Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:16, 27 April 2008

WP:FRINGE does not apply to veterinary chiropractic

It has been argued by a few skeptical editors that veterinary chiropractic is a fringe topic and deserves to be treated similarly to other fringe topics such as flat earth and homeopathy. I would like to refer all editors to the American Veterinary Medical Association press release here which demonstrates the rapid ascension of veterinary chiropractic (and acupuncture) into the mainstream scene. As such, it should be treated with the same dillegence, quality, respect as any other medical-related article.

The American Veterinary Medical Association press release is unreliable. It fails WP:RS. WP:FRINGE does apply to veterinary chiropractic. QuackGuru 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, a press release from the American Medical Veterinary Association is claimed to be unreliable and does meet inclusion criteria whereas the opinion of a rogue DVM (Ramey) which appears at Quackwatch is reliable and meets inclusion criteria? Talk me through this one, Quack. WP:FRINGE does not apply unless you consider the opinion and the AMVA fringe. CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A promotional press release is not WP:RS. Ramey is a notable expert per WP:SPS. QuackGuru 17:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest in including it, it was to provide a proper context for the topic at hand. You didn't address my question though; i.e. do you consider the AVMA and their conclusions, fringe? CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The press release is not WP:RS so therefore we can't consider their conclusions for this article. Agreed? QuackGuru 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is a reliable source. A reliable source for citing the opinion of the AMVA which appears to be that CAVM (such as Veterinary chiropractic) are becoming more mainstream. -- Levine2112 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source for considering conclusions for this article. QuackGuru 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The AMVA veterinary organization representing more than 76,000 veterinarians working in private and corporate practice, government, industry, academia, and uniformed services. It is one of the largest and oldest not-for-profit associations for veterinarians in the world. The AVMA is designated by the U.S. Department of Education as the accrediting body for the 28 schools of veterinary medicine in the United States. The AVMA educational standards of excellence are recognized worldwide as the "gold standard" in veterinary education. So yes, I'd say that the AMVA is a reliable source for us to consider when drawing conclusions about this article. That they view Veterinary Chiropractic as a mainstream topic is significant. It pretty much blows any claims that this is a fringe topic out of the water (unless you can find some source of similar or greater magnitude which sees it otherwise). -- Levine2112 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Levine2112 re: the reliability of publications from the AVMA. Certainly it carries far greater weight than an individual DVM like Ramey for all intents and purposes is a vocal critic of chiropractic and his fellow veterinarians who practice veterinary chiropractic. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The AVMA source is a promotional press release and an opinion. The opinions of an ureliable source fails WP:RS. We do not draw conclusions from unreliable sources. QuackGuru 07:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes this press release is promotional in that it is promoting the viewpoints of one of the largest veterinarian associations in the world. Of course it is a reliable source for the viewpoints of the AVMA. It would be absurd to think otherwise after all. And as its viewpoints ostensibly represent those of its 76,000 members strong, it is certainly one from which we can draw the conclusion that we are not dealing with a fringe topic here but rather one that is more and more mainstream. -- Levine2112 08:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The AVMA viewpoints are not WP:RS. QuackGuru 08:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That last statement of yours makes little to no sense. Obvious to all but one, the AVMA is a reliable source for its own position. The AVMA in its own right carries a lot of weight in the mainstream veterinary world. Consequently, the same can be said about its positions. Thus, if the AVMA say that Veterinary chiropractic is becoming more and more mainstream, we can reliably state that here. -- Levine2112 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Misplaced Pages world it is still unreliable. QuackGuru 08:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is untrue and entirely unsupported. -- Levine2112 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Becoming more mainstream" kind of implies that it isn't currently mainstream. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. That is merely your assumption. One might assume "becoming more mainstream" to mean "becoming even more mainstream than it already was". Fringe/Mainstream is not a black-or-white issue. There are shades of grey. One thing is for sure from this press release, the AMVA position on Veterinary chiropractic is that it is become more mainstream in that it is being discussed widely at their annual convention and is taught in veterinary schools. Kind of makes this "fringe" claim rather moot. Unless some new source of equal or greater status is presented to counter the AMVA's position, I consider this matter closed. -- Levine2112 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would something mainstream be mentioned as being "more mainstream"? I think this source pretty much proves the subject isn't mainstream. Jefffire (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Because mainstream/fringe it is not a black-or-white, either-or, true-false label. There are varying degrees of mainstream and fringe. Of two things that are mainstream, one could be more mainstream than the other. The AVMA's position is that Veterinary chiropractic is becoming more and more mainstream. -- Levine2112 17:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've opened the discussion up to a science RfC on whether V.C. in a mainstream veterinary procedure. Jefffire (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You have? Where? -- Levine2112 17:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is currently at the bottom of the talk page. The RfC bot seems to be a bit slow at filing it on the RfC page at the moment. Jefffire (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeffire, WP:INSPECTOR. We haven't even hit the top of the iceberg yet and I was getting some vet friends to provide more literature. There is no need to rush and get and get a judgment from parties who do not have the full picture and context. Where is the link so we can chime in as well? CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A RfC is a tool for neutrally soliciting outside opinion. Jefffire (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Investigation

