User talk:Valjean/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto You may find it interesting. Midgley 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comments on religion. Yes I removed the section (see Talk) but kept the two key, longer quotes, and moved them to relevant places. The other two quotes I deleted simply because I didn't understand them readily, (i.e. not because of what they said but because I didn't quite see what they said) - I didn't feel that they were self explanatory and made a clear point. As for retaining a separate section - fine if it is true that chiropractic is today a religion, otherwise I thought this would be appropriate for the history section. I'm trying to be studiously NPOV, maybe I overcompensate for my private opinions. But in general I feel that more minds are changed by cool, well written, eminently reasonable articles that present unarguable facts in a balanced way than by rhetorical statements, so I tend to take out statements that express viewpoints even if I agree with them when I can't see that they are adequately justified by what is actually cited, rather than by things I think I know. I would offer you a smile if I knew how to do that. -- Gleng 16:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Although many chiropractors treat it as such, and some reform chiropractors actually consider it to be so, I don't consider chiropractic to currently be a real religion (it lacks churches), or actually to have ever been an official religion. DD Palmer never got that far, although he was heading in that direction. Who knows what would have happened if his son hadn't driven him down and likely shortened his life? Too bad BJ didn't get convicted of attempted murder, but the case was thrown out. He simply controlled the whole town of Davenport.

Chiropractic has many metaphysical elements, and by many definitions could qualify as a religion, and very definitely has many cult aspects as well. I don't think that much of this is appropriate here, but a mention of the religious tendencies in the history section is still important for an understanding of chiropractic, even as it is practiced today. What other health profession has missionaries and missionary tours to other countries to spread the gospel of chiropractic? Just read planetchiro! -- Fyslee 09:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the introduction. It looks good. If you could locate the original source (not Dynamic Chiropractic) for the information quoted here,you could use it as the source/documentation for this part:

"Regardless, a majority of chiropractors still believe that subluxations play a significant role in all or most diseases and practice accordingly, while others choose to limit their practices to the care of low back and neck pain." [1] -- Fyslee 18:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dematt"

I'll see what I can find. It looks like a manufactured compromise from several POV's, but surely there should be some support for it out there. I think it was User:chiropractor who actually added the "majority" to the sentence, though I doubt that he had a source in mind when he did it. -- Dematt 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep it coming! I really appreciate your intellectual honesty. You must be so frustrated with this process. Chiro Quote -- Dematt 03:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want all the basic facets, aspects, POV and controversies of chiropractic covered in the article. This may well result in a form of splitting into several articles at some point in time. By that I mean that when a subsection becomes too large, it could become a separate article, with a summary and link left in the main article. Chiropractic is a huge and fascinating subject. I find it much more interesting than many other professions, simply because of its controversial and colorful history, and the extreme diversity in the profession. There are many chiros whom I admire and respect, and I know that they have sympathizers who don't dare speak out. Even among subluxation based chiros (like yourself), I believe that most are honest and hardworking people who help a lot of people. As long as we can cooperate - and even when disagreeing do it agreeably - we can get alot done here. I like to be try to understand both sides of a question, even while maintaining my own viewpoint. -- Fyslee 16:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a lot of good information and a good understanding of how to use it. Your reputation does proceed you a bit;) But something tells me you would make a great chiro advocate, too, if only it could be proven... Maybe it could be! That is a good question, do you think that there is a point of no return.. when you're beliefs become so much a part of you that you can never change your mind? -- Dematt 05:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My reputation.....depends on who you talk to. Many chiros who visit my sites hate me like the pest, and send threatening and spiteful emails. They have usually only read some of what I write, and aren't aware that I have much more nuanced views than can be found in a few blog entries or website pages. I even have one is obsessed with me and who (anonymously) hounds me and writes very derogatory and deceptive emails to a large list of (often influential) people. In them he mentions details about my personal life and writings in a way that reveals he has read practically everything I've written! Amazing. Unfortunately he also twists it to make me say and mean things I've never written or meant. He simply deceptively attempts to make me look bad in the eyes of those to whom he sends the emails.

Now that is just down right wrong. Whoever it is needs to just give it up. If they would put their energy into progressing their ideas rather than dumping on yours, maybe everybody would benefit. It sounds kinda cowardly. --Dematt 01:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some other chiros are complimentary and share some of my concerns, even sending me good insider information and seminar notes. They are my best sources of information. I can publish information that they don't dare utter out loud. Over the years I've gotten a pretty good grasp of many aspects of chiropractic, without ever becoming an expert on the nitty gritty of performing all the techniques. Of course as a PT I'm also educated and experienced in ordinary manual therapy and manipulation techiques, but that's from a PT angle, which is more like osteos (American, not European).

I hope I don't get so cemented in my "beliefs" that I can't change my mind! I'm a skeptic, and attempt to follow the evidence. I've changed my mind more than once, including my religious beliefs. (I'm a preacher's kid, and now a skeptic.). That was and is still a traumatic experience, but my intellectual honesty could only be preserved by making the change. If the chiropractic subluxation were to suddenly be scientifically "proven," that would be an awakening! I don't think it would be, since it involves a belief system, and not just some scientific revelations about anatomy and physiology. More revelations about the anatomical and physiological side of the question can always come to light, and would simply be added to the arsenal of scientific knowledge we already have amassed. That's what's fascinating about science. It grows, wobbles up and down, makes mistaken assumptions, self-corrects, and moves on. All this happens, not because science itself does it, but because the biggest weakness about science and medicine is that it involves people. We are the weakest link, and we learn by doing and making mistakes. That's life, and I have no problem with that. -- Fyslee 07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that with me. My mom was catholic and my dad was pentacostal. Being cast out by both religions, makes it difficult for me to trust in religion either. My dad was the consumate engineer who felt that everything was mechanical and had a place. His favorite subjects always centered around the "progress of society" (the 1960's!) and how much better it would be if "conservationists would just stay out of the way". As a project manager, he took several post graduate classes at Harvard. He spent much of his time working to automate systems to take people out of the equation, therefore replacing the "weakest link" in the production process. As you can imagine, he had no ability to work with people. Though he was able to manage a few affairs:0 My mom, on the other hand, lived in deep guilt (catholic) and did her best to make sure we grew up with all the tenents of christianity, especially forgiveness, as people are ultimately weak and made mistakes. Apparently, I am the net result. --Dematt 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I never really thought of myself as subluxation based, but thanks for the compliment!..=) I'm really just painfully open minded. I can relate to all the POV's. To me they are all just words. We're all doing the same thing. Doing everything we can to help within the limits placed on us. I'd be willing to bet that you and I practice the same way. I have said the word subluxation more in the last month than I have in years. You have people that love you and people that think you are a quack, too. The interesting thing about being a chiro is that people come in thinking your a quack already, so there is nowhere to go but up:) -- Dematt 05:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaken. I thought I had read something here where you wrote that you did believe in VS and treated them. I didn't get the impression that you were a card carrying NACM member....;-) At the same time I found you to be open, honest, cooperative, and generally a nice guy who could see both sides of the issues, and like myself could discuss them. I think we share the same goals, and that is to make sure the article presents - without preaching or selling - the various POV about chiropractic. It is a multifacetted subject. The thoughts in your last sentence above are ones I've often heard from chiros who email me. I have great sympathy for them because they, regardless of their beliefs, are usually ordinary and honest people who care about others and seek to help them. It's not usually their fault (in the larger sense) that chiropractic is so controversial or has a negative reputation among so many people. I encourage them to continue to practice ethically, expose abuses, and seek to reform the profession from the inside. They must be doing something right, and they shouldn't stop doing it. -- Fyslee 07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I try to be careful in what I choose to "believe" as I feel that it paints me into a corner. I really think that a person cannot do anything for a prolonged length of time that goes against what they believe. The problem is, most people aren't aware that what they think is real is only what they believe. They then become stuck in their version of reality. In the search for "truth", you can't afford to get stuck. My scoutmaster experience taught me that I have no right to "plant" my ideas in the minds of children, no matter how right I thought I was. Their blank minds are perfectly capable of observing their world and reaching conclusions. My job was just to keep them safe while they learned. In the meantime, I learned more from them than they did from me.

