Talk:Chiropractic education/Archive 1

Archive 1

New article

I have copied the contents of the fifth section of the Chiropractic article here, and also copied the contents of the misnamed (should be plural) Chiropractic school article as well. The FCLB information needs to be removed from both articles, leaving only a short paragraph and a wikilink. The schools article should be moved to a properly entitled article -- Chiropractic schools. -- Fyslee 12:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs lead

This article needs a short lead to introduce the major high points. -- Fyslee 10:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Added Canada

I have added Canadian chiropractic education section that is fully referenced. It is not meant to be inflammatory, it is factual and feel free to PM me to discuss any concerns or potential edits. Cheers. Marcbronson 02:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, the Canadian section seems more like an advertisement. For example, all the courses that students take are listed twice in the section. I don't know why listing all of the courses is needed in the first place. Canking (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Australia

Re-worded the Australian section to be slightly more informative and fixed the reference to something more suitable. Tsufi (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Chiropractic schools

Rather than completely merging the articles, I'd recommend renaming Chiropractic schools to List of chiropractic schools and then removing content duplicated between the two articles. On Wikipedia, most professional fields have 3 articles regarding education - usually "x education," "x school," and "list of x schools." Using medicine as an example, medical education is about the steps required (entry-level/medical school and postgraduate education), medical school is about that one level of education, and list of medical schools is just that. Since postgraduate study seems less relevant within chiropractic education (according to the article), it is probably okay to have all of the education content within one article. --Scott Alter 08:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Completed as per above. --Scott Alter 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Doctor of Chiropractic

Merge discussion is ongoing at Talk:Doctor of Chiropractic#Background to chiropractic section. I personally have no preference on whether the merge is accomplished or not, but am just adding a link to the discussion. --Elonka 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As per the consensus on that talk page, this article has now been redirected here. The content appears to suffer from several problems, so I'll leave it to the people here to decide what to merge and in what form. The content is copied at Talk:Chiropractic education/merge material. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I undid the merge, with apologies. I think it is too early on to decide that there is a consensus and we should do a formal AfD with "Merge" being the suggested route to go. This way, we open it to the whole community. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, I'm sorry, but enough. There was a clear consensus for the merge, you were the only person in opposition, and your contributions show that you have been single-minded in the Chiropractic topic area for quite some time, which gives your voice less weight in these discussions. Edit-warring against consensus is not acceptable. The better way to proceed here is to acknowledge the consensus, and merge the appropriate information into this Chiropractic education article. If the section expands enough, splitting it out to a separate article may be appropriate in the future, but for now, the merge has the backing of community consensus. --Elonka 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is still ongoing discussion on the other page about the possibility of keeping Doctor of Chiropractic and making this page a redirect instead. Discussion is at Talk:Doctor of Chiropractic#Merge the other way?. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. 20:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Let's have a bit of stability for a while. This article seems decently comprehensive and covers the subject, the word "doctor" in respect of a discipline which has at least one foot in the camp of pseudoscience is a WP:REDFLAG, so this is the more neutral title for discussion of the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

All the other sections in this article are about education and then we get to this article on new zealand and it isnt about education at all its a he said she said about whether chiropractors can use the title doctor in the yellow pages shouldnt it be about chiropractic education in new zealand?? i dont see how this article improves the overall article on chiropractic education 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a better placement could be the Chiropractic education#Chiropractic degree section. QuackGuru (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the placement here wasn't good. It needs a better "home". -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps there should be a Chiropractic in New Zealand type of article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete the relevant text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, everyone who has responded here (including you and I) believe that the section is out of place in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is the right place for the material. Editors might want to move it to another section of this article but not delete the material. Please restore the material. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