Let's start this article off on the right foot. Though I don't overly object to the 2 references used thus far; we must be vigilant in selecting, using and interpreting the evidence. Let's learn from the lessons of Chiropracticand not make the same mistake here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have my reservation since "Veterinary chiropractic" is a profession and not a modality which can be tested for efficacy. However, at least the studies referenced are specifically about chiropractic treatment and not about SMT in general. That said, the third reference added was to a "Chirobase" article last revised in 2000. Following our standards at Talk:Chiropractic, this is too old. Additionally, this is not a scientific paper, but rather an opinion piece published by a partisan group without any peer-review. -- Levine2112 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. This is a hard to find ref. I could not find another ref that covers this specific issue of risk to a horse. The other refs do not discuss this specific issue of "risk of injury." There are a lot of pro chiropractic partisian sources that are not peer-review. Removing the risk of injury bit is in violation of the spirit of WP:NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The other two sources in this section are research published in peer-reviewed journals. The out-dated, non-peer-reviewed opinion piece doesn't cut it and thus will be removed. If you would like to cite a peer-reviewed source the opinion piece relies on (if there is one) to make such a risk assessment, please feel free. But my guess is that there is no such source and even if there were, it would be severely outdated. Further, NPOV doesn't mean that a pro piece must be countered by a con piece. Neither of the two pieces of research cited qualify as a "pro chiropractic partisan source" as you suggest. They are published in a scientific, peer-reviewed, veterinarian journal. -- Levine2112 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The others sources are not a replacement for the text (risk of injury). Refs are being used in this article from pro chiropractic advocacy groups. Why remove the neutrally written injury bit but include links and refs to partisan chiro associations or groups. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We have no reliable sources stating that there is a risk of injury. The other refs in the Scientific investigation section are not from "pro chiropractic advocacy groups" but rather a peer-reviewed scientific journal. A statement from an unscientific, non-peer-reviewed, opinion piece is inappropriate for this section (regardless if the source is pro or con chiropractic). Make sense? -- Levine2112 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other refs in the article from "pro chiropractic advocacy groups." We have one ref that does discuss a risk of injury. That ref is the best available ref to write about "risk of injury" at this moment. There is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. David W. Ramey. "Veterinary Chiropractic". Retrieved 2008-04-15. I cannot find a replacement for this ref. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's old, unscientific, an opinion, not peer-reviewed, and unsourced to any piece of scientific literature. It is inappropriate for this article. Leave it out please. To pput it into perspective, it is tantamount to using as a source a veterinarian chiropractor's personal website who lists all of the benefits and states that there is no risk. Make sense? -- Levine2112 19:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to leave out the best available reference for the specific topic of risk of injury and include partisan chiropractic groups such as Canadian Animal Chiropractic Certification Program added to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not including any scientific research from CACCP or any conclusions about risk, benefit or efficacy, nor do I consider CACCP necessarily a partisan chiropractic group. This discussion is about the "Scientific investigation" of this article and the CACCP is not even referenced in this section. I wouldn't call Ramey's opinion piece "the best available reference" either. By all measures of WP:RS, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source for presenting risk. It is not a scientific paper nor is it investigatory. It is merely an opinion piece which relies on no scientific studies whatsoever. Thus it is entirely inappropriate for the Scientific investigation section. Rather than allow this to dredge out into a circular debate, please know that I intend not respond to any repeated arguments which I feel I have already dismissed. -- Levine2112 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then what is the best available ref for "risk of injury" info. We have one ref available. Going once... going twice... QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know of no caveat to WP:RS which states that when a reliable source can't be found then you can dredge up and use whatever unreliable source is available. -- Levine2112 01:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is curious, David Ramey is a notable equine specialist in Hollywood, who has written a number of books. The journal's search engine mentions him a few times. -- Fyslee / talk 03:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramey as a source? He is a notable expert on the topic. Per WP:SPS, we can include the text and ref. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First, see WP:SELFPUB criteria #2. I would argue that this is contentious. Second, this source is not scientific nor is it investigatory; thus it is inappropriate in the "Scientific investigation" section. It's also fairly old, relies on no scientific sources, and is not peer-reviewed. Let's reserve the Scientific investigation section for sources that are actually scientific; preferably those which have been published in a peer-reviewed journal of science and not an opinion piece posted on an unreviewed partisan website. This is very much aligned with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and the spirit of good article writing as per Misplaced Pages's founder Jimbo Wales. -- Levine2112 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This material is neutrally written and NPOV. It is very appropriate to include it in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in a section about Scientific investigation, because it is not a scientific investigation and the statement is not investigatory nor based on science. -- Levine2112 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

. Agreed with Levine2112. QG, stop bringing more garbage from chiropractic over here. You're simply trying to insert these sections here so that can be justified in the main article. These tactics won't work and its just a continuation of questionable diversions used from the main page. Considering you have no expertise on this subject you should not pass yourself as an authority figure. How many times can we repeat ourselves here? Sure you're technically being "civil" but these kinds of edits are certainly disruptive or are at least interpreted that way. CorticoSpinal (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding NPOV text is not garbage. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the application of the text that is garbage, not the source itself. Ramey is DVM who is quite critical of chiropractic, I suppose we might as well get his 2c in here now, Fyslee you got a source?