I'm pretty sure I have treated subluxations as well as osteopathic lesions, sprains and strains, and even straightened my share of curves. Sure, I'll work with carpal tunnel and some even respond, but rarely to joint manipulation alone. I've even cleared up some exzema(with zinc oxide cream;). I manage people with healed compression fractures and refer acute ones. I work with some awful looking degenerative conditions. Have I helped indigestion using manipulation in the midthoracic region? Of course, sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. You probably have, too. Is that chiropractic? That is acedemic. It's for the scholars to debate as to whether it is chiropractic just because a chiropractor does it. If a PT manipulates is he praciticing chiropractic? If a chiro suggested Tylenol to treat a subuxation is he/she practicing medicine or chiropractic? However, please keep in mind that I only treat subluxations on Medicare patients;) and never treat sciatica;) --Dematt 15:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is something I've written on NPOV. I'd like to read your evaluation. -- Fyslee 16:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I read it the first day and was impressed with your words. I am infinitely more impressed as I your actions speak louder. -- Dematt 05:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Frustrated? Sometimes....;-) Wikipedia is a fantastic place, with good software and infinite possiblities, BUT there are also downsides to the process. I'm one of many who favors limiting editing to registered users. This would cut down on a lot of the drive by vandalism. I also have a dream (which wouldn't be popular!) that all editors have their true identities and contact information registered with Wikipedia (not necessarily available to other users). I feel this way because of the serious misuses that continually occur, in which libelous and illegal things happen here, without any possibility of justice being done. People should be accountable for their actions here and on the internet. I've seen too many lives ruined by the reckless and malicious actions of trolls and other types. -- Fyslee 16:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered at my talk page --Yurik 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you please check on the chiro article again? The chiropractors are growing stronger again. ackoz 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You can edit the template at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:HealthDisclaimer ackoz

How would we get pictures for the chiro article. I've seen several DD pictures on Keating's websites. Are their copyrights, and how would we get permission to use them?--Dematt 03:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about that. I would imagine that a number of such images aren't copyrighted, but when in doubt, contact the webmaster. -- Fyslee 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you check the references I made in the new history section and make sure I did it correctly. I wasn't sure how to cite the Florida Report. Thanks!--Dematt 02:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew it wasn't right. Do you have a place where you go to check how to do the different types?--Dematt 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the correct format, here is the place: Citation. I have just copied what looked good on some other article, so I'm not even sure if I've done it properly. It seems to be working okay here. I like to have a good citation and a good URL to an available source. -- Fyslee 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's it! How much do I owe you? I paid thousands to have my kids taught that stuff in college. --Dematt 15:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You owe me nothing, other than to be treated fairly and to assume good faith. (And if we ever meet, to share a good bottle of Zinfandel....;-) That doesn't mean I can't make mistakes. I'm not always tactful, I don't always stay balanced, and I therefore truly appreciate good advice and friendly, constructive criticism (without the personal attacks I'm always getting from Steth and Levine2112 -- they only want one POV). I will then owe YOU!! I share your dream of this becoming the best article about chiropractic anywhere. Exactly how you envision to reach that goal is of course somewhat unknown to me. I read articles about chiropractic all the time. They are either written from a chiropractic salesman's viewpoint, or a skeptic viewpoint, or a rather bland and ignorant viewpoint that merely parrots some other articles. This one should encompass all viewpoints. I tend to be an inclusionist rather than exclusionist, which means the article would go into depth with those viewpoints, and thus end up being too long. That's where your sandbox comes into play. You can write the long versions there, summarize them shortly, and use that in the article. -- Fyslee 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a deal! I read every word you write, sometimes several times. You do take a lot of abuse, but I am impressed with your stamina. Lessor people would have given up a long time ago:) You seem to be able to handle Steth and Levine2112 just fine. Everybody realizes that when it starts to get personal, its only because they know they are losing an argument. That's why my wife always gets personal when I am right:) and I have the bruises to prove it:) It probably is a good thing nobody knows where to find any of us!

I hope you don't think I know where all this is going! I thought you did:) The way I look at it is this; Chiropractic is still here. Nothing we write is going to change that. Lets just get it right so others can learn from it. The more Mccready waves the quack flag, the more amazing it looks that chiropractic has survived. Who knows, one day the definition of quack may mean those who got it right: see chiropractic(I dream, too, you know:) Only time will tell, long after you and I are gone. Wikipedia has made it possible to create a corraboration that would never otherwise exist. It is bound to come as close to truth as possible.--Dematt 13:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I see. I'll catch on. Thanks for the help with the links.--Dematt 21:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, Thanks for the STAR! Just in the nick of time, too. I was beginning to wonder if this was going to be worth it. It's amazing how a little virtual star can boost your energy. Coming from you means even more. Thanks.--Dematt 12:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

--Fasten 16:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Even I don't know every guideline.Geni 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Wikipedia is enormous! -- Fyslee 04:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brentt,

You may find this interesting in light of the pseudoscience discussion:

