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)
- Interesting; I'm not sure whether or not the impression is accurate, though it makes a lot of sense. The question now is whether someone looking up "chirpractic" or "chiropraxy" would be expecting to find an article on the profession, but which also deals with the practice, or an article on the practice, but which also deals with the profession. Speaking personally, I'd be expecting the latter. Similarly, in my own field, I'd be surprised to find an article on philosophy that took as its main subject the profession of academic philosophy rather than the subject itself. On the other hand, while Philosophy is about the activity of philosophising (the so-called "academic meaning"), its lead mentions prominently other common usages of the term "philosophy". --Peter J. King Talk 10:41, 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 exists, although that fact is a fascinating point that may deserve careful development. Our interest in no way has to do with what chiropractors do or do not like, it has to do with our primary responsibility of providing an accurate 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)
- I'd be surprised if there were something called "chiropraxy" that was different from what's called "chiropractic", and which would therefore require a separate section — but if there turns out to be, then fine.
- With regard to the physician/doctor issue, I suspect that there's a transatlantic problem there too; my impression is that "physican" is used much more commonly in the U.S. than here or in other English-speaking countries. It would be very odd in the U.K. for someone to call herself a physician rather than a doctor, whether she's in general practice or working in a hospital, though again the professional body is the Royal College of Physicians (which nevertheless uses the term "doctor" to refer to medical practitioners). (And it's also odd that the article on Physician, though as yet only a stub, doesn't mention the word "doctor"...) --Peter J. King Talk 10:41, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
Removed it until the issue is resolved. This is a continuing version of an approved article, which the articles "physician" and "medicine" (and all their ilk) are not- not yet in any approved form. They have not been worked on much here in CZ and so what they do and do not contain is not relevant to what they should contain, and hopefully, someday, will contain. As this article explains, in gruesome detail, this particular profession (Chiropractic) not only began in the USA but at the present time is disproportionately represented by that country, and by North America. That is another reason why, even if the term chiropraxy is synonymous with the profession in the UK- an as yet unproved thesis, but the two terms are not legally synonymous in North America, still the first sentence would not contain it as a universal synonym. As to having another article on the methods employed, if that is in fact what chiropraxy means, that can be done by interested parties.That however, is not this article, whether or not it may prove to be of greater interest to the general audience. Meanwhile, I would love to talk to you about the classics (if you are still talking to me after this dogged rebuttal) -wondering if you can help us on CZ with recruitment (would you e-mail me?). Despite the fact that you have tetanus (from scratch! I understand) I won't needle you anymore, particularly in regards to this subject - in fact- as to your toxic situation, only a shot of the immunoglobulin would have any effect in your present state, and that remedy is such a rare commodity that I do not have any handy. In any event-perhaps you don't need any immediate remedy. Your condition may have locked your jaw, but it has left your fingers quite nimble on the keys, I see. :-) Nancy Sculerati 11:09, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
- I must confess that I feel very frustrated; there are more than ample sources showing that the term "chirpraxy" is widely used throughout the world, in popular and official documents, and yet it's been removed from the article, apparently on the basis that U.S. chiropractors don't like it (even if this were a good reason, I've Googled and found no mention of this dislike anywhere), and it's not a "universal synonym" (how many synonyms are?). I'll take the article off my Watchlist and get on with other things, as I don't want my attitude to Citizendium to be soured as happened to me at Wikipedia.