You can always improve the text and expand on it. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We can easily discuss the effectiveness of Veterinary chiropractic treatments. This is a highly relevant and on target. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The other references used must be carefully selected when used.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness and Safety (REDUX)

QG,

I will please ask that you desist from engaging in a continued civil war by tendentiously pursuing these topic here at Veterinary Chiropractic after you and a few select editors have already done so at Chiropractic. You know very well that you cannot judge the effectiveness of a profession or a specialization. And the safety edit is a joke right? Talk about WP:POINT violation. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything is NPOV and relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The source for safety meets the inclusion criteria. QuackGuru (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramey as a source meets Misplaced Pages's standard. He is a notable expert on the topic. Per WP:SPS, we included the NPOV text and quality reference. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I understand your argument correctly, you are suggesting that David Ramey, DVM is an expert in veterinary chiropractic safety? You also suggest the source is strong enough for inclusion? I call BS, but I guess we'll say how it plays out. Also, the heading research is preferred; its NPOV and more appropriate. I won't bother to revert you (you're edit warring (again) needlessly and I won't take the bait) but I'll note it, of course. G'night, GQ. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bottomline, it is a weak source. Take it to WP:RSN and describe precisely how you would like the source to be used. See what the outside perspective is here. Until then, let's not include a questionable use of a questionable source. Thanks. -- Levine2112 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please address my previous comment per WP:SPS. It meets Misplaced Pages's standard. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First, it is not an WP:SPS as it is not published by Ramey, but rather by the partisan website. Second, even if it were a WP:SPS it would fail some of the qualifications, especially #2 "so long as... it is not contentious;" Again, feel free to bring it to WP:RSN, but be sure to describe exactly how you wish to use the source. -- Levine2112 07:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I already explained how it is a WP:SPS source. Ramey is a notable expert on the topic. The NPOV text is written by Ramey. QuackGuru (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation is very weak and I don't think it meets inclusion policy and it's getting long in the tooth as well. It's also better to rename "effectiveness" to "research" that way we can add relevant studies that pertain to veterinary chiropractic. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying the citation is weak is not an argument. The citation is highly relevant because it is specific to Veterinary Chiropractic. "Research" is way too vague. A specific title is an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts. . . the Ramey source is not reliable or verifiable. . . Publisher is an attack organization. . . no real research there. . . and it is fairly old. . . and just this guys opinion.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS, it is reliable and meets Misplaced Pages's standard. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Cortico and Levine's explanation above, I agree that it fails as a reliable source for this particular usage.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru should probably respond directly to my comment above: First, it is not an WP:SPS as it is not published by Ramey, but rather by the partisan website. Second, even if it were a WP:SPS it would fail some of the qualifications, especially #2 "so long as... it is not contentious;" Again, feel free to bring it to WP:RSN, but be sure to describe exactly how you wish to use the source. -- Levine2112 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It meets Misplaced Pages's standard. Ramey is an expert on the topic and it is written by Ramey. Please stop trying to remove well sourced NPOV text. QuackGuru (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Common, QG. Enough is enough, already. You can't annoit experts, especially one who has not published a peer-reviewed article in a quality journal. Using NPOV as an argument is weak here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you still haven't addressed my concerns above. I think I am being clear enough, but let me know if I need to spell it out for you in simpler terms. -- Levine2112 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have clearly explained how it meets the inclusion criteria per WP:SPS. This topic is controversial. Also see WP:PARITY. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. I am glad you agree that it is controversial. And per WP:SPS, since it is controversial (aka "contentious") we cannot use it as a source. Great! That settles it. Thanks. (Oh and P.S. WP:PARITY does not apply here at all since we are not dealing with a Fringe Topic. :-) -- Levine2112 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What? The material is NPOV and well sourced. The topic is controversial. But that does not mean we can delete it. Why do you think it is settled? We are fringed out here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read #2 on WP:SPS. Since you agree that this is contentious, then SPS prohibits us from using such a source. EOS. You say this is a fringe topic, but do you have any reliable sources to back up this characterization? If so, please present them here. It would be good to determine if this is indeed a fringe topic before we go any further. -- Levine2112 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no #2 for WP:SPS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about the second paragraph: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Is Ramey an established expert on Veterinarian Chiropractic? No. Or at least I haven't been privy to any sources establishing him as such. Also, note that this source is not published by Ramey but rather by a partisan organization; hence, we are not dealing with a self-published source and WP:SPS does not apply. -- Levine2112 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic It does apply. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not self-published and this is not one of those circumstances. -- Levine2112 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The work is written by David W. Ramey, D.V.M. This is one of those circumstances. QuackGuru 17:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the best source currently available for discussing safety. QuackGuru 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Could it be worded differently, as Ramey's view? Jefffire (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I read through this string. . . my view is that the Ramey paper is far too old. . . unpublished in anything credible. . . and Ramey is not an established expert in this field. . . I would say it is not a reliable source for this article. . . It reads more like propaganda.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness or Efficacy (specific topic)