• HomeoLinks
• The Memory of Water

-- Fyslee 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

hehe thats pretty funny. Yea, "water memory" is about the silliest idea I've ever heard, there's so many reasons why it CAN'T be true. If some omniscient being told me that despite all the evidence to the contrary either phrenology or homeopathy was actually onto something, but not both, and this being was going to make me guess which one it was to spare my life, I'd go with phrenology hehe. homeopathy is so ridiculous. --Brentt 22:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I added Herbalism in the Template:Alternative medical systems also as you did a few times. We are not so different after all despite our pseudoscientific differences. High regards. --Homy 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Fyslee label me with spam tag ? Please offer advice. Labelling people trying to contribute to the body of information must be detrimental. Have covered this topic with Rasmus. (Euripides 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Leaving links and the same message all over the place, especially usurping the top spot on the page, instead of adding your comment at the bottom like everyone else, is very improper. Be a little more circumspect and you'll run into less resistance. As far as your message itself, you don't control language, distionary definitions, or encyclopedias. You may not like the word massage, but you can't change the fact it is a legitimate word and in the right hands a legitimate practice. I have no trouble with the expression soft tissue therapy, but if it becomes an article that duplicates the massage one, it's pointless. It can be listed as a synonym for massage. BTW, I'm a Physical Therapist who uses soft tissue therapy (massage) alot. -- Fyslee 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Fyslee. My multiple message posts were an attempt to gain some feedback about the definition of massage. However, having re-read the message myself I can see how it may read as gruff and opinionated - I'll take more time to express myself next time. In saying that, I'm not sure now whether Wiki is the right forum for this issue, and in fact, ought we treat Wiki as a forum of this kind ? I understand the top of the page thingy now. I was confused by seeing some of the dates out of sequence eg., this very post will be out of sequence with those below; nevertheless, I take, and will certainly heed your point. Insofar as controlling language, I didn't seek to comae across that way; I see my contribution to Wiki as an attempt to fine-tune the definition. I am finding more and more that "massage", "bodywork", and "soft tissue therapy" are very distinct and the seamlessness that exists between them often confuses, and dare I say, annoys the general public at large, let alone graduating students who continue to seek new names that will distinguish themselves from "massage therapists", whatever that means. Generally, if a person "has a massage" in 2006, they may be having it in someone's spare bedroom, in a gym, in a resort, in an adult facility, in a massage clinic, at their workplace, at an airport, on a plane, or on the sidewalk . . . . . . . in saying that, would you advise that I go back and remove those rogue messages that I have posted and approach this from a different angle. You obviously know your way around Wiki and your opinion would be very helpful. To this end, I am seeking to contribute to this body of work in the best way I can. I do believe that this is a very serious issue for our industry and for this reason I am taking the time, and making a concerted effort to make a positive contribution. Hope all is well in your world . . . for now (Euripides 07:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

I understand your concern about the various meanings that "massage" can connote, and I also often use the term "manipulation of soft tissue" as a euphemism for massage. The matter of whether Wikipedia is the right place to deal with this is another matter. Wikipedia isn't a discussion list or forum as such, although much of what goes on here on discussion pages (Talk) certainly falls into that category. But those discussions should have something to do with the editing of articles.

In that connection, the massage article could use a section entitled "Terminology," where various other terms and expressions for massage can be shortly explained. You can participate on the Talk page and develop your ideas and suggested contributions there.

As a Physical Therapist in private practice (with my wife, also a PT) I use massage quite a bit and appreciate its great usefulness in dealing with problems in the musculoskeletal system, so this subject interests me. -- Fyslee 11:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes logical sense. Do you see "massage" as a technique, rather than a therapy ? Like you, I spend most of my time trying to alter the soft tissues of the body. I attempt to achieve this through stretching, corrective exercises, "massage", cross fibre frictions, myofasical tension techniques, ischaemic compressions etc., so, to be a Massage Therapist seems to be understating what we actually do, and in fact, possibly, misleading. If someone comes in for a "massage" and are expecting soft music and lights etc., I have wasted their time through my "misleading" advertising, that states "massage". It is a very, very, tough issue to tackle. You may be able to tell that this has been dogging me for many years ! (Euripides 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

I would consider it both a series of techniques (for example, Swedish massage uses six basic techniques) and a therapy form. I guess it all depends on what you mean by the terms. I doubt that all massage therapists stick strictly to massage itself during a treatment or session. Certain forms of stretching, joint movements/mobilisations, exercises, are often a part of the experience. Those things are not themselves "massage," but are a natural extension of manually working with the body. -- Fyslee 04:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm . . . how can we disseminate the information then ? Generally, dictionary definitions of "massage" are to " . . to rub or knead a body part . . " This certainly isn't descriptive enough for what we're talking about. Can two defintions be embraced and presented, cohesively and concisely into the Wik's pages. Are you in the U.S. ? I'm in Australia where we are going through a reformation type phase in the Industry ie., inclusion into health funds, workers compensation claims etc., etc., we keep coming unstuck when doctors and rehab providers refer patients to "massage" and they end up being treated for say, a whiplash injury, with a Swedish massage. Needless to say, we have been trying to distinguish ourselves from relaxation practitioners . . . otherwise, the doctors etc don't know where they are sending their patients. The most eciting part of all this is that doctors WANT to send their patients for soft tissue work. Hopefully, we can make it as easy as possible for them to do that and not scare them away. For now, (Euripides 07:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

I am copying this from the Pseudoscience discussion page:

I am in favor of copying the list to Scientific skepticism. There is no good reason for allowing those who disagree with this article to be allowed to strip it of its content. That would be similar to allowing non-Catholics to strip the Catholicism article of its list of beliefs. Catholics decide what are Catholic beliefs, just as scientific skeptics decide what they consider to be pseudoscientific beliefs and practices. Neither non-Catholics nor believers in pseudoscience should be allowed to strip the articles of important content. -- Fyslee 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe what you wrote here? By the same logic, should non-chiropractors be able to strip the Chiropractic article of its list of beliefs? I think you don't actually believe what you wrote. In case you do, it was nice having you around the chiropractic article, but as a non-chiropractor (according to your statement above) you're not allowed to strip the chiropractic article of important content. See ya. Levine2112 19:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You fail to understand the argument, and that seems to have been the case all along, both on the pseudoscience article and the chiropractic article. I do not remove chiropractic beliefs, as long as they are labeled beliefs, anymore than you should remove items in the list of pseudosciences, as long as they are properly labeled as they clearly are:

"The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which their critics fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another."

You see it cuts both ways. Please point to an instance where I have removed a chiropractic belief that was labeled as a belief. If I have done so incorrectly I will seriously reconsider it. I can point to numerous examples of where you have removed items from the pseudoscience list and the chiropractic article(s) which were properly labeled. Keep in mind that the NPOV policy requires that various POV be presented in articles. Even the pseudoscience article should contain the objections, as I have clearly stated. -- Fyslee 19:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem lies in what you and I consider to be a belief and what we consider to be more than that. If I have failed to understand your argument this whole time, then perhaps you haven't been doing a very good job in articulating it. Bottomline, the list on the Pseudoscience page provides nothing to the encyclopedic nature of the page. It only presents one POV thus it is entirely inappropriate. If it truly did cut both ways (as you say), then every theory and field of endeavor would be on that list. Since that would be futile, the list must go. Levine2112 20:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You may well be correct that I haven't explained myself well enough. Sorry about that. I am always interested in understanding things better, including your POV. Please feel free to ask me about mine. -- Fyslee 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your POV?  :) LOL just had to toss it in there. We all seem to be making more progress lately and I for one am grateful. Thank you.--Hughgr 22:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! That's a big question. I was once asked by several chiropractors, MDs, and PhDs, to write a skeptical book about chiropractic. Well, I sat down and off the top of my head I wrote the first 150 pages in a couple weeks in my spare time. It is now well over 200 pages and just lying there. If you want to know anything specific, just ask. I will usually answer courteous questions quite openly. If you're really nice, I might even send you some of it by email. -- Fyslee 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I'm happy for it to remain a mystery. I'm a big believer in the Wikipedian ideal that everyone is capable of editing neutraly despite any personal bias. Incidently I would be curious about learning some more about chiropractic medicine, so if you ever do publish let me know. Jefffire 23:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I'm happy for it to remain a mystery. Do you find that interesting? That one sentence may be trying to tell us a million words. What does that mean to you?--Dematt 05:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It tells us I can't spell. "Personally" has two l's. I'll crack out the dunce cap. Jefffire 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! No, not that, I mean the fact that you are fine with it being a mystery. I think you may be on to something. I think there may be people who are drawn to the "mystery" of chiropractic. Maybe that explains why people continue to go to DC's even when there is little support from their MD's. But, I have to admit, it was late last night:)--Dematt 00:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering about that too. I'm not a mystery person. I just try to save time by answering specific questions.