- With regard to Classics — it's not really my field, except where it overlaps with ancient philosophy. Neither of the two colleges with which I'm mainly involved – Pembroke & Teddy Hall – offer Classics, so I don't have any close colleagues in the field. I have friends, though, and I'll talk to them about editing here. --Peter J. King Talk 05:26, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Peter, I also feel frustrated. I have written as clearly as I know how that it is not enough to simply google a word and come up with a large number of hits- especially when these are heavily weighted in other languages (French) and never actually define the word, and expect on the basis of the magnitude of the response to the search, and personal impressions of how the word has been used in one's own experience, that this proves the point. It doesn't. Not to the point that we will accept the word chiropraxy as a synonym for chirpractic to be placed in parenthesis after the lead word of the article. I don't understand why you state that this is on the basis of dislike? I've explicitly stated that this reason has nothing to do with whether or not chiropractors like the word, and I did so honestly, and I've explained-in detail-why it is important, for the sake of accuracy, that all words used to name licensed health professions have legal implications. I did so because I am trying my best to communicate. Those legal implications exist in health professions because most countries in the world (maybe every country) agree that, for the public safety, regulation of these professions must be carried out by the government and that part of that regulation is to demand licenses that can only be obtained if certain educational and practice standards are met. This is not the case with Philosophy. Nancy Sculerati 07:30, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Nancy, I too have to confess to puzzlement about the resistance to including the word "chiropraxy" somehow in this article, on the strength of the evidence not to be found on the Google search results page, but to be found on the pages linked from there, which are much more credible than Google. For example, in SNOMED, the Systematized NOmenclature of MEDicine, "Chiropraxy" is listed as the "preferred" name of a regime and "Chiropractic" is listed as "synonym." Here's info about SNOMED. Let me take a shot at replying to your arguments.
- The hits are heavily weighted in other languages: in the Google search, only one in ten of the first ten hits references a French language document. All others are in English. Non-U.S. documents, however, do seem to predominate.
- Never actually define the word: effectively, many of the documents do define the word (as in the SNOMED browser, which gave a "synonymous" definition of chiropraxy: it means "chiropractic"), or at least make it perfectly clear that it refers to the practice started by D.D. Palmer. There are no reasonable grounds for doubt about the fact that it at least roughly refers to the same thing that "chiropractic" refers to. Why don't you pull out the OED, Nancy? I know you have a copy. :-) If we are worried that people will look up "chiropraxy" in a Scottish phone book and end up going to someone who isn't a licensed chiropractor, we can provisionally say, in the article, that the term "chiropraxy" is in currency in Europe, but it isn't perfectly clear to us whether it means exactly the same as "chiropractic." Of course, if it does turn out to mean precisely the same, then we'll be embarrassed for declaring our ignorance of this. :-) Needs Research.
- It is important, for the sake of accuracy, that all words used to name licensed health professions have legal implications: all right, even granted that it is very, very important that we call chiropractic "chiropractic," for some legal reasons better known to you than to me, that does not entail that we cannot report the information that chiropractic is also called "chiropraxy," particularly in Europe (if that's the case--I don't know; look at this). This is simply a matter of neutrality, as I see it.
But now let me put a little weight on Nancy's side, against Peter (I don't really want any friends!): bear in mind that, while a Google search is usually only weak evidence of anything, the fact that "chiropractic" gets 15 million hits while "chiropraxy" gets only 3,000 is indeed good evidence that the word "chiropraxy" need not get top billing, i.e., it need not be listed in parentheses after "chiropractic" is defined. That's because Google's implied usage statistics would have to be off by three orders of magnitude for us to consider giving "chiropraxy" top billing. Even if it got 30K hits, or 300K, it would still not deserve top (parenthetical) billing. Perhaps we could bury the reference some paragraphs down; perhaps in a bit about the spread of this largely North American practice around the world?
But I have to agree that because the term is in some currency, and is used by some apparently credible sources, and for no other reason than that, it should be included in the article, with the appropriate qualifications if necessary for legal purposes. --Larry Sanger 08:51, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Just as a point of interest; there are 451,000 google hits for accupuncture when the correct spelling is acupuncture. If chiropraxy is a lay term, or misspeak (I also see chiropractary), I don't think Citizendium wants to be in the business of perpetuating a misnomer. It's all about being an accurate resource. If it takes us some time to figure this out, so be it. That's what makes us different than wikipedia, a very important difference. The difference between making a statement like:
- Chiropractic, also known as chiropraxy,...
versus
- Chiropractic, sometimes misstated as chiropraxy,...