Effectiveness is a specific section. The title Research is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Efficacy? I gave it a shot. Let's see. -- Levine2112 06:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon reading it, I don't like it. I don't think "effectiveness" is a proper discussion for this, a profession. I could understand discussing research which the profession is conducting, but not efficacy... because who is to say that an entire profession is or is not effective? -- Levine2112 06:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The proper heading is Effectiveness. That is what the section is about. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Efficacy can also work. As I previously explained, the title Research is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's truly what the section is about, then I am in favor of removing it. -- Levine2112 07:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is truly about Effectiveness (or Efficacy). Removing it for no reason constitutes WP:VAND. QuackGuru (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, QG. Things aren't always so black and white and you have a penchant for making it seem. Again, this section was added by yourself and it's validity was disputed by myself and Levine2112. We have offered to rename it Efficacy or as I prefer, Research but you have reverted all our suggestions and have not budged from your stance. I strongly suggest that you take a minute to review your actions because this does not need to escalate any further. Make us a counter-proposal. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is essentially vandlism to delete an entire section without any good reason. I have already explained that the title Research is too vague. I am having trouble understanding why you prefer a vague title. I am doing my best to clearly explain this. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument that the efficacy of animal chiropractic cannot be covered in the article because it is a 'profession' is IMHO absurd. Vets and chiros learn specific manipulation techniques, apparently, and these can certainly be studied for effectiveness. IOW, Fido comes in limping and runs out of the office like a frisky pup! Take 50 creaky Fidos and do manipulation on 25 of them and 'fake manipulation' on the rest and keep track of behaviour, nociceptors and...number of tail wags? Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many studies of safety or effectiveness of this specialty. As for the article, without RCTs, data should be gathered where it exists. If a notable veterinarian, like Ramey, has something to say on the subject, include it! Everything else out there seems to be by the believers of this new 'profession'. CynRNCynRN (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, CynRN. The question is of weight, notability and validity. To propose a section on effectiveness based on one study is far fetched. Why do you think Ramey is notable and therefore an expert on veterinary chiropractic, moreso than say Dr. Willough, DC, DVM? You will learn, as I have, that we can't simply "annoit" experts and when we're talking about medical subspecialties, the inclusion criteria and relevance of that material is higher than non-medical articles. Also, 'believers' is a poor choice of words; are you suggesting that veterinarians now have been suddenly convinced by the evil chiropractors that manipulation is beneficial? A better section title would be "Research" and this would solve any problems of including various types of studies being done. So, based on WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS the current Ramey reference is not likely to meet inclusion criteria. Also, you're analysis at Chiropractic is a bit skewed; you suggest that effectiveness can't be measured in the professions of Medicine and Nursing because they are too broad. What about Physical Therapy? Chiropractic shares many similar attributes and clinically see many of the same conditions. Can you judge the effectiveness of PT or is it too broad? CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

David W. Ramey is a notable equine specialist, who has written a number books. And EVJ mentions him a few times. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Cortico, you are putting words in my mouth! Who said or implied 'evil chiropractors!" Settle down. It seems to me that the whole veterinary chiropractic movement is putting the cart before the horse, pun intended.:-). IOW, where are the studies? Secondly, on Ramey's points that harm could be done to animals with improper manipulation; it's common sense that this is possible. He is apparently an equine expert and his opinion counts. I don't understand why veterinary chiropractic skeptics should not have a say in this article. I support a section titled Research instead of Effectiveness. It doesn't matter much either way, with so little evidence supporting animal chiropractic.CynRNCynRN (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for seeming dismissive of this topic in my post above. It is certainly an interesting one and I appreciate CorticoSpinal's fine efforts here. However, I don't think that the veterinarians who have embraced animal chiropractic are the only vets that should be heard from here at this article. I would like to know what the profession as a whole thinks of this offshoot.CynRNCynRN (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source which represents the views of the veterinarian profession as a whole then let's discuss it. -- Levine2112 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A reliable survey of vets on this topic may not exist...CynRNCynRN (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my initial though on reading the article was that it's a hoax, so I think it's somewhat unlikely that real vets have even heard of the subject. We are so far into the fringe here we're falling of the rug. I suggest we proceed accordingly. Jefffire (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when you mix laypeople and experts together trying to write an article. Suddenly DVMs now are fringe. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well...yes they are. Jefffire (talk)

Really? Veterinarians are fringe? Since when? -- Levine2112 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I misread that as dc, no need to be a spanner about it. In that case Cortico's comment's make no sense at all since I never claimed anything of that nature. Jefffire (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So what are you saying? DCs are fringe? I don't think that is established here at Misplaced Pages. -- Levine2112 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Alt is fringe, mainstream is mainstream. Obvious really. Jefffire (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. This is not in agreement, as far as I know, which what is established at Misplaced Pages. For instance, there is nothing a Chiropractic alluding to your opinion that chiropractic is fringe. -- Levine2112 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to your beliefs Levine, but don't try to force them on Misplaced Pages. If there are strong mainstream scientific sources then please bring them forward. Jefffire (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to force my opinion that chiropractic and veterinary chiropractic are not fringe topics. That's your assessment. Your definition of fringe are those without strong mainstream scientific sources. So if you need strong mainstream scientific sources, then I shall point you to them. Chiropractic, for instance, is chocked full of strong mainstream scientific sources. Please peruse the article and examine the refs. And in this mere fledgling Veterinary Chiropractic article, there are already at least two strong mainstream scientific sources - each from a peer-reviewed mainstream journal of veterinary medicine. So based to your defintion, Veterinary Chiropractic is not a fringe topic. -- Levine2112 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is about effectiveness. Research is vague. QuackGuru 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