I have been a chiroskeptic since my youth, long before becoming a PT. I have studied the profession for many years and find it a very fascinating subject. I get most of my information from chiropractors, books, journals, research, and websites. I know many chiropractors who send me information, lurk on chiropractic discussion lists, answer my questions, and give me advice. I also have chiropractors who regularly send me threatening emails with very foul language. Their actions do not influence my opinion of chiropractors in general, since all professions have weirdos, loons, and loose cannons! My opinions are very nuanced, and should not be judged only by my published words. When in doubt, just ask me, otherwise judgments only say more about the judger than about me.

To very briefly answer the original question, I'll mention a few points about my POV on chiropractic:

• I'm a chiro skeptic, not a chiro hater.
• My skepticism is directed more at the profession than at individual chiropractors, who can be as different as day and night.
• I believe that most chiros are honest people who help a lot of people. Many of the things they do make good sense. My objections are to commonly held beliefs and practices that can be termed unscientific, unethical, and/or quackery.
• I believe that chiropractic has a lot of problems because of aspects of its history and educational system.

Some pertinent questions:

• What is unique about chiropractic?

• Is this uniqueness positive?

• What right does chiropractic have to exist?

• Can the continued existence of chiropractic as a separate profession be justified?

• Are there any solutions to the existing problems in and with the profession?

I do not hold the extreme views of certain chiro skeptics, who seem to consider all DCs as crooks, and manipulation as having no value at all, etc. While their criticism is often correct, I believe that they go too far and thus impede the efforts of reformers. It's not that black and white an issue, and is often based on a lack of understanding of physical medicine.

Why reform?

The chiropractic profession of today has so many “bad apples” that it can’t be the result of chance. It is the inevitable result of fundamental flaws in the profession: its birth, history, philosophy, attitudes, techniques, marketing and education.

Unfortunately, the majority of DCs, though not “bad apples”, are affected by these fundamental flaws. These flaws give rise to unorthodox, unscientific and unethical beliefs and practices, without it being possible to accuse all of these DCs of having criminal motives. They simply believe and act in accordance with their faulty education.

Though it may be claimed that they just do not know any better, they should and could. The ignorance of many is voluntary and therefore inexcusable. When given the opportunity to see both sides of the story, they often get nasty or refuse to look at the evidence.

.....I could of course write much more, but that's not the purpose of this entry. -- Fyslee 09:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. You didn't have to go to all that trouble, but thanks anyways:) I came across this in the latest Chiropractic Journal, and it pretty much sums up how I feel after being in this profession for seven years.

May 2006

Who ARE these people...and what the heck are they DOING? by Dr. Frank Bowling I try to keep an open mind, and as a chiropractor, I try to read a variety of material from across a broad range of viewpoints within the profession. I'm not sure whether it's a strength or a weakness, but I seem to have an above average ability to see both sides of an issue. At times, this leaves me perched precariously on the fence, like one of those "lukewarm" people Jesus talked about "spitting out."

The great chasm between chiropractors these days seems not to be the traditional one of "mixer" vs. "straight," but rather a question of the fundamental direction of the profession. Should we simply focus on being "back pain specialists," or should we talk about the broader implications of the adjustment? I'll tell you right now, I belong to the latter group. Nevertheless, being such a "middle of the road" personality by nature, I've tried really hard to see the validity of other positions.

The "back pain doctors" understandably take offense when they're accused of secretly wishing they were medical doctors, or of trying too hard to fit in, or being afraid to stand up for chiropractic. Their chief argument seems to be that we must be responsible, that we shouldn't make claims we can't prove, that the chiropractic emphasis on our ability to impact organ function or the immune system or improve overall health just isn't backed by research.

I'm all in favor of research, and of evidence‑based care. Obviously, we're going to be held accountable by the scientific community for our efforts in these areas. And even if no one else worried about such things, we should. Responsibility, honesty, integrity, character ‑‑ these are qualities always to be fostered and developed, both individually and as a profession.

But, here's the problem. In my practice, I regularly have experiences with cases in which the patient's organ or immune systems are impacted in a positive way by chiropractic care. A recent example would be the 13 year‑old female athlete who was brought in for bilateral knee pain. I had not explained anything about chiropractic philosophy to anyone in the family, yet after the second adjustment, the mother reported that her daughter's lifelong history of exercise‑induced asthma had apparently completely resolved, and she was able to play an entire basketball game for the first time in her life. Since no one had even reported this problem during the initial consultation, I wasn't "treating" the girl for it, but was simply analyzing and reducing subluxations. "Do you realize how many nights I've sat up with this girl, watching helplessly as she fought for breath?" the mother asked in disbelief.

Surely, every chiropractor reading this column has had similar cases. I do take a lot of seminars, and try my best to be technically proficient in my work, but I honestly don't think I'm a particularly exceptional chiropractor, and I think the application of the principle, in the vast majority of patients, is really pretty simple. My old college president, an upper cervical practitioner, used to say, only half jokingly, "There's only one bone, and there are only two sides: if they're not getting better, just turn 'em over!"

I've read about groups of chiropractors taking "outreach" trips into underdeveloped countries, where they apparently line up and adjust thousands of people in just a few days. These excursions seem generally to be composed of doctors who, in their own practices, take precision, three‑dimensional x‑rays, do careful analyses on these films, make careful, specific adjustments, and require the patients to lie down for several minutes afterward.

On these "mission" trips, however, standard procedure seems to be a bit simpler: a quick scan with a skin temperature instrument, a quick placement of the patient on a knee‑chest table with the head turned left or right, a quick P/A thrust to the upper cervical area, and... "Next!" And what invariably happens? A handful of those thousands returns the next day with reports of miraculous results. The blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk.

I'm being somewhat facetious, of course, and have perhaps now successfully upset people at both ends of the chiropractic spectrum. But my point is, what are the "back pain only" chiropractors doing in their offices? Aren't they adjusting the spine? If so, aren't they having any experiences like the one I described above? If they are (and surely they must be), how can they take the position they take? Regardless of whether we can explain how these things happen scientifically, with "double‑blind, controlled studies" beyond a shadow of doubt, don't we have an obligation to talk about them, while simultaneously doing our best to fill the void in research?

