraid. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have used the same sources as I did in other parts of the article. I will revise later that there isn't any misinterpretation of statistical results. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the editor is trying to delete my comments again This is not the first time. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are leading yourself into a trap here. I already apologized since in my edit I got mistaken that you were again editing your old posts (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayaguru-Shishya&diff=602543745&oldid=602543340), and I was about to revert my own edit also but you already had done so in less than one minute. So, first you were ranting that I moved your discussion from my personal talk page to here, even it is completely according the Wikipedia Good Practices for talk pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MULTI#multi) (WP:MULTI) that suggest: If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and linking to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why.. I'd like to remind you, that you are conducting aggressive editing policies, and try to edits behind other contributors' backs. Do you think it's fair that other contributors are not able to read your "arguments" for the reverts you do?

Anyway, that's exactly the reason why all the talks concerning an article should be kept to one place only, just like WP:MULTI tells you. It seems that you are losing the track even yourself already while posting some of your comments on my personal talk page (where they do not belong), and some of your comments here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no link in the section topic, and you shall not add one afterwards either. I guess I have violated the 3RR myself as well, but I have no other choice than make a report from your actions now. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that made it clear that "some" mixers use other forms of alternative medicine as opposed to all mixers was reverted. This reversion was original research. Please include a source that states that all mixers use homeopathy, acupuncture, etc. The current reference does not say this at all! The source says that some mixers use techniques from conventional medicine and some use acupuncture and other alternative medicine. It does not imply that all mixers use all of these techniques. Since that edit was right before a bunch POV edits I assume the revert was by accident 132.236.122.51 (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

referring to this reversion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=602296215&oldid=602292078

note the first half of the reversion is a good revert, but the second half does not. I assume this was by mistake?

I suppose you are pertaining to me? Yes, I think your assumption is quite right. Sorry, as you can see I had terrible juggling with the earlier versions as I was trying to restore some contributions by Kshilts. On my behalf, you are the most welcome to restore the later part (mixers and stuff) that I hassled up :) Sorry for the inconvenience! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]