Talk:Chiropractic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41: 30 days

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Chiropractic Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Skepticism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citizendium Porting (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

Copied pages:
Copied Chiropractic (history) → Chiropractic treatment techniques Copied Chiropractic (history) → Veterinary chiropractic Copied Koren Specific Technique (history) → Chiropractic Copied Chiropractic (history) → Baby colic Copied Baby colic (oldid, history) → Chiropractic (diff)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to complementary and alternative medicine, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

WP:V issue?

About this[1] edit, which is now WP:OVERCITED to four sources two of which are exclusive to the lede: what text in these sources verifies the "many chiropractors falsely claim" text? Bon courage (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for a source to neatly verify text, or do you think that's the wrong direction? Ie, Are you questioning whether it's true that many chiropractors claim to treat non-musculoskeltal conditions, or are you questioning whether they actually can? Feoffer (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording doesn't make good sense, but the immediate point is WP:V is a core policy and you're editing the lead of a high-traffic article on a WP:CTOP, where editors are expected to adhere to certain standards if they don't want to end up at WP:AE. Bon courage (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well happy to self-rv. I thought my wording was equivalent to the extant text. When we say Chiros claim to treat "general health", don't we mean ailments like diabetes, asthma, etc? And when they claim that chiropractic can treat general health, isn't that claim 100% false and provably so? Feoffer (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

And in fact, reviewing many recent edits I think they are all worsening the article by giving it an odd/poorly-sourced US focus and sprinkling in undue one-off opinions from marginal sources, all tending in a WP:PROFRINGE direction. Hence, reverted.[2] Bon courage (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, there were 26 intermediate revisions in there -- what specifically are your concerns? Nothing I wrote was intended to be pro-Fringe of course. Feoffer (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said. Also things like removing all the antivaxx material from the lead. None of this helps the article. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good feedback. That version explicitly warned readers about chiros spreading vaccine misinformation in the lede. In 2025, most readers know that "vaccine misinformation" means "falsely claiming vaccines aren't effective, when really they are", but there's no harm in spelling that out explicitly for readers in lede. I'll take care no to re-introduce that change. Most of the changes were fairly anodyne polishing -- is there anything else that jumped out at you as problematic or having the effect of promoting fringe. Feoffer (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article should be more US-centric. I don't think we want random opinions from people indulging in fallacies of future vindication. I don't think we should be using (probably misleading) chiropractic sources. And I don't think we should be using unreliable/marginal sources like medpagetoday. I do think policies should be strictly observed and that sentences should make clear sense. Bon courage (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All sound good to me, though I'm not certain what precisely you mean. Which part of the text is "fallacies of future vindication"? Is there a particular chiropractic source that was used in a misleading way? Not using Medpagetoday is easy, not focusing on US is easy. Obviously, we all want our sentences to make sense :) -- good feedback. Feoffer (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced narrative framing like

By the 2010s, chiropractors were increasingly noted for collaborations with providers of mainstream medicine

is a problem. Then quoting the remarks of an unspecified "professor of Medicine" when you're actually quoting an assistant professor who is a known promoter of altmed is a likewise a problem.[3] Bon courage (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always thankful for specific feedback like this! Time (2016) attributed the opinion to "Dr. Ronald Glick, assistant professor of psychiatry, physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine". The quote hasn't been added back, but is there some reason we shouldn't use the Glick quote about US physicians now collaborating with US chiros? Feoffer (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is the primary opinion of a junior academic promoting fringe subjects useful for reflecting accepted knowledge about chiropractic? Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not PRIMARY, it's a direct quote from a RS -- Time Magazine in 2016. Feoffer (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of a view, relayed without analysis. Hence, primary. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's fine. I think you probably mean that you worry it's UNDUE or pro-FRINGE. We don't have to use the quote. For it to be PRIMARY, it's have to be a quote from PRIMARY source. A doctor being quoted by a journalist and published in a RS isn't OR/Synth/Primary. Feoffer (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common misconception. Primary material remains primary if it is just relayed, by however many sources, without commentary/analysis, such sources are just WP:LINKSINACHAIN. Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated reviews

Just a note that a lot of the reviews cited here are 15-20 years old. The conclusions and framing of the article seem robust and solid, but there are more recent reviews to the same effect. DataFocused (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]