Wikipedia:NORN

This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be original research (OR) or original synthesis.

The policy that governs the issue of original research is Wikipedia: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." For questions about the policy itself, please go to WT:NOR.

Please post new topics in a new section. When a thread is closed, you can tag it with {{resolved}}.

Archives

1, 2, 3

[edit] Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi

Large chunks of the Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi article appear to be the product of original research. Specifically, the ethnicity section speculates on the possible ethnic background of Ahmad without any of the sources it cites once directly and explicitly mentioning his ethnicity. This section of the article also contradicts the consensus among most scholars and historians that al-Ghazi was a Somali,^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} and according to Wiki policies, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Here are the offending passages:

His ethnicity is never explicitly mentioned in the Futuh al-Habasha of Sihab ad-Din Ahmad bin 'Abd al-Qader (otherwise known as 'Arab Faqih), the primary source for his conquests, possibly because it was not important or because the author assumed it was known to his readers. There are a number of clues in the Futuh worth considering.

• Many of Imam Ahmdad's relatives are identified. His sister Fardusa is said to have been married to the chieftain Mattan, who is identified as a Somali unlike her.^[7] Imam Ahmdad's brother was Muhammad bin Ibrahim, chieftain of the tribes of Shewa and Hargaya before joining the Imam against Ethiopia.^{[8] [9]} He had a cousin Muhammad bin Ali, whose mother was the Imam's aunt; Muhammad was the Sultan of the Somali tribe of Zarba.^[10] Last is his cousin Emir Zeharbui Muhammad, of whose background the Futuh has little to say.^[11]
• The Futuh mentions one Ibrahim bin Ahmad as a ruler of the Adal Sultanate for three months, whose name suggests that he may be the Imam's father. This Ibrahim is described as one of the Belew and previously having been the ruler of the town of Hubat.^[12] The possible connection between the two is strengthened by the fact that Hubat is later mentioned as one of the power bases of Imam Ahmad (the other being Za'ka).^[13] Today Hubat (or Hubata) is located in the district of Haramaya/Alemaya, and Ulrich Braukamper has noted that the Belew name in the region has only survived amongst the Nole Oromo.^[14]
• Then there are numerous occasions where the Futuh supplies evidence for an argument from silence. There are numerous passages in the Futuh where Imam Ahmad and the Somali people are mentioned together, and never once does 'Arab Faqih mention the ethnic connection. Further, the Somali warriors are described as having fled during the Battle of Shimbra Kure; had the Imam been Somali, would the Futuh which otherwise praises the Imam at every turn, mention this embarrassing detail?^[15]
• So far these argue against the Imam being descended from Somali ancestors (although in any case there are undeniably Somali families who can claim to be his descendants). But in favor of Imam Ahmad's having been a Somali is the fact that, after disagreeing with Sultan Umar Din over the alms tax, he retired to live amongst the Somali.^[16]

References:

Please note how almost all of the above statements cite the Futuh source, which, by the article's own admission, never mentions Ahmad's ethnicity. The above statements literally piece together information from the Futuh and other sources to arrive at a conclusion that none of the aforementioned sources themselves reach i.e. synthesis.