i agree that this is NOT the right place because this material is not about chiropractic education which is the topic of this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the right place for this material. After this sentence it would fit like a glove. Also known as a "chiropractic physician", "chiropractic doctor" or "chiropractor", a Doctor of Chiropractic degree differs from a Doctor of Medicine degree "medical doctor" in scope and practice. In chiropractic, the practitioner health care provider seeks to diagnose, treat, correct, and prevent neurological, skeletal, or soft tissue dysfunction by primarily employing manual and conservative therapies; the most frequent being spinal and other articular adjustments and manipulations.[9] QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru still hasnt explained how this has anything to do with chiropractic education 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Material about doctor of chiropractic is related. That's why the doctor of chiropractic page was merged into this page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of the title doctor in advertisement is not related to Chiropractic Education by any stretch of the imagination, and served to illustrate that someone may not be neutral in editing this page. Although the user name QuackGuru should have been an obvious sign of bias in regards to this topic. --67.190.59.249 (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of material about doctor of chiropractic is related to education. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A Non Sequitur is not sufficient argument for the inclusion of this material. The us of the material has nothing to do with chiropractic education or educational requirements in New Zealand. If anything the material might be appropriate for Doctor_(title), but it would be a stub without any other reference to how the title is used in New Zealand on a broader sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.249.50 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When it might be for Doctor (title), it is even more appropriate for this article which has material about the doctor of chiropractic title. See Chiropractic education#Chiropractic degree. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Stating it as such, does not make it so. I do not understand why the only justification you have for including the material is to link to the article it adds nothing to the discussion of the merits of the inclusion of the material in this section. (63.254.249.50 (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

No argument has been given by you. That means you agree it should stay in the article. The doctor of chiropractic article was merged into this article. Material about the dcotor title is appropriate here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

4 other users have agreed that it is out of place here... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

new zealand text

Some New Zealand chiropractors appeared to have used the title 'Doctor' in a New Zealand Yellow pages telephone directory in a way that implied they are registered medical practitioners, when no evidence was presented it was true. Chiropractors are allowed to use the title ‘doctor’ such as in the Yellow Pages under the heading of 'Chiropractors' when it is shown that the title refers to their chiropractic role.

moved to talk page from article at 17:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC) do to consesnus that it is out of place... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to another section of the article. Please don't delete without any reason. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The text was deleted again for no reason. QuackGuru (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The information was deleted before and deleted again without any reason. The doctor title is a relevant topic for this article. The doctor of chiropractic article was merged into this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The source "However, it should be noted that Chiropractors are permitted to use the title ‘doctor’ when this is suitably qualified to show that the title refers to their chiropractic role." QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the chiropractic author contends that the heading in the Chiropractic section of the Yellow Pages serves that function. Whether he's right or wrong, it's OR to go too far in this matter. Do you have any evidence that NZ chiropractors have been prosecuted or criticized for their entries under THAT section? If you do, then you'd have a strong case. Until then, you're engaging in OR and SYNTH. Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"In addition, chiropractors are listed in the Yellow Pages under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ and it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners."

It may be clear to them that they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners but the representitive did not say under the heading complies with the law. They are implying when they mention it is clear to them that they are not violating any law but when you read more of the article it is clear they are being a bit misleading in the way they wrote it.

"It should be noted that the Chiropractic Board is vigilant in its approach to the use of the title ‘doctor’ and publishes clear directions on the use of this terminology by members of the profession in its Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice as follows:

The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act."

To further clarify we suggest adding The representitive further stated "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act."

When the response to the editorial further explains the "use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified", under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ does not qualify title ‘Doctor’ according to the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

who is 'we'?? it is fairly obvious that you are editing against consensus... this does NOT need further clarification, and despite everyone else disagreeing with you, you still state that "under the heading 'Chiropractors' does not qualify title 'Doctor'..." despite the source showing that is clearly does... please stop editing against consensus! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. QuackGuru is committing OR and continuing to edit war against consensus. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 16:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We added the exact quote from the referece and discussed it here on talk without any objection. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

who is "we"? there has been much objection above 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW:: in many jurisdictions the title "Dr." must actually be qualified by ALL who use it. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed globalize tag

I removed the globalize tag, due to the inclusion of the information on the International Council on Chiropractic Education (ICCE) which pretty clearly globalizes the issue, and renders the question moot. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)