consensus or not

Is there any consensus for the Effectiveness (Research) section. If not, then why does it remain in mainspace? QuackGuru (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, QuackGuru, do you feel that if there is no consensus, then the material should be taken out of mainspace? -- Levine2112 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the WP:CON policy on Misplaced Pages is outdated and does not take into consideration when content disputes such as this arise. Consensus can WP:CCC. Consensus wikilawyering can be used to game the system! As you can see, I have mixed feeling about consensus. I don't know how to answer your question. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While the WP:CON stands as is, I think we should follow it to the best of our abilities and not be so quick to resolve to WP:IAR. Maybe this is a question you can pose directly to the founder of Misplaced Pages. -- Levine2112 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to honest about this. I thought I was clicking on Show preview when I accidently clicked on Save page. I want the info included. Let's get that straight. I would like to know what others think about the consensus policy. I think it is a bit outdated. Do we even have consensus for this info? QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps your questions about WP:CON would be better suited for that policies talk page. I'm slightly in favor of keeping the Research section IF it stays focused on research specifically about veterinarian chiropractic published in peer-review journals. However, I can easily see the argument that since we are dealing with a profession and not a modality, that research into the effectiveness of specific modalities may be better suited for articles about these modalities rather than this one. -- Levine2112 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You said the section is about effectiveness. That is the specific topic of the section. Why the vague section name of Research? QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there are other kinds of research than just efficacy. Why limit ourselves at this infancy stage of the article? Let's just resolve to use high-quality scientific sources in this section and not self-published opinions (pro or con) from partisan sources (pro or con). When we have something substantial written, we can always discuss whether it (as a whole) is appropriate for this article or if it (or its pieces) would be more appropriate for separate articles. I really think this is a vision Jimmy Wales had for good article-writing when he came up with Misplaced Pages. -- Levine2112 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PARITY. There are no high quality sources, just a sprinkling of very weak studies. This is a fringe subject, and should be treated as one. Jefffire (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it is specifically about effectiveness. If you really think it is "better suited for articles about these modalities rather than this one," then what are you waiting for? Do what you believe to be best for the project. We are WP:BOLD around here. If it does not work we can always revert or try again. This is a wiki. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who says we are dealing with a fringe subject here? WP:PARITY doesn't apply unless that can be established. -- Levine2112 19:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not established that Vet chiros are mainstream. This topic is fringe. WP:PARITY is applicable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You have made the claim that Veterinary Chiropractic is a Fringe Topic, now prove it. Otherwise, WP:PARITY clearly doesn't apply. -- Levine2112 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather. A fringe subject is one which cannot provide high quality references in mainstream scientific journals. If you cannot find them, then it is clear the topic is fringe. Afterall, WP:FRINGE is there exactly because real scientists don't touch such crap with a ten foot barge pole. Jefffire (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, currently in the article, we have at least two high quality references from mainstream scientific veterinarian journals discussing this topic. So by your assessment, Veterinary Chiropractic is not a fringe topic and hence WP:PARITY doesn't apply. -- Levine2112 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Curse my scientific ignorance Levine, but could you point them out for me? I mean, I did a quite check on the impact factors on the journals listed, and at first glance they seem rock bottom. Jefffire (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here they are: and . If you would like to learn more about the EVJ, please visit this link. -- Levine2112 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, rock bottom impact factor. There are not authoritative journals. I appreciate you have a lack of scientific literacy, but please don't PoV push by cherry picking from a myriad of weak sources. Jefffire (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you consider rock-bottom and why do you think this is applicable to our discussion here? As of 2004 this particular journal scored 1.440 which ranks it #16 of the 123 veterinary science journals listed. -- Levine2112 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem...Levine...that's 1.440, not 1,440. I don't think it's several orders of magnitude more heavily cited than Cell. Jefffire (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges - comparing to Cell. By your comparison then, there are no Veterinary Sciences journal up to snuff. But when we compare this journal to only those of Veterinary science, we see that it is consistently in the top ten. -- Levine2112 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I brought up Cell to show how off-the-wall your numbers were, not as a bench mark. 1.44 is pretty darn low (you might like to note how it's been dropping year on year. Perhaps publishing an article on a.c. is symptomatic of dropping standards...) the fact that there are few highly cited vet journals don't make it any better. Something nice and juicy from Veterinary Research would be better. If it's mainstream then you ought to be able to find lots of articles about it in there, yah? That would go a long way towards convincing us evil scientist types. Jefffire (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And what is the impact factor for Veterinary Research? By the way, even the AVMA is saying that Veterinary chiropractic is becoming more mainstream. -- Levine2112 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it you couldn't find any articles in Veterinary Research...why would that be? Why would such a mainstream subject not be abundant? Jefffire (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to search. It's in French. But I may give it a try later when I have a moment. In the meantime, here's another source from Canadian Veterinary Journal. Anyhow, still waiting for some kind of reliable source which calls Veterinary Chiropractic fringe, as you have asserted. Until then, WP:PARITY can't apply. -- Levine2112 07:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument has already been dealt with. A mainstream topic would be well represented, with hundreds of sources in dozens of journals. You've found two journals with very low i.f.. Jefffire (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Levine, Veterinary Research is in English . Jefffire (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no reason for us to consider this a Fringe topic. You have made the claim that it is fringe, now it is up to you to prove it. Already many pieces of quality research and reliable sources have been supplied which distinguish this topic as not fringe, and this article is not more than a week or two old. I am through jumping through hoops for you (especially in the wake of all of the insults and personal attacks). Your turn to provide sources backing your opinion. -- Levine2112 08:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. It is up to you to show that there are sufficient sources to judge this mainstream, prove it. If you cannot, I and others will continue to treat this as fringe. Jefffire (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You have made a claim so the onus to prove it lies with you. In the meantime, I'm moving on. -- Levine2112 08:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jefffire could stand to learn a bit more on Chiropractic, rather than spouting off inaccurate statements. He calls is fringe, yet for all intents and purposes it's practically mainstream. We should treat it much moreso mainstream than the skeptics who continue to push for fringe status and have a deletionist policy here. If references are wanted, they can be provided of course. CorticoSpinal (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD discussion