Let me know what you think. Causteau (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly clear example of original research. It even deviates into obvious editorial analysis , with statements such as: "Then there are numerous occasions where the Futuh supplies evidence for an argument from silence. There are numerous passages in the Futuh where Imam Ahmad and the Somali people are mentioned together, and never once does 'Arab Faqih mention the ethnic connection. Further, the Somali warriors are described as having fled during the Battle of Shimbra Kure; had the Imam been Somali, would the Futuh which otherwise praises the Imam at every turn, mention this embarrassing detail?" Vassyana (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like I suspected. Thanks for the feedback, Causteau (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, I beg to differ. First, I wish that I had been informed of this discussion at the time, since I would have been happy to explain this material & make any necessary changes. Next, I believe it is germane to point out that it is a point of Somali nationalistic ideology to assert that Imam Ahmad Gragn was a Somali; this is why I felt it necessary to use the primary source, rather than to compile a list all of the authorities who dissent from this belief. However, I am puzzled at how this passage is considered "original research" -- as far as I can see it is simply the paraphrasing of verifiable details from a primary source, with the minimum of interpretation possible. As for the "editorial analysis", I believe this falls under the category of an obvious logical inference, that is argument from silence; not to mention this possible reading of the source would be, I feel, dishonest. (As I pointed out on the Talk page, this form of argument is the weakest that can be made -- which is why I linked to the article. Lastly, the Imam's possible non-Somali origins is not a novel or original conclusion: as the Talk page mentions, both Morin & Lewis have suggested other ethnic origins for this person. -- llywrch (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not "Somali nationalistic ideology" to assert that Imam Ahmad was Somali: It is the consensus among most scholars to assert that he was Somali, as clearly indicated by the not one, not two, but six different sources cited above (note the non-Somali last names: Groves, Chatterji, Almeida, Castanhoso). I could easily produce more if space allowed it. Again, the entire passage above is original research because it speculates on the possible ethnic background of Ahmad without any of the sources it cites once directly and explicitly mentioning his ethnicity. The edit even admits point blank that "his ethnicity is never explicitly mentioned in the Futuh al-Habasha" -- it doesn't get more blatant than that. Causteau (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your list of experts is misleading: first compiling a list of experts is not the same as counting votes -- although listing 3 or 4 can be used to indicate what the majority opinion could be. I could compile a list of authorities who point out that his ethnic background is not known. For example Almeida is a 17th century author, who did not have direct knowledge of the Imam. While Castanhoso is another primary source, the citation in the article is to the introductory pages -- which is written by R.S. Whiteway, who writes, "Nothing is said to his nationality. He was certainly not an Arab: probably he was a Somali, for we find him closely connected with many who were Somalis." Castanhoso, in his own words, calls Ahmad Gragn "a Moor" & "the King of Zeila", which are clearly in error. The title of Groves' book is The Planting of Christianity in Africa, which suggests that he might not write authoritatively about the Imam's nationality. This leaves only Chatterji (to whom I would add the professor Said S. Samatar, who was born in Somalia) arguing that Ahmad Gragn was a Somali. -- llywrch (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not interpret for reading parties what the sources say; that's the exact sort of thing that started this whole mess in the first place. Here's what the above references actually state, and with no spin attached:

1)Chatterji: A Somali chief of Adel, a Muslim state on the Gulf of Aden, named Ahmed ibn Ibrahim by using the new weapon completely overthrew the Ethiopian kingdom...

2)Beckingham: Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al Ghazi, called 'the left-handed' by the Somali, (gran in Amharic), was a Somali in the service of the ruler of Zeila.

3)Groves: The leader was a Somali chief, Ahmad ibn Muhammad Gran, Muslim ruler of a border state, who with great energy and resource pressed home the invasion of Abyssinia.

4)Castanhoso: He was certainly not an Arab: probably he was a Somali, for we find him closely connected with many who were Somalis.

5)Langer: Ethiopia was overrun by the Moslem Somali chief, Ahmed Gran, who used firearms.