How many people must suffer or die needlessly while we sit back timidly in silence, waiting for irrefutable proof for what we all know from personal experience to be true? Where's the honesty, where's the integrity, where's the character in that?[1]

I've seen too many "cures" in too diverse an area to relegate myself to a back pain only specialist. And usually the patient will only bring it up after the fact, not like I even knew they had that particular problem in the beginning. You can only say, "Hmmm, interesting" so many times. To add to the above writers comments, perhaps they do not get "other" results because they only adjust where there is pain. True health is more than a lack of pain. IMO, of course;)--Hughgr 02:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to share some more information I gathered from the vol. 22 Palmer "green" book about the D.D. getting run over incident. I believe these are B.J.'s word of the event. Enjoy!

On one occasion, the father came to Davenport to an Annual PSC Lyceum, in August. A photo was being taken of a group in front of the PSC buildings. D. D. Palmer stayed across the street, observed the doings, but refused to come across and be in the group, although invited to do so. Following the photo, the annual parade through the streets of Davenport took place. First came the U.S. flag, then the PSC and UCA flags, followed by an auto which was set aside for D. D. to ride in. He refused to ride; said he was going to walk at the head of the parade, ahead of all flags. Following his car was the car in which rode Governor Morris, National Counsel for the UCA, and B. J. Palmer. The day was exceedingly hot. What would Davenport think, with D. D. Palmer, an old man, “being compelled to walk in the boiling hot sun? and the young son riding in a luxurious car? B. J. insisted D. D. ride in the car set aside for him. He refused. He was asked to get out of the parade. Several times he got out, but came back in again. Finally, B. J.’s car drove up along side of D. D., leading the parade, and asked him to get on the sidewalk and stay there. At this juncture, D. D. got out of the parade, ran down the sidewalk to the Universal Chiropractic College, went into their building and told them he had been run into, knocked down and run over, injured, etc. A short time later, however, D.D. appeared on Third and Brady-three blocks away-and started to get into the parade again. A policeman took him out and to the police station. A few days later, the Universal Chiropractic College, under the leadership of Loban, Moyer, Rheuleman, Sol Long, Willard Carver, and others, started to collect money to prosecute B. J. for injuring his father, contending the statements made by D. D. were correct. Several months later, D. D. died in Los Angeles, of typhoid fever. It was then the Universal group got actively busy contending D. D. died from injuries sustained at the hands of an automobile driven by B. J. in the parade in question. --Hughgr 23:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. -- Fyslee 04:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, thanks, but you didn't read the instructions! The paranormal topics you added should have been added to the other watchlist, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Paranormal articles. Can you please move all the items which violate the instructions? Thank you! ---CH 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't responded but from your edits you've been around, so I guess I'll have to just revert the additions. Again, the instructions (which proscribe paranormal topics) are prominently displayed on the watchlist you edited. ---CH 01:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I did revert some of them, but since the instructions state that "some topics have been arbitrarily excluded from inclusion", and I am not privy to "arbitrary" decisions, I probably haven't gotten them all. -- Fyslee 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good to see your name popping up again! Just when I was about to give it all up;) --Dematt 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dematt! We've just gotten back from a three week vacation in California (with a little taste of Nevada on the east side of Lake Tahoe), the first time back since leaving there 25 years ago. (Where have all the orange groves gone!?) It was a good trip, so now I'm just battling with jet lag. Nice to see that you're still plugging away and continuing to make good contributions. -- Fyslee 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds sooo good! I know you loved it! It's been 16 years since I've been there and there were still orange groves, but a lot has happened in the last ten years. I hate to see it. They just stopped a plan by the Bush administration to sell 300,000 acres of national forest, thank goodness. Before long the only good place to vacation will be Denmark! Look forward to you stopping back at the chiro page. We still have work to do:) --Dematt 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the UI page. You hit the nail on the head with Pantheism. I had to look it up ;).--Hughgr 00:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooohhh, I didn't know that objective straights did not refer. Hmm. Another piece to the puzzle, Thanks again. --Dematt 13:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It just goes to show how different DCs can be. It's also what makes the profession so interesting to study. -- Fyslee 14:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to report at WP:AN/3RR.Geni 21:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Or you would If I hadn't just blocked them for one week for dissruption.Geni 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I need your expertise in re-writing the Universal Intelligence page. After a little searching, it seems to be used everywhere, and I'm attempting (poorly) to come up with a generic definition for the lead. If you could take a look and help define it, I'd be indebted. Cheers--Hughgr 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your turn:) [2]--Dematt 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't really be there but it does the equiverlent of pressing ctrl-F5.Geni 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me not to delete warnings from my user page which I did not know about; I then did it again actually! before reading your msg...it might be better to explain why rather than just msg people and then reverse the change I had made, that would be easier to respond to nicely. thanks Peter morrell 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, that had to hurt. --Dematt 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to read the humorous original source. I got bit by a humor bug the day I wrote that page. Then the comments came in and I added them......;-) More about homeopathy from my site. -- Fyslee 19:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee. Thanks for the info. I agree with Jimmy Wales. This said if the information is true, factual and relevant then , in all fairness, it should be included. Dr. Barrett has made a career of being critical of numerous health modalities as well as other practitioners and he is not always right. Maybe he should apply the recommendations you just posted on my talk page in his own websites. NATTO 08:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that if he is convinced that he is in error he will modify or change such errors. He has done it before. He just needs to be personally confronted with them. He is always available by email. Since he documents his criticisms, he would of course expect that counter-documentation would be used to convince him of the error of his ways. What he rightfully resents is when his criticisms aren't countered at all, and he is just attacked personally. None of us would like that type of response. -- Fyslee 08:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are at 3RR on user:davkal talk page. Any further reverts will result in your being blocked from editing. -- Davkal 10:39, 25 July 2006 (added forgotten sig -- Fyslee 10:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Please remember to sign your entries. Warnings and restoration of vandalism don't count in 3rr. I have contacted an administrator to deal with you. You were given fair warning. -- Fyslee 10:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this. It explains a little more about the concept of multidisciplinary panels. I changed my edit as you were correct that I misunderstood. However, the conclusion on the last page discusses how nobody can really say whether this number tells us anything other than the low and high of appropriateness. The number we quote is the low. I think we still need the full cervical series to see what the high for the specialty panel. Then it will be more defendable as a reasonable edit. Thanks for the enlightenment! --Dematt 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you good sir, I do try ;) I'm a pretty easy going person (most of the time) You've been doing a great job as well. Keep on truckin! :) --Hughgr 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed the extra sentence because it was making the tag a bit long. I think the same material is in the links, so I was hoping that would be enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you write that ;) --Dematt 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I added significantly to it. It was in danger of being deleted and moved to Wiktionary. Feel free to help develop it.

I just looked at the edit historynow. Oddly enough, I hadn't done that before. It looks like the very first version, from an advocate of homeopathy, had already summed up some of my own thoughts regarding progression and transition in his last paragraph.