This article contains a lot of uncited text and unreliable pro chiro partisan sources. I think we need to test the notability with an AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's getting a little out of hand how Users such as QG and Mccready consistently appear and show up, disrupt, obstruct and ultimately try to corrupt chiropractic related articles. If this type of crap continues, it's going to ANI. The material here more than meets inclusion criteria and is notable. We don't need non-experts in the field like Jefffire, Mccready and QG try to thwart the contribs of productive editors. CorticoSpinal (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We are stepping into the fringe and non-notable topics. Misplaced Pages is not the place for promo pieces of non-notable fringe topics. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Curse them and their insistence that articles are based on reliable sources. Jefffire (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you are hardly in a position to make that call. It's not a promo piece, it's informative and accurately represents the state of veterinary chiropractic. You were all keen on keeping it first, then probably due to some behind the scenes canvassing, you propose AfD. Anyways, this article, like Sports Chiropractic doesn't meet the criteria for deletion and if you push for this, well let's just say that if the spotlight were to turn the other direction, specifically to you, QuackGuru, you might not like where the investigation goes, or so I have been told by experienced Wikipedians.

Most of the references are from unreliable pro chiropractic partisan sources. An obvious promotional piece? Yes. AFD? Surely. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how quickly your tune turned, QG. You were really trying to improve the article just 2 days ago and now its suddenly became more chiro propanganda. Anyways, I'm done discussing and working with you, it's not worth the time, energy and sanity. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are editors not allow to grow concerned about the direction an article is heading, or to change their mind about issues? Perhaps if the concerns of editors were listened to progress could be made. Jefffire (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I propose we need a new section titled 'controversy'. Several states are currently wrestling with legislation regarding scope of practice for vets. Vets are feeling threatened, for myriad reasons, by the growing animal chiropractic movement and see the need for more regulation.CynRNCynRN (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Post the sources here and let's discuss. Initially, I think "Controversy" doesn't seem to fit as a title. Maybe "U.S. Legislation"? Hard to say without seeing the sources first though. -- Levine2112 17:55, 21 April

2008 (UTC)

Isn't this topic inherently controversial? Maybe "legislation" could be a heading, though. Here is a 2007 year end summary regarding state legislative activity from the AVMA:

"The authority of non-veterinarians to treat animals is still a huge issue for state legislators and regulatory bodies. Massage therapists, physical therapists, acupuncturists, chiropractors and equine dental technicians all generated activity related to animal practice. See the section below titled “Scope of Practice/Complementary and Alternative Medicine” for details" http://www.docuticker.com/?p=19258

I follow the link and through a little sleuthing, I have found the originating source: Veterinary State Legislative 2007 Year-End Summary. I think this is a strong source with some good information in it for our article. It doesn't seem controversial, just legislative. Take a look and let me know. -- Levine2112 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, it never ends. Controversy, criticisms, etc... all so out of proportion and weight issues abound... We don't need a whole new section, but if CynRN wants to dig up a reference, then we should include the fact that some vets are feeling threatened; but paradoxically they're also the ones collaborating with DCs and expanding the Animal Chiropractic programs and certs. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the legislative battle in Colorado:"The Colorado agency dealt the association its latest blow, dismissing a proposal to distinguish animal chiropractors from human chiropractors and veterinarians, by creating, in essence, a third profession. A 25-page report from the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) claimed the AVCA's proposal failed to fully demonstrate regulations would benefit the pet-owning public."The scientific method provides the only realistic approach to determine the effectiveness of any particular therapy including manipulative therapy such as chiropractic," says Rogers (of AVMA). "I believe that such proof is generally lacking for manipulative therapy in animals."Dr. David Ramey, who practices in Southern California, adds, "In the past 20 years (of AVCA's existence), there is not one shred of evidence that any of what they're doing makes any difference as far as the health and welfare of animals go. They're trying to succeed by inference and anecdote."What they're trying to do is to grant themselves legislatively what they can't accomplish scientifically," he says. Rogers cautions, "If manipulative therapies are offered as primary approaches to general animal medical problems by doctors of chiropractic without the involvement of licensed veterinarians I believe that there will be high risk of inadequate diagnosis and care."CynRNCynRN (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my link didn't work. Mainly, the vets are concerned that non veterinarians could become primary care doctors for critters and not recognize or have the experience to deal with many animal diseases. http://www.dvmnews.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=41322 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

. So Ramey is blasting DVMs too who want to manipulate. Interesting. I guess he wants to be the Murray Katz, Stephen Barrett and Edzard Ernst of the vet profession. Let him publish a paper first. He does not deserve equal weight as others who went through the peer reviewed process. We don't just annoit experts because they're supportive or critical, either way. They have to earn their stripes at consistently producing high quality literature that is highly respected and generally trascends their field. Ramey meets none of these obvious criteria. Still an interesting read though. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that quote. I really think that shows us either Ramey's lack of credibility or bias. Clearly, just from the research we have discussed here, there is much more than a shred of evidence that chiropractic benefits animals. Either Ramey has a lack of awareness of such research (which puts to question his credibility as a supposed expert on the subject) or he is conveniently ignoring such research (which puts his neutrality as a scientist in question). -- Levine2112 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps he has legitimate reason to question the reliability of the research instead of accepting it without question. A gentle nudge to remind you that published =/= true. Jefffire (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not about truth. It is about verifiable information. Research published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal holds more weight than Ramey's off-handed opinions. -- Levine2112 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...unless they have rock bottom impact factors. Jefffire (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank goodness we are not dealing with rock-bottom I.F. journals but rather ones at the top of their field. P.S., I see nothing in WP:V supporting this rationale. Can you point me to the policy which explains that journals with low I.F. scores should be given less weight than a non-peer-reviewed opinion published only on a partisan website? Appreciate it. -- Levine2112 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have we found significantly better sources than the 1.44 journal? Apologies if I missed it. Impact factors are used as a general guide to which journal are regarded as authoritative, being peer reviewed doesn't make something automatically reliable (as proof of concept, creationists have "peer reviewed" journals). Also, I don't believe anyone has proposed quoting Ramey as fact, just as opinion. There is no reason to exclude a few comments. Jefffire (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed Levine2112s point. Comparing the science of manipulation to creationism? Whoooooa! CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not comparing the subject to creationism, I'm saying why "peer review" isn't a gold standard by itself. The journals are Veterinary anyway, not Chiropractic. Jefffire (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