Please note that the I.M. Lewis source above which asserts that Imam Ahmad was a Somali was, in fact, submitted by none other than Llywrch himself almost exactly two years ago. As for the Samatar gentleman, he indeed represents the lone Somali scholar in the list of references in the article proper. However, what Llywrch yet again fails to mention is that it was he (not me) that listed Samatar among the sources. I therefore see no point in why he felt the need to mention that Samatar was "born in Somalia" -- how is Samatar's being Somali all of a sudden a problem now when it wasn't before? Causteau (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it falls under the prohibition on original research, because it goes beyond reporting the content of the source and does so in a fashion intended to put forward an argument (both of which are clear identifying characteristics of NOR violations IMO). Vassyana (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PS to the above: I think it is relevant to point out what Causteau did with Vassyana's opinion: he deleted most of the passagediff, & made it appear that it was the unanimous opinion of the relevant experts that the Imam was of an Somali ethnic background -- despite that there are experts (who are, by no means, fringe opinions) with dissenting views. Also note this set of edits where he removed all mention of dissenting opinions concerning the Imam's ethnic origins. He even removed the passage that states the major primary source (the Futuh al-Habasha) omits all mention of his ethnicity, a fact that is pointed out in numerous secondary sources. Vassyana, would you consider these edits to be the proper way to not only to correct any possible original research, but to achieve NPOV in this article? -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that is the correct way to address the issue at all (the fashion the other editor chose). Rather, it would be best to include the dissenting opinions using reliable scholarly sources, since they exist and are relatively easy to access. Vassyana (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of dissenting opinions regarding the ethnicity of Imam Ahmad provided that they are directly and explicity supported by reliable sources, rather than being the product of one editor's speculations on what -- by his own admission -- is not once mentioned in the source he does actually cite. Causteau (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana--find the best quality secondary modern two sources on each side--and cite them, including a correct in context one sentence wquote either in the text or part or the footnote.. DGG (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. Causteau (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, when I am able to gain access to my books (I am currently attending a funeral some 2400 miles away) I will provide a more full recounting of the authorities who point out that his nationality is not known, despite the claims of Somalis. -- llywrch (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I suppose the scholars Nikshoy C. Chatterji, I.M. Lewis, Manuel de Almeida, Charles Pelham Groves, Miguel de Castanhoso, and William Leonard Langer cited in the footnotes above are all Somali, huh? Llywrch's consistent attempts at insinuating that Imam Ahmad was only Somali in the minds of Somalis is beyond laughable, since the overwhelming majority of the literature unreservedly identifies the man as such. Even Llywrch's Ethiopian pal Yom himself admitted as much when the latter inserted the following line into the article way back in June of 2006: Imam Ahmad has traditionally sometimes been interpreted as being an Arab in Ethiopia, though he is more often represented as Somali. Note that that line lasted a good two years without Llywrch, in his many repeat visits to the page, once feeling the need to remove or even so much as modify it. I think that, in and of itself, is very telling. Moreover, historical Christian Portuguese sources that actually fought against the Muslim Imam Ahmad also identify him as Somali: "In Portuguese sources he is called King of Adal and Emir of Zeila, and they conjecture that he was Somali" -- from Ethiopia Through Russian Eyes: Country in Transition, 1896-1898 by Alexander Bulatovich. But oh yeah; Mr. Bulatovich's testimony, like apparently that of the bulk of other scholars out there, doesn't count either since he too -- as his last name and the title of his book clearly indicate -- is Somali *eye roll*. Causteau (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought you folks would like to know that on August 4th, Llywrch solicited input from another regular visitor to this noticeboard regarding the discussion we are presently having. Here is the question Llywrch asked and the responses he received:

Someguy, I noticed that you frequently comment on questions in WP:NOR/N. Would you kindly take a look at the thread Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, & offer your opinion? Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the comments are already in and consensus appears to have formed, so my particpation in the discussion would probably not help much. But to place my opinion in case you still want it, the offending section violated OR because it contains an analysis that was not present in any of the cited sources. This is prohibited, in fact, by the nutshell itself: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you want another opinion, I can say that it is very obvious OR, unless you can cite reliable sources that actually carry out the same analysis, in which case the issue might involve WP:UNDUE instead. --Philosophus ^T 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a pattern is beginning to emerge here, wouldn't you say? Causteau (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

First, let me admit that I have responded to this matter with a clear amount of anger: insasmuch as I have contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years -- & receiving compliments for my work in the process -- I would hope that anyone who has a concern with one of my edits would begin with the assumption that I might have made a mistake either in my presentation, or in being out of date with the current version of a given policy. Such problems can be handled quite quickly with a discussion on the editors' Talk pages. Had Causteau raised his concerns with this passage, and explained what the problem was instead of brusquely telling me to RTFM, I would have been more than happy to have worked with him. More to the point, had he explained that I had assumed that it was obvious that the Imam's ethnic background was unclear, I would have removed the section in question until I could have completed the necessary research to show that, provably, there is doubt about this person's ethnic background amongst the experts.

Let me repeat this in brief: I know what is permitted on Wikipedia; Causteau objected to what I had written, but refused to help me understand what I had done wrong; only thru further discussion in this thread did I finally understand what the problem was, & said I would fix this.