I have only explained two examples specifically, but many others could be named, thus developing the article into much more than a stub. It will no doubt become another battleground, just like the pseudoscience article. There are strong forces here who wish to deny and suppress the existence of certain words, concepts, and POV they find uncomfortable. To me, Wikipedia should encompass every facet of human knowledge, being a super dictionary, and thus censorship, suppression, and political correctness are inappropriate. The NPOV position ..... ah, why write it again here, when I can do this! -- Fyslee 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. We need it to stay! You do keep sneaking in that skeptic stuff:) It's in your blood isn't it:) That's okay, my inner chiro keeps popping up, too:) Down, dang spot, Down! --Dematt 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article. It needs balance and more content. My POV certainly isn't the only one, and the subject title is rather new to me. I'm no expert on it. -- Fyslee 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

At first I thought is was something someone made up to differentiate their field from pseudoscience, but I am seeing it in other places. --Dematt 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fyslee, can you tell me why Template:Alternative medical systems should contain Herbalism? As you are aware, the template is based on the NCCAM Whole medical systems classification. Herbal medicine is classified by them as one of the Biologically based practices. Thanks, --apers0n 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the history behind its inclusion in the template, but my edit summary for why I reincluded it is based on precisely the references you provide above. Since NCCAM includes it, then it would seem to belong in the template. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I see no problem with its inclusion, unless the top part of the box should just be a duplication of the bottom part, which I doubt. Please expand and clarify your explanation.

As I see it, all of the examples in the top of the box are included in one of the NCCAM categories. They aren't just a single therapeutic technique, but are real systems, and thus fit under the heading at the top. In the NCCAM categorization system they get buried within those categories, and aren't separate categories.

I also chose to keep NCCAM's precise wording for "Manipulative and body-based methods," even though it's long and cumbersome. I wish they had chosen a shorter title. I guess they must have had their reasons, and I bow to their decision. -- Fyslee 07:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with "Manipulative and body-based methods," as that is the NCCAM definition, although I'm wondering whether it would be better to use a less westernised categorisation system such as the WHO "Traditional medicine" [3] --apers0n 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you find another reference? That one doesn't compare very well with the existing NCCAM one, since it only provides definitions of a few words, and doesn't categorize the sum total of possibilities. -- Fyslee 04:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fyslee -- just wanted to let you know that until I looked at your user page a few days ago, I had no idea you blogged at "Confessions Of A Quackbuster", and never would have guessed it from your edits on Chiropractic. That's a great blog, and I think your ability to take the NPOV route here on WP while blogging so trenchantly is quite unusual. We need more of that kind of integrity and balance on WP, and, well, pretty much everywhere. Amusingly, I just noticed at Dematt's user page that he's a DC, which I hadn't guessed either. Validation of NPOV doesn't get much better than that! all the best, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing is my private viewpoints on chiropractic, another is maintaining the NPOV in articles. My POV gets expressed on talk pages, but I'm more than willing to see all significant major and minority POV in the various chiro articles, as long as they are properly sourced. I'm basically an inclusionist, and would rather see Wikipedia exploit the full possibilities of this cyber age, rather than seeing articles limited, as if they were under the constraints that govern paper limitations. This is the place where all viewpoints should get exposed, where people can come and find the very best article on the subject anywhere, simply because most articles are written from one POV, not all POV. There are several chiro deletionists at hard work here to censor and suppress anything that might make the chiro article less of a selling platform for the profession. Dematt is not one of them. He is fair and is willing to see the articles include objections that may not be to his liking, but which he realizes exist. As long as they exist, and can be presented from verifiable and notable sources, then they should be represented. "The Whole Story" is where it's at. No one should be able to find information elsewhere that isn't somehow dealt with at Wikipedia in the relevant article. -- Fyslee 11:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (continues below)

Hey guys, thanks for the compliments, though keep in mind that I could not remain neutral without your neutrality as well.--Dematt 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as the pseudoscience (PS) article, we may have different viewpoints on that one. If the only articles that are allowed here are ones that do not come from or represent any particular viewpoint, then a significant portion of what happens in the real world will be left out of Wikipedia. Words and concepts exist, and some of them have origins and uses that basically make them the property of those who use them. Others may not like them, because they are the object of them, in an unfavorable or even pejorative way. Tough luck. That's life. It isn't the job of Wikipedia editors to censor what exists in this world and keep concepts they don't like out of Wikipedia. Their proper reaction would be to make sure that their POV, using notable and verifiable third party sources (outside of Wikipedia), are quoted, using reliable sources. The NPOV policy ensures that such objections must also be included, but that doesn't give the editors the right to change the definitions of words used by their opponents.

The problem with the PS article is when believers in pseudoscience start trying to define it and eliminate their favorite quackery from inclusion. This is where deletism is damaging the article. It amounts to allowing Protestant theologians to determine official Catholic theology, effectively giving them a veto as to what Catholics can be taught in their own churches and schools. That is a ridiculous situation, but that's what is happening here. Imagine Protestants editing a Catholic article on what Catholics consider to be sins. Imagine them deleting items on the Catholic list of sins, because they don't consider them to be sinful. Again, an absurd situation. It is the job of Catholics, and only Catholics, to decide such matters. -- Fyslee 11:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (continues below)

This is a great example! All you need to do is throw in the "what happens when the King and his army gets controlled by the Catholics or the Protestants and one is able to pass its beliefs as laws. Of course this assumes that neither is right:) All Hell breaks loose. Didn't that happen once or twice:) --Dematt 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth, is what should govern the content of articles. Controversial subjects and articles should exist here, and since "truth" is a very subjective matter, articles should be permitted to represent and present the viewpoint of those who own that viewpoint. Objections should also be included, but those who hold those viewpoints should not be allowed to dominate or define the article. Pseudoscientists and their followers may not like the inclusion of their favorite ideas in the PS article, but that is none of their business, since it is the job of mainstream scientists and skeptics to determine the contents of the concept of pseudoscience. The article should be written from their POV. Otherwise we are eliminating the inclusion of subjects from the real world. Pseudoscientists shouldn't be given a veto over the article's contents, or any say in what is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists and skeptics. It's their property. -- Fyslee 11:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (continues below)

But vitalist call allopaths drug pushers. I'm not sure we could get away with capitalizing the words and making up a list of reasons why and then pass it off as anything other than Drug Pusher propoganda. The psychology of pseudoscience is interesting, but it should not be used perjoritively or it becomes nothing more than the advertising ploy it professes to be "exposing." There are pseudoscientific activities all throughout medicine, but I don't see them listed anywhere (not just on WP). That's when it becomes perjoritive and its purpose begins to look dubious. The Catholics seem to be controlling the King:) --Dematt 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For pseudoscientific editors to impose their opinions on the direction or definitional aspects of the article is a violation of NOR. They are allowed to include third party and reliable sources to back up their objections, but should do no more than that. It is not Wikipedia's or its editors' job to judge the legitimacy of opinions that exist in the real world, or to censor or suppress their inclusion here. That would be OR.

I think we agree that the use of categories must be done very carefully. Since not many professions are totally pseudoscientific, or fundamentally based on pseudoscience, they shouldn't be labeled as such, or have the Category tag on their article's page. Instead there should be a link to the PS article in each article considered by scientists and skeptics to be about a PS-related subject. There they can briefly expand on why they consider it to be pseudoscientific, or which elements are considered to be pseudoscientific or dubious. Specificity is what's needed, rather than overly broad and imprecise categorization.

