Talk:Chiropractic/Draft
Approved version 1.1!
I have placed the approval template for version 1.1 of this article. Congratulations for your hard work everyone! Stephen Ewen 13:16, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
Stephen, Thank you! I made two copyedits on dead links. Please verify that these are allowable-we have discussed extensively on the Forums that approving editors may have a brief window of opportunity to "proof". Nancy Sculerati 13:46, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
Yes, thanks Stephen, and I am fine with the two changes so all is good:) Good job on this article and thank you very much for all your patience and hard work, especially Nancy and Gareth. --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:54, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
Omission
I'm a little surprised that a common synonym – "chiropraxy" – isn't mentioned in the lead. --Peter J. King Talk 05:15, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
- Hi Peter, thanks. I suppose it would be a good idea to have a whole etymology section. We can work on that. I have never seen chiropraxy used in the USA. I do see it in the medical literature a lot. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:58, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
- I think that it's the more common form here in the U.K. (I don't remember ever seeing "Chiropractic" before this article...). --Peter J. King Talk 08:56, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
That's one great thing about CZ, we can all fully realize that we're hopelessly provincial! :-) Nancy Sculerati 11:42, 3 April 2007 (CDT) Oh- but make sure it really is the same. I have to look up the actual terms, but I know that in Germany 2 different words are used, one for professional licensed chiropractors, one for massage practitioners who may be unlicensed and are not chiropractors, but use some of the techniques. Nancy Sculerati 11:44, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
- Wow, all those certainly are strange thoughts. If we want to make this truly "international" I suppose we should entertain the idea of expounding on all of those. As more authors and editors arrive, we can add to it until we have enough to make a section. --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:10, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
- I tried to post this yesterday, but kept hitting error messages, and losing my dat. I googled "chiropraxy", and it is simply a synonym for "chiropractic" (used pretty well exclusively in the U.K., and pretty widely in the U.S.). --Peter J. King Talk 15:23, 4 April 2007
(CDT)
How 'bout a couple of actual references? I have looked up licensing in several US States and have not seen the term. Nancy Sculerati 20:47, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
- I did originally provide four or five references, but the software glitches ate them. For the U.K., the Royal Commission on Chiropraxy and Osteopathy is mentioned in a number of places, and there's this; for the U.S., there's this and this (mention of the Los Angeles School of Chiropraxy). elsewhere there's this. To be honest, googling "chiropraxy" brings up a huge number of hits, including British NHS documents, U.S. documents, French, Japanese, documents, etc. --Peter J. King Talk 04:27, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
- The Los Angeles School of Chiropraxy only gets the one hit. I wonder if it is a typo or mental error on the part of the person that typed that page? Keep lookiing for USA mentions. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:16, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Well, to be honest U.S. mentions don't matter; I just threw them in because I came across them. --Peter J. King Talk 17:19, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
I agree, it would be more just to decide if we should differentiate according to regions, or countries, etc. for accuracy sake. --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:20, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
- Good point. I've got a couple of Canadian ones, if that helps: [1], [2]. --Peter J. King Talk 07:59, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
Peter, with all due respect, although it may be absolutely technically correct that Chirpraxy has been used as a synonym for chiropractic, and is used that way in some places, there are other considerations to including it as a parenthetical equivalent in the introduction. To do that, we must research exactly how that word is used in different countries under the law for practice of health professionals. It would be a mistake - in my opinion - to include this in the article unless the status of that word in the regulation of health professions in every area of the world where Chiropractic is a licensed health profession is verified, except as a foot note. If in fact, there are areas (perhaps the UK?) where it is equivalent,and not only mentioned as such in legal licensing requirements, but stands as the more commonly used word for the profession in that region, then that should absolutely be mentioned in the appropriate section. Chiropractors have struggled for decades to achieve a certain level of education and training recognized for practice. In every health or healing arts profession that has done so, there are always people without these qualifications who advertise their services using words that are legally permissible in the various systems, and imply that they are what they are not. The word doctor is a famous one, and although there are any number of references that will show all sorts of people using doctor and physician as synonyms (including physicians), they are not that under the law. So, in an encyclopedia aimed to educate the global public in health matters, we would therefore never begin an article on "Physician" as Physican (also called doctor) or (synonym doctor) because that might easily mislead the naive reader. Same here, the up side of including a synonym for completeness is not near the magnitude of the downside of muddying the actual limits of professional practice and certification. see for example,[ http://www.chiroweb.com/world/germany.html] Nancy Sculerati 08:17, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
I agree. These links almost make it look like chiropraxy may be used by others to describe the method, while chiropractic is still the profession. They don't quite use the terms interchangeably. In fact the Royal Commission's report is on "Chiropraxy and Chiropractic." I don't see any chiropractor's using the term chiropraxy. I was thinking that this could be a lay term? --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:52, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
- [after edit conflict]
- Well, some of my links were to NHS sites, and I've mentioned the Royal Commission on Chiropraxy. The situation seems to be that both forms are used here; the professional organisations prefer "chiropractic", but "chiropraxy" is used by individual chiropractors, and in respectable, as well as government-related, documents (a few more: [3], [4], [5], [6],[7], [8], [9], [10].
- In any case, if "chiropractic" is commonly called "chiropraxy" (and this does seem to be a common synonym, in many countries), we should say so, even if professional chiropractors don't like it. Similarly, I should have thought that we should explain in the lead of Physician that the term "doctor" is commonly used; we surely shouldn't risk misleading or confusing people by sticking to technical or strict legal usages. After all, if the facts of usage muddy limits of professional practice, that's not our responsibility; our responsibility is rather to report the facts, though explaining distinctions and the limits of usages.
- (I can't deny that I find the use of "chiropractic" peculiar (I can't think of another noun formed in this way), and I suspect the same response leads to so many people choosing a word that fits better with normal English rules. Still, the fact is that they do.) --Peter J. King Talk 09:07, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
In terms of reporting facts- absolutely, and, since we are doing so in context we can even have a whole section on "chiropraxy". What we need are the actual facts about how this term is used, not simply that it is used. It's a fascinating point that deserves careful development. Our interest in no way has to do with what chiropractors do or do not like, it has to do with an acurrate real-world presentation of the subject of the article: which is, after all, the profession of chiropractic. As to the medical profession, in an article such as Physician, you are of course correct, the word doctor would be discussed. My point, just a tiny one and perhaps made badly, is that in no way would this be used as a synonym in parentheses the lead of the article, because it is not accurate. That's all. Nancy Sculerati 09:43, 6 April 2007 (CDT)