And allow me to add that this incident made me angry enough that I seriously contemplated addressing one & all involved with some intemperate language, & definite misuse of my Admin privileges. I hope this was not what anyone intended to happen; but push anyone, no matter how experienced or patient, far enough, & they will decide "Fuck all of this shit; I don't need this hassle & pain when I'm trying hard to be a good guy. I'm outta here, & I'm going to make sure that people know why!"

End of my rant. Now to the reasoning behind my contributions to this article.

This is what the article said when I first encountered it. Note that an anonymous editor had provided an unsubstantiated claim to his ethnic background, as far as which sub-clan the Imam belonged to. Since my focus in Wikipedia is on Ethiopian topics, I obviously wanted to verify the details in this stub -- as well as improve on it. Due to difficulty in properly finding reliable sources for many details of Ethiopian (& Somali) history & culture, I tend to be permissive in what is added to these articles, & conservative in removing most of this information -- even though it is often unsourced. This is how it came to be that Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi was asserted to be of Somali ethnicity.

About this time, I started to read Paul B. Henze's Layers of Time, wherein he wrote (rather arrogantly, IMHO): "Though some modern Somali nationalists have attempted to make him a national hero, the case is unconvincing. Somali tribes had not developed a sense of common identity in his time. they were still in the process of expanding into the territories they eventually occupied. Gragn's forces were composed of Afars, Hararis, Somalis and Arabs and were augmented by a few Turks.Their common language was Arabic and their sense of purpose lay in their loyalty to Islam." (p. 90) Not long after this, I encountered the passage from Whiteway's introduction to The Portuguese Expedition to Abyssinia in 1541-1543, which I quoted above. At this point I concluded that the Imam's ethnic background was in dispute -- although I did not take the time to thoroughly research the secondary literature to verify this conclusion.

Now I have to say that when it comes to Ethiopian history & culture, I am in the paradoxical situation where it is far easier to access the primary sources than the secondary ones, & that some of the secondary sources I have used are not reliable -- such as the work of E.A. Wallis Budge. I am constantly aware that I can at any moment slip, without knowing, into violating the original research policy. That is why a number of Ethiopia-related articles still remain stubs: I would rather wait to find a reliable secondary source to improve on a stub than to boldly work with primary sources. But there are times when I judge it safe to present the primary sources, with the minimum possible interpretation, for the reader to draw her or his own conclusions. The ethnicity of Imam Ahmad Gragn was one of these.

Lacking access to the secondary literature, I made the decision in this revision to provide a summary of the relevant information from the primary source: it is obvious that the Futuh al-Habashi does not provide the Imam's ethnic identity; I beleive this is even stated in a secondary source, which I have been unable to rediscover. If the Futuh is silent about Imam Ahmad Gragn's ethnicity, then the least unusual place to look for clues would be to look at his relatives.

I spent a large chunk of this Sunday afternoon examining reliable authorities for proof that this is a topic for which there is no consensus -- beyond, of course, the Somali nationalists Henze alludes to in the passage quoted. And the results surprised me.

First, there is the footnote in the article to the book Some Records of Ethiopia 1593-1646: Being Extracts from the History of High Ethiopia or Abassia By Manoel De Almeida, Together with Bahrey's History of the Galla, to give its complete title (which, IMHO, is unnecessarily verbose). On page 105, Almeida's text reads "the Moor Granh": while I may be again committing the crime Causteau accuses me of above -- interpreting for reading parties what the sources say -- I only think it is proper to point out that for Almeida & his contemporaries, "Moor" did not necessarily mean an inhabitant of North Africa, but a Moslem who was not of Arab or Persian ancestry; it does not prove or disprove that Almeida thought the Imam was a Somali. However in a footnote on that page, the editors/translators of that book (which is credited to both Beckingham & Huntingford) "Granh" is identified as "a Somali in the service of the ruler of Zeila". Now it can be shown that part of that statement is incorrect: Ahmad Gragn was not in anyone's service; he was a Moslem religious -- an Imam -- whom not only the Futuh, but numerous secondary sources (mentioned below) state appointed the ruler of the city of Harar, who was his puppet ruler. I regret to say this -- because in many other regards, both Beckingham & Huntingford are reliable sources -- but this does not make their claim that Ahmad Gragn was a Somali reliable.

