Talk:Chiropractic Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] First comment

As chropractic medicine differs from country to country in terms of philosophy, education and licensing standards, integration within health care as well chiropractic politics, it is necessary that the public be educated and aware of some of these critical differences. I've began compiling a chiropractic in Canada wiki that is fact-based with the required references as proof of claims/statements made. Marcbronson 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Justification for article?

I have questions related to inclusion criteria and policies related to the existence of this article. It seems to me that this article is a fork, with so much duplication of very basic information already found in existing articles (Chiropractic, Chiropractic education) as to leave very little justification for its existence. It is unnecessary to describe chiropractic, treatment methods, etc.. I also think there are a number of notability issues involved in listing lots of rather trivial facts backed up only by primary sources. It doesn't read much like an encyclopedic article. I appreciate all the work put into it by Marc, but it needs to be cooked down to the bare essentials and probably included in the Chiropractic education article. On second thought (after looking at that article), the Canadian section has excellent content. How about seeing if there is anything unique here of verifiable importance (as determined by referenced secondary and third party sources) that can be included there? I'd like to hear other's opinions on this matter. If not, an AfD may be the way forward, but I'd like to wait. Instead of starting with such a drastic measure, I'll start with an RfC. -- Fyslee / talk 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

Although I do appreciate the constructive comments by Fyslee, given the current adherence to the subluxation model of mainstream American chiropractic institutions and practitioners, I believe it is necessary to have a Canadian Chiropractic article which differentiates ourselves from our American couterparts.

There are many significant differences between the American and Canadian chirorpractic, the most obvious being the unification of the profession of Canada nationally under one body (CCA) as opposed to the multitude of American national organizations which prevents coherence and unified message. Secondly, the CCA endorses vaccination as an important measure in public health that is well supported by the evidence, the fact that Canadian chiropractic schools do not teach a vertebral subluxation/metaphysical model of health/disease and the fact that there is a serious commitment to interdisciplinary colloboration (whereas previously DCs and MDs working together was a pipe dream) and research. These are just some of the important differences not noted in the article formely, although I would not hesitate to add them if they highlight the importance of this article.

208.101.89.150 (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if we need an article on the CCA, rather than on "Chiropractic Canadian". It seems an unnecessary fork, otherwise. We don't have United States Chiropractic, which would be more likely separated if there were to be a separation by country. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Arthur,

Reinterating again, this article is necessary since there is a growing chasm between the profession not only in North America, but in Europe and Austrasia as well. There is no such thing as "straight, objective straight, mixer and reform" types of chiropractors in Canada. Obviously there are still those who practice traditional (Palmerist) chiropractic but we the profession, association, regulatory colleges and education institutions are by and large have moved towards an evidence based framework.

Furthermore, because the only 2 Canadian schools don't teach VSC model of chiropractic (as of 1999) this also distinctly separates Canadian chiropractic from the US institutions. Where else on Earth would a school like Life University, or Sherman for example, be allowed to continue to propagate a strict vitalist curriculum, that abhors critical scientific inquiry and still insist on the Dis-ease model of chiropractic?

There are several good reasons why this page should stay, and quite frankly, I find it disturbing that a fellow editor who contributes to anti-chiropractic sites such as chirotalk and quackwatch should be allowed to obliterate a well researched chiropractic article. Can we say conflict of interest?

Also, when I attempted to include such information in the central chiropractic wiki they were reversed and deleted because the information was "only the canadian viewpoint" and did not reflect by and large the chiropactic profession (in the US which has the greatest numbers).

Would a renaming of the article to the Canadian Chiropractic Association be a mutually agreeable solution?

M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.89.150 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Marc, just AGF. I happen to be on your side as far as our shared POV about chiropractic. We are both skeptical of subluxationist quackery in chiropractic. (I happen to have read several of your comments in various places.) As far as Chirotalk goes, I haven't contributed there for ages and rarely visit there, and I have never contributed to Quackwatch in any manner and have no more influence there than you do. As to COI, you are the chiropractor, so you and anyone favorable to chiropractic would be the ones with the COI, and I haven't complained about that. An RfC is nothing to fear. Good suggestions for article improvement can be heard in this manner. I could have just nominated this for deletion in an AfD, but I didn't, which shows my good faith. I'm giving you a chance to bring this up to snuff. I have no reason to just delete it because it has to do with chiropractic. On the contrary, you won't find many skeptics here who have done so much to encourage the development of the whole chiropractic category here as I have. I think Dematt can testify to that. Please delete your personal attack above. It could be contrued as an expression of ownership, and that could cause you serious problems. I appreciate it that Dematt has refactored your serious misstep above and saved you from getting banned. Please don't do it again. Look at the top of my user page for the warning there. -- Fyslee / talk 08:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for others, but it appears the article is really about the CCA, so that would be agreeable to me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Marc, please sign in instead of editing from an IP that shows your location. Second, while what you write is interesting (and encouraging!), this article doesn't do what you are describing. It needs a massive cleanup of trivial facts, some of which are already in the Chiropractic article. Wikipedia doesn't exist to describe all the personnel in an institution, or all the researchers, or other such things. It all needs to be written encyclopedically and backed up using secondary and third party sources so we can establish its notability and what weight to assign it. A new article (with a better and more descriptive title) might be better. You can use your userspace for that, for example User:Marcbronson/Chiro. You can just start editing there and creating your article. Before you go public with it, notify me and some others who know about chiropractic and about editing here. We can review it for you, give you some tips, and let you know if it will survive. Whatever you do, this current article has little chance of surviving an AfD. Unless something radical happens soon, I will likely start one. I just want to give you a chance to totally rework this article before then. While there is no deadline, articles that are so flawed as this one can't be allowed in articlespace, in full view of the public. They need to be buried away in userspace and developed there. -- Fyslee / talk 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)