EVJ is consistently in the top ten of the veterinary journals. It is not a rock-bottom source. Oh, and maybe you missed this, but I see nothing in WP:V supporting this rationale about impact factor. Can you point me to the policy which explains that journals with low I.F. scores should be given less weight than a non-peer-reviewed opinion published only on a partisan website? Appreciate it. -- Levine2112 01:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)That survey by Schoen cited here reveals that many vets are interested in several unscientific modalities, for instance homeopathy. My former vet offered my dog homeopathy and I was offended. Many Americans are big suckers for that stuff and vets want to jump on the CAM bandwagon, I guess. "Thirty-six (87%) respondents believed that acupuncture, nutraceuticals, nutritional supplements, and physical therapy should be included in the curriculum, 25 (61%) indicated that botanical (herbal) medicine should be included, and 25 (61%) believed that chiropractic should be included. Only 17 (44%) respondents believed that homeopathy should be included. The majority of respondents believed that CAVM should be offered as elective courses." So, having 500+ vets in the AVCA doesn't impress me much as far as imparting credibility.Scientific education, be it medical, chiropractic or veterinary does not make a doctor immune from wierd beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CynRN are you suggest that spinal manipulation is an unscientific modality? I can't tell if you're lumping it in there with homeopathy. A clarification would be appreciated. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The survey lumped manipulation in with homeopathy, not me. I used the survey to indicate that a veterinary education apparently does not immunize the graduate against unscientific approaches, ie homeopathy. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.CynRNCynRN (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I suggest you read the Kaussler papers, I was surprisingly impressed at how he more or less captured chiropractic. The studies into manipulation now have been ongoing for close to 30 years, and I do not see such a body of literature for homeopathy. The comparison was not appropriate and wanted to make sure that we weren't lumping the 2 together here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources and horses

• Veterinary Pharmacy By Steven B. Kayne, Michael H. Jepson, Published in 2004 by Pharmaceutical Press.
• Results of a survey on educational and research programs in complementary and alternative veterinary medicine at veterinary medical schools in the United States. Schoen AM. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000 Feb 15;216(4):502-9.
• Pain: From Diagnosis to Effective Treatment - Bernd Driessen DVM, PhD, Dipl. ACVA & ECVPT, Clinical Techniques in Equine Practice Volume 6, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 126-134.
• Equine Chiropractic: General Principles and Clinical Applications - Kevin K. Haussler, DVM, DC, PhD.
• In Vivo Segmental Kinematics of the Thoracolumbar Spinal Region in Horses and Effects of Chiropractic Manipulations Kevin K. Haussler, DVM, DC, PhD; John E. A. Bertram, PhD; and Karen Gellman, DVM.
• Application of Chiropractic Principles and Techniques to Equine Practice - Kevin K. Haussler, DVM, DC, PhD
• Long-term Follow-up of Manipulative Treatment in a Horse with Back Problems M. J. Faber, Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Volume 50 Issue 5 Page 241-245, June 2003
• The Career Guide to the Horse Industry - By Theodore A. Landers, Thomson Delmar Learning, ISBN:0766848493.
• The Essentials of Horsekeeping - By Rachel Hairston, Madelyn Larsen, Published 2004, Sterling Publishing Company, ISBN:0806988177
• Careers with Animals: Exploring Occupations Involving Dogs, Horses, Cats - By Ellen Shenk, Published 2005, Stackpole Books, ISBN:0811729621
• Lameness: Recognizing and Treating the Horse's Most Common Ailment By Equine Research, Published 2005, Globe Pequot, ISBN:1592286674

-- Levine2112 08:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC. Is chiropractic manipulation of animals a mainstream veterinary procedure?

Template:RFCsci

lack of acceptance by mainstream chiropractic (controversy?)