--Matt Innis (Talk) 09:18, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
- Now Matt, the Royal Commission is not misstating anything. Chiropraxy should be mentioned in the article, in a suitable place. And should that be carried out, the addition would be welcomed. If it is another word that is used for chiropractic treatment, we should say so- in context. I still don't understand just what that context is, or where in the world that term is routine, and how exactly it is properly used by the people who do use it, and that's the only reason I myself have not proposed an alternative text to include the term. I removed it from the lead for all the reasons I have hammered to death about why it should not be there. Peter, perhaps you can fix it- if not inclined to do so, perhaps others will. [Also friendless :-( ] Nancy Sculerati 09:22, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
- Nancy, of course the Royal Commission would not misstate anything, but so far all we have seen is this commission's name in a footnote. It says nothing about what they are calling chiropraxy. I believe I've also seen cheiropractic [11] but at least it describes what they are talking about, and I have no problem adding that one, too. (Notice the same site calls cheiropraxy/chiropraxy the German equivolent of chiropractic (english). I think we need a whole section for these things, as I said above. We just need to know what they are talking about. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:59, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Far be it from me to gainsay an actual chiropractor, but I'm just looking at the evidence gathered not on the Google search page, but on the links provided on that page, and there seems to be reason to think that "chiropraxy" is not merely a mistake. First, SNOMED, the Systematized NOmenclature of MEDicine, actually prefers the term "chiropraxy." Second, as this article and this Google search make amply clear, there is something called a "Royal Commission on Chiropraxy and Osteopathy" in Quebec. Indeed, a whole book or report called Chiropraxy is available. Neutrality demands we acknowledge the other term, not necessarily in the first line, but somewhere, and not by saying that it is a "mistake" but that it is an alternate term, particularly outside of the U.S.
Finally, there is this from D.D. Palmer himself.
--Larry Sanger 10:51, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
- Is a raw google search adequate substitute for scholarship? As Chris Day says- it's not neutral. There are a lot of other things it's not. The issue appears to be fixed with a link to the article using the search term chiropraxy. However, it seems to me that if a point cannot be won by actual scholarship and logic, that it's easy - perhaps even easier than doing a google search- to assume that the lack is in others.It is also a traditional approach, but not of the strong or the erudite. Nancy Sculerati 11:22, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Finding evidence via a Google search is not the same thing as looking at a Google search results page and not going past there. The evidence I've collected is actual scholarship: I found a reference in a book by D.D. Palmer himself, as well as conclusive evidence that a "Royal Commission on Chiropraxy and Osteopathy" exists in Quebec. Does this count for nothing? --Larry Sanger 11:54, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
- It counts for nothing in terms of the argument on this page, which you joined belatedly, that argument being about the wisdom of placing Chiopraxy in parenthesis after Chiropractic (hit history tab of article). It doesn't help us understand how the word is currently used in Quebec or England. My concern is about establishing a precedent that a Google search is a primary means to support a position,rather than scholarly pursuasion by constructing a logical argument backed up by individual sources that have been carefully read and analyzed. You merely commented on the search, and in a fashion that taught me (and I'd venture, everyone) something. Against all inclination, I have become a little knowlegable about chiropractic and its history, and the fact that DD Palmer used the term is intruiging. My remarks above are in no way directed at your contributions to this discussion.Nancy Sculerati
- Google is fine for finding a legitimate source but one has to be able to see the difference between the wheat and chaff. Larry's sources seem like wheat to me. Google is illegitimate when it is used as an opinion poll, or worse, an appeal to authority based on the number of hits. Clearly the latter is flawed analysis. Chris Day (Talk) 12:28, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
- Good work everybody. So this is what we have so far. A book that is written by the same guy that wrote the Quebec report for the Royal Commmission of chiropraxy and osteopathy in 1965, Lacroix. The SNOMED source points to chiropraxy as a regime/therapy that eminates from it's parent "procedures" column. There are no nomenclatures for professions themselves, only procedures. Chris sees chiropractors and no chiropraxy in the yellow pages. The World Health Association does not mention chiropraxy except in a reference to the Royal Commission report stated previously. However, they do describe different educational paths that healthcare professionals may use to be able to be called chiropractors. There is a list given to DD Palmer written by Rev Samual Weed (the guy who gave DD the idea for the name) that includes chirpraxy and defined as the science and art of doing by hand while chiropractic is defined as done by hand or one that advocates or does hand practice. I seem to remember that DD eventually eventually chose chiropractic over chiropraxy in his 1910 book, but I'll see if I can find it. After reading this about LaCroix and his Commission that took ten years to investigate chiropractic was well aware of the definition of chiropraxy as the science and art of doing by hand. It was basically Canada's Wilk suit that resulted in insurance reimbursement and acceptance of chiropractic as a legitimate healthcare field. He chose that word for a reason. It appears that the words are synonymous, though I am not sure that they are equivocal, yet. Is it used commonly, or is it used just by those that don't know what chiropractic is? Once we know that, I think we're done here. --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:51, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
I think we are done here, now. This is too trivial an issue to waste our time. I googled phone listings in several English communities such as London and Oxford. Yellow page listings -lots of chiropractor, lots of chiropractic. Zero chiropraxy. Do we have an encyclopedia to write, or what? Nancy Sculerati 18:58, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Chiropraxy
The above section was getting long so I've continued it here.