Maybe the category could be softened up and renamed to include subjects that aren't totally pseudoscientific, but include pseudoscientific elements. Maybe the name pseudoscientific shoudn't even be in the title of the category. Something like "dubious" could be used, which is a catch-all expression for pseudoscientific, unscientific, antiscientific, unfalsifiable, unethical, quackish, illegal, etc.. I'm still not sure how to tackle it, because I still think that believers in pseudoscience shouldn't be allowed to force us to change tactics or censor ourselves based on their whims. -- Fyslee 11:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would rather have pseudoscience than any of the others listed:) But I was thinking more along the lines of magical, vitalistic, humanitarian, feels good, gets you better, flower child:)LOL, (I can't go on!) Anyway - if the term pseudoscience is misused, the reader will see right through it. We can't assume they are stupid. Those don't own computers. --Dematt 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Fyslee; I suspect we do have some significant disagreement on topics-deemed-pseudoscience, though in NPOV practice we seem to be on the same page. More thoughts later on the pseudoscientific meme-complex. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Category Talk:Pseudoscience got rowdy pretty fast after your suggestion! I agree with your suggestion to delete the category, and for the same reasons. It's better for NPOV, and therefore all POV's whether "skeptical" or not, to go the route you suggest and cover the topic adequately where WP:V is met.

With regard to "ownership of the term", it sounds good in principle, but if in practice a word takes on a different meaning than that intended by its originators, then that must be taken into account somehow in discourse, both on WP and in general. Sometimes words contain built-in mantraps. Sometimes this is intentional, as in advertising, when it's impossible to refer to a retail chain like "Best Buy" or "Nobody Beats The Wiz" without literally endorsing the POV of the term's originator. I'm not sure of the origin of the term "alternative medicine", but it sounds like it was originated by a proponent of the field. Like it or not, the term caught on, despite clever attempts to redefine it, as with Dawkins' attempt based on evidence rather than sphere of use in societal practice. Had Dawkins' version caught on, alt-med proponents would have been caught in the man-trap of seeming to state they were practicing something utterly lacking in scientific validity, which would have turned the rhetorical tables. This was clearly his intention, as he was well aware of the term's accepted meaning, and to the extent that (say) chiropractic or acupuncture accrues scientific evidence, Dawkins' attempted redefinition starts to appear disingenuous. (I suppose the strategy of redefinition is similar to that of "retromeme" at Glenn Grant's memetic lexicon; that's amusing stuff to contemplate.) Anyway, the implication for "pseudoscience" is that we need to stay aware of its connotations. It is seen as pejorative, perhaps moreso than some of its originators intended, which (along with boundary issues relating to science and the nature of misrepresentation) raises the NPOV issue of contentiousness at WP:CG. However, that doesn't mean that advocates of any POV need to cede ground on tactics, only that we all need take into account that "ownership" of terms may morph a bit depending on popular understanding.

The other issue on which we may disagree is over the degree to which skeptical critics of so-deemed pseudosciences necessarily speak for the scientific community at large. Again, we are on the same page with how to resolve this in terms of WP's content-guiding policies. We simply cite adequately who says what, and why. If what Carroll says about a particular aspect of some field is agreed with by some source (say, EBM reviews, etc.) that meets WP:RS for scientific consensus, then we say so. Or if Carroll's criticism is demonstrably echoed by a majority, or significant minority, we can say that too. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The way to deal with deceptive words and terms is to expose them. The following deal with the marketing term "alternative" medicine:

• Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods

• NCAHF Position Statement on White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine

• The sCAM Commitment: so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM)

-- Fyslee 11:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, you've been listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Orthomolecular medicine and related pages. My advice: ignore the case until it affects you personally, or you are asked for direct involvement. linas 14:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

These two editors continue to harass and make false accusations of vandalism even after we have both protested. Will you sign an RFC on the subject? -- Cri du canard 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. . Please stop harassing me. Please stop making false accusations about me. linas 21:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We are just trying to reason with you. Since you can so liberally indulge in gross accusations against other editors, then at least be man enough to talk calmly with them. -- Fyslee 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think Linas is a different animal than MichaelCPrice (who left me a third "last warning" notice on my page a few hours ago). I think Linas came upon the dispute on the pseudoscience page, got snowed by the sophisticated sophistics OM supporters use (e.g., the combination of false appropriation of cites to legitimate medical journals with coordinated false accusations of "vandalism" against NPOV editors), jumped to the wrong conclusion, and honestly (if mistakenly) thinks he's fighting the good fight, as evidenced by his appeal to the Rational Skeptic list. Linas has been intemperate, especially given his ludicrously thin skin when people protest his threats and bluster, but if the rhetoric gets toned down, and he's given the opportunity to save face, I think he'll see the light. Of course, I may just be assuming too much good faith. -- Cri du canard 06:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was too generous. The boy simply doesn't understand WP:NPOV. I could use some help on the Bruce Ames section in the OM article. I only have limited time to run through the kitchen-sink misuse of cites. -- Cri du canard 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there: thank you for the improvements. One point: while it is unquestionably true that the development of a spondylolisthesis may be an immediate sequal of trauma, many orthopaedic specialists would say that this is a manifestation of a previously un-disrupted spondylolysis. Proof is difficult in that most people with no spinal pathology do not have either oblique x-rays or MTI or CT scans, so that the demonstration of the pre-existence of a defect in the pars interarticularis is difficult to achieve. It is of course a recognised fact that most disruptions ot the dorsal arch caused by gross trauma occur posterior to both superior and inferior articular processes, not between them. I cannot tell from your userpage; do you have orthopaedic experience?--Anthony.bradbury 20:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your further edit is wholly accurate and I have, of course, not altered it. When I wrote the article I was trying to keep it reasonably simple!--Anthony.bradbury 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good evening Doc! Tony, sorry I haven't replied earlier. I've had a very busy day at the clinic, but here goes:

I'm a Physiotherapist, so I have the clinical experience angle. I'm also an anti-quackery activist.

As a physician you may well know more about this subject from your experience, so you are more than welcome to revise the article and make it more precise.

As I understand it, the most common spot for an isthmic spondylolysis to occur is in the pars interarticularis of a vertebra, right between the superior and inferior articular processes. This allows the vertebral body to gradually move forward in relation to the vertebral body below it. When this happens we have a true spondylolisthesis. There isn't any true "slip" (in the sense of "sliding" or "gliding"), because the intervertebral disc is still intact and grown together with both vertebrae, but the relative position between the two vertebral bodies does change in the sagital plane. This will usually limit the size of the intervertebral foramen, thus compromising the nerve roots. In the worst cases it can cause spinal stenosis and cauda equina syndrome:

Here is a good flash illustration with two animations of the two major types of sp.:

• http://www.spine -health.com/dir/spondy.html Spondylolisthesis animations]

Some other thoughts:

• The use of the word "centrum" is confusing to me. I would usually say vertebral "body" or use the Latin "corpus vertebra," but I know there are terminology differences between various English speaking countries, and also here in Denmark. (I'm an American living here with my Danish wife - also a PT - and our two children.)