Why the word of the American Veterinary Medical Association is essentially being ignored is beyond me. Even they say veterinary chiropractic is increasingly becoming mainstream here along with acupuncture. I suggest that readers look at the reference list. Suddenly, peer-reviewed journals (vet journals to boot, not chiropractic ones) is not good enough, and we're delving into impact scores which still validates that articles. To me, this is more attempts at marginilisation of a very notable, interesting and increasingly popular and used approach at treating animals. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cortico, a RfC is filed to gain insight from currently uninvolved editors. It's not a place to rehash the same arguments again. I've explained that "becoming more mainstream" in my opinion intimates that it isn't mainstream, and I've explained that having a few articles in mainstream journals doesn't seem to make the entire subject mainstream. You are free to disagree, but please allow others a chance to comment. Jefffire (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the official policy of the American Chiropractic Association is that veterinary chiropractic is a misnomer and is not really chiropractic, I think it's safe to say that it's not mainstream yet, at least, not in the chiropractic world. I added a Controversy section mentioning this. Eubulides (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is from 1994. Perhaps articles such as this could be used to augment the "controversy". That said, it appears to be the ACA's current position. Preferably, I wouldn't call this section "controversy" either. I don't think this constitutes one - or at least the sources given don't support naming as such. -- Levine2112 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a controversy. QuackGuru 19:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And you can verify that with what source? -- Levine2112 19:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Acceptance by mainstream chiropractic is not an appropriate title name. This is a controversy when ACA says it is a misnomer. QuackGuru 19:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. That's an assumption you are making. Acceptance by mainstream chiropractic is much closer to NPOV than creating a controversy which doesn't seem to exist (or at least isn't supported). Please see this. There are some excellent stats to work in to the article from this. But no mention of "controversy". -- Levine2112 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the definition of a controversy and I see a Lack of acceptance by mainstream chiropractic. QuackGuru 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the definition of controversy. It is just the position of the ACA. Nothing controversial about it, unless you are inferring there is. Lack of acceptance by mainstream chiropractic would also be an acceptable title for the section. That is, unless we find some other mainstream chiropractic organization (like the ICA) which does recognize vet chiro. I will look. But in the meantime I see no source suggesting prolonged public dispute - which is the definition of controversy, BTW. -- Levine2112 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Acceptance by mainstream chiropractic is original research. QuackGuru 20:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How so? The section is about the acceptance of vet chiro by mainstream chiropractic. Currently, the source we are using establishes the position of the leading chiro org which at best only minimally accepts chiropractic. I think once we incorporate the 2001 study stats that section will be even stronger. But certainly according to the sources thus far there does seem to be a "lack of" acceptance. But the section title "Acceptance by mainstream chiropractic" doesn't imply anything other than the section will deal with mainstream chiropractic's position on vet chiro. Perhaps, "Mainstream chiropractic position" would be an even more appropriate title. -- Levine2112 20:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. "ACA policy" is a good way to go too. Thanks, Jefffire. -- Levine2112 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask that this discussion be conducted in a different section, so that this can be kept clear for new commenters? Jefffire (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a section break. QuackGuru 20:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. There is clearly a lack of acceptance by mainstream chiropractic. QuackGuru 20:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But the controversy which you had asserted is unsupported and thus questionable. Anyhow, I prefer Jefffire's "ACA Policy" suggestion anyhow. -- Levine2112 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Civil Disruption

Just to note, I consider this topic bomb ("Controversy") as a needless, pointing and ultimately disruptive attempt at rocking the boat here. I have moved it to history, where, if at all, it belongs in the article. Clearly Levine2112 has provided a much more current and in depth source from the JACA that should provide clarification to the issue. Eubulides, you have a history now of being very controversial yourself at chiropractic medicine-related articles in a pretty heavy orthox-medicine POV push and statements that have marginalized the profession and edits that have carried inappropriate tone and severe weight issues. I'd ask that if you are going to contribute here that seriously consider changing your approach immediately, otherwise one could begin making a rather strong case that your edits frequently destabilize and disruptive chiropractic pages. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Very best. CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also pretty annoyed at Mccready's revert-fest. . . the two pieces of research here spell out likely benefits. . . how can he say there are no benefits? There are scientific skeptics. . . then there are pathological skeptics. . . and never the two shall meet. . . know what I mean, Cortico?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by TheDoctorIsIn

This user has twice reverted. I will not engage in editing warring with him. He claims the issue is solved already on this talkpage. The text he reverts reads "There is no known benefit of chiropractic for horses with back pain."

The first source states: "Chiropractic treatment and massage therapy increased spinal MNTs within horses not exhibiting signs of lumbar pain." ie when horses had no pain!!

The second source concludes: "The main overall effect of the chiropractic manipulations was a less extended thoracic back, a reduced inclination of the pelvis and improvement of the symmetry of the pelvic motion pattern." ie nothing about back pain!!!

Will this author pls self revert? Mccready (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources still do not back up your statement that there is no known benefit for horses without back pain. That would be OR/SYN. DigitalC (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DigitalC here. . . add to it that the source flatout states that there is a likely benefit.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This brazenness saying that black is white and this blatant misuse of sources is incredible. Only one source even uses the term benefit and it is an OPINION, not a scientific conclusion and thus fails RS. Thus the second source says "Some of the changes are likely to be beneficial, but clinical trials with increased numbers of horses and longer follow-up are needed." It is absurd to build your edits on this. I will have to reedit. I also note for the record that TheDoctorIsIn removed from his page my plea to desist from edit warring. Hardly the actions of a good faith editor and more like the chiro POV warrior we have seen again and again to the detriment of wikipedia. Mccready (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.dvmnews.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=41322
2. Sullivan KA, Hill AE, Haussler KK (2008). "The effects of chiropractic, massage and phenylbutazone on spinal mechanical nociceptive thresholds in horses without clinical signs". Equine Vet J. 40 (1): 14–20. PMID 18083655.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Gomez Alvarez CB, L'ami JJ, Moffat D, Back W, van Weeren PR (2008). "Effect of chiropractic manipulations on the kinematics of back and limbs in horses with clinically diagnosed back problems". Equine Vet J. 40 (2): 153–9. PMID 18089466.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)