Chris, do you get the feeling that chiropraxy and chiropractic are the same things or is chiropraxy a more evidence based practice based on spinal manipulation. In other words, I am seeing orthopedic web sites claiming to offer chiropraxy to it's patients. I am wondering if in the UK, chiropractic is more aligned with medicine and osteopathy is the profession that holds to the more metaphysical concepts. In effect, perhaps the roles are reversed over there. Are there chiropraxists? (what would you call them then?) There are chiropodists, too, but they only work on feet and are different than chiropractors. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:46, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
- I don't know- but that's why we have to actually research it. Gareth (missing in action) might be able to steer us to the right sources. For example, in the UK- from the best I know second-hand, the education and licensing for the practice of medicine is very different- the MD degree is an advanced research degree and there are less academically rigorous qualifications to practice medicine. In the USA, the MD degree is a graduate degree (although certainly not requiring Ph D level critical thinking and independant research) and is Not enough to actually practice medicine. So, in an article about the practice of medicine, not only is MD not globally recognized as a practicing physician, but there are those-like Chiropractors (I leave out the sappy smile, but I do mean it kindly) and Naturopaths who are casually called physicians (Chiropractic, Naturopathic used as adjective) and do not practice medicine. The wikipedia article medicine so fully includes every possible meaning of the word that it ends up being useless as an reference for Medicine. That's one reason I think healing arts is such a useful term. It can include everything and yet leave each practice and profession its own distinct articles. The reason I happened to come accross the German stuff about chirotherapy is that - I think it was the Lancet, but I don't recall the damn article reference- there was a rebuttal to an article that reported stroke as a complication of Chiropractic, and it was explained there that the case actually occured in Germany and was not a complication of chiropractic. The manipulation was carried out by an unlicensed massage provider, called Chirosomething in German, and that it was both a linguistic and legal mistranslation to call that person a Chiropractor. So, Chris, and Peter-lacking Gareth's input-do you know which body defines health practices in the UK? Do they have a website? Nancy Sculerati 10:03, 7 April 2007 (CDT) PS-what we need is a disambiguation page so that if a person searches for Chirpraxy looking for what we have written about can find it. Can you guys fix it?
- Exactly. If the two are equivolent, then we can just make a redirect (which Peter has already done) and keep the etymology section as is. If not, then we need to do whatever is necessary to draw the distinctions between all of them. --Matt Innis (Talk)
Since I'm a botanist I should think I am the last one you want for an opinion but the term I was familiar with was chiropractor, which obviously refers to the individual. To be honest, apart from seeing their clinics here and there I paid little attention to the business. FYI, I just looked at the UK yellow pages and indeed chiropractic is well represented in buisness names too but chiropraxy got no hits. So my input here is clearly one of great ignorance or poor recollections. Basically, even more biased than a google search :) As far as my two peneth is concerned the term is clearly legitimate from what I have seen above. The issue is how common is its usage. Chris Day (Talk) 11:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, Chris. All good information. I agree on the common part and am lookin ginto that right now. --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:27, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
There is this Britain passes "Chiropractic Act" from 1994. Also note that there are 0 hits on the chiro.web website for chiropraxy while there are 111 hits for United Kingdom. I do realize that editors could have edited the word chiropraxy to chiropractic. --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:27, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
103 hits for Chiropractic on BMJ website 0 hits for Chiropraxy on BMJ website --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:35, 7 April 2007 (CDT)