• We need to describe the two types - degenerative and isthmic - and point out that only the last involves a spondylolysis (whether congenital or fracture)

• It would strengthen all the anatomical articles if the Latin (or Greek where relevant) terminology is used concurrently with the English. This would make this aspect of Wikipedia truly international, since Latin is still the universal (and esoteric) language of medicine.

• Example: Spondylolisthesis (Latin: spondylos=vertebra; olisthesis=slippage)

• The decisive difference between a spondylolysis and a spondylolisthesis is not the lack of fusion (or the fracture) between bony structures, but the actual slippage. If there is no slippage, then there is no spondylolisthesis. Thus, in the case of degenerative spondylolisthesis, it can occur in the absence of any fracture, simply occurring because the integrity of the facet joints has been so seriously compromised as to make the movement segment unstable.

The "slipped disc" article was originally a scandal, with a very misleading image from the Hughston Clinic, so I contacted them and got permission to remove the image from the article. They could see it was very inaccurate. It was an image worthy of any chiropractor (maybe the medical illustrator had been brainwashed by one?), since they consistently try to get their patients to believe that they can "push it back in place." Hogwash! In fact, the presence of a spondylolisthesis would be a contraindication to spinal manipulation, but you won't get many chiros to admit that.

Actually there is some good information on the talk page there, which might be usable in this article.

BTW, you could add the category Physician to your user page:

• [Category:Physicians|Bradbury, Anthony]

This article is an important addition, thanks to you, and it can be developed with time.

Regards,

Fyslee

You can contact me by email:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Fyslee

Here are a few of my other cyber activities:

• Anti-Quackery Ring

• Confessions of a Quackbuster (rarely maintained)
• The Quack-Files (not maintained)

Reverting sourced quotes with the edit summary claim that they are OR because they come from the same website is nonsensical. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made ONE revert. Stop misusing warnings. -- Fyslee 11:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop violating WP policy by deleting sourced quotes with the specious claim that I am making an OR connection because they come from the same website. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is going to buy your straw man argument, which I have answered here. -- Fyslee 11:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is a "no-no" (other than adding a comment saying that the unsigned was left by...). You simply cannot make edits to other people's comments in order to support your own view point. [4] •Jim62sch• 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That was definitely not my intention. I don't even see how it would do that. I was simply tired of people constantly spelling it wrong. -- Fyslee 16:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

tomoto, tomato, what's the difference:) Thanks for setting it straight. Now I might even say it right, too. --Dematt 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to use those images anywhere. There are lots more throughout some of the archive pages. It's such a pain to get them imported! We need to find some more recent ones as well. The problem is the copyright restrictions. I guess as long as we don't use them PEJORATIVELY! (I just wanted to use that word to practice spelling it:) Figured I could try it out on you:) --Dematt 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never learned how to import images. The diagrams by the Palmers must be public domain. -- Fyslee 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw ur suggestion on Dematts talk about the innate intelligence article. I've started and just wanted to invite you to add your two bits. :) Also, not sure how to add the ref, since its mostly coming from Keating...--Hughgr 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we tore it up on the II page just now! Thanks for all your help, my question is relating to the Lon Morgan, DC quote you added. I described him as a reformer per your quack-blog as the reference, but I think it would look better without the reference. Maybe I'll take it out and see if it gets questioned....--Hughgr 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It's better without it. The link for the quote is sufficient. Dematt has just added that great diagram image. -- Fyslee 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Cute labels aside, your judgment of my edit summary ("Not all links are 'irrelevant.'") as a "straw man" results from a misunderstanding on your part. You wrote, "No one is saying 'all' links..." I never contended that anyone stated that. My summary was brief and, at the same time, conveyed the idea that I did not feel that all of the removed links were irrelevant. Had I felt that all of them should have been restored, I would summarized with "None of the links are 'irrelevant,'" which has an entirely different meaning (a meaning that you mistakenly applied to what I did write).

According to the article to which you referred me, linking is "not always an easy call." I agree. I did restore some of the links you removed but not all of them. I had hoped this would provide a compromise between my opinion on this and yours. --Wordbuilder 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding you. I see what you mean, and your solution sounds good. Keep up the good work! -- Fyslee 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You keep up the good work as well. -- Wordbuilder 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist the image should not be in that article. It isn't an advertisement, because it clearly demonstrates both Trudeau and his book. I am going to try to find some WP namespace articles to see if there's a particular standard which discourages bookcovers as advertisements, but I am doubtful I will find it. If you are aware of it, please let me know. However I don't guarantee I won't put the image back, because I believe it is both useful to the article and not an advertisement (as I explained on the talk page). - BalthCat 21:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This osteopathic site looks good! I don't know about you, but this is pretty much the same information I give my patients. I had no idea they were still doing this stuff. I learn something everyday. --Dematt 02:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have actually just removed that link from the slipped disc article. The written illustrations of a doughnut and toothpaste tube are excellent (I use them myself), and the picture is fine, but the site is a private commercial one, and therefore not allowed. In any other situation I'd say fine. -- Fyslee 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that you did that and I agree that we can't leave it there, but after looking through it, the content did a good job of explaining it. Also, do you think that it is probably a better idea to rename this to Disc Prolapse or Intervertebral disc bulge or something similar and then have a redirect from slipped disc. That way WP won't be perpetuating the "slipped disc" concept. You probably have a good reason why not to do that, so I thought I would run it by you. --Dematt 12:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the problem. There is already an article about Lumbar disc herniation. Maybe it would be best to combine the Slipped disc article and that one in a new article about Spinal disc herniation in general, explaining the concept, etiology, frequency in different parts of the spine, the misleading expression "slipped disc," etc. Then blank the contents of slipped disc and Lumbar disc herniation, leaving them only as redirects to the new article. That would solve several problems and improve Wikipedia. Then we could search Wikipedia for uses of the term in articles and Wikilink them and related terms to the new article. How does that sound? -- Fyslee 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds promising. Then if we can think of all the other names that it might be called we can redirect them, too, so if anyone tries to make another article, it will come to this one. Now that I think about it, I don't think I really hear Spinal disc herniation. How about just Disc herniation. Is that too broad? There are other things that have discs, but do they herniate? or perhaps Prolapse.. Oh,oh.. see, that's how I go overboard and lose track of where I started. You're the organized one, lets stick with Spinal disc herniation. We can include chiropractic care in the treatment options section, can't we;) --Dematt 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to be my guest in this great endeavor! "Click and ye shall find, saith the lord...." -- Fyslee 21:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, check out the talk page. I had a hard time getting started with what was there, but once I got started I couldn't quit. I need you to look at it and edit/consolidate/delete until we get it right:) --Dematt 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, your archive page, [[Talk:User talk:Fyslee/Archive 1]], is in the main article space, rather than user space. Please consider moving it to User talk:Fyslee/Archive 1, as this would be the correct name. Thank you. BigDT 23:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up"! I don't know how that happened. Probably lack of awareness about the differences between "space" here at Wikipedia. Thanks again. The problem has now been solved. In fact it might be a good time to archive again. -- Fyslee 06:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)