Now for what truly surprised me: after reviewing eight reliable or authoritative sources, only one gave an ethnic origin for the Imam. These sources are as follows:

• Richard Pankhurst, who is considered by many as the most authoritative writer on Ethiopia, while consistently calling Ahmad Gragn an Imam, only in one work provides an ethnic identity for the Imam -- belonging to Adal -- but for the most part, in his 3 books -- Ethiopian Borderlands, The Ethiopians, & The Ethiopian Royal Chronicles -- he does not supply an ethnic identity.
• Edward Ullendorff, in his The Ethiopians, likewise identifies Ahmad Gragn as an Imam but is silent about his ethnic identity.
• Tadesse Tamrat, professor of Ethiopian history at Addis Ababa University, in his article for the Cambridge History of Africa, and his monograph Church and State in Ethiopia, consistently calls Ahmad Gragn an Imam but avoids giving him an ethnic identity, although in his Cambridge History chapter, "Ethiopia, the Red Sea, and the Horn", he has at least one opportunity to say he was a Somali -- if he thought this were the case.
• E. Haberland, writing an article on 16th century Ethiopia for the UNESCO series General History of Africa (vol. 3), simply states that "the brilliant Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi (Ahmad Grañ) who emerged from obscurity to become the charismatic leader of the djihad" (p. 712). In another passage, where he writes about origins of the Somali people & could be expected to say that Ahmad Gragn was a Somali, Haberland also fails to make this identification, or any ethnic identification -- although he, too, identifies him as an Imam.
• J. Spencer Trimingham, in his Islam in Ethiopia, which is frequently cited as an authoritative source for its topic in the secondary literature, while calling him an "Imam" (& noting that its expression at one point -- "The Imam of the Last Days" -- could be understood as suggesting that some of his followers thought of him as the Mahdi) only states that Ahmad Gragn spent his earliest years in Habat "the region between Gildessa and Harar" (p. 85). He, too, avoids the question.

In short, all of these avoid providing an ethnic identity for Ahmad Gragn -- which I find remarkable. Had his Somali identity been uncontroversial, most if not all of them would have asserted that he was Somali.

I think it is fair to say that all of these works are reliable sources, some of which are of the highest quality: peer-reviewed, appearing under the name of prestigious publishing houses. Let me compare their statements to the quotations Causteau provides above:

• Chatterji: "A Somali chief of Adel, a Muslim state on the Gulf of Aden, named Ahmed ibn Ibrahim by using the new weapon completely overthrew the Ethiopian kingdom..." Ahmad Gragn was not a chief, but a religious leader. Having made that mistake, can he be considered to be a reliable source about his ethnic identity?
• Beckingham: "Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al Ghazi, called 'the left-handed' by the Somali, (gran in Amharic), was a Somali in the service of the ruler of Zeila." (Where does this quotation come from? It is not in the book cited in the article under discussion.) Refuted above as unreliable.
• Groves: "The leader was a Somali chief, Ahmad ibn Muhammad Gran, Muslim ruler of a border state, who with great energy and resource pressed home the invasion of Abyssinia." Ahmad Gragn was not a chief, but a religious leader. Having made that mistake, can he be trusted to be a reliable source about his ethnic identity?
• Castanhoso: "He was certainly not an Arab: probably he was a Somali, for we find him closely connected with many who were Somalis." Incomplete quotation, & out of context. See my quotation above, which shows his ethnicity was not certain to R.S. Whiteway. Castanhoso calls him "a Moor."
• Langer: "Ethiopia was overrun by the Moslem Somali chief, Ahmed Gran, who used firearms." Ahmad Gragn was not a chief, but a religious leader. Having made that mistake, can Langer be trusted to be reliable about his ethnic identity?

I apologize for writing such a long response, & hope everyone interested in this issue was able to read my statement with a minimum of difficulty. However, Causteau's snideness in his last comment -- & his uncalled for quoting from a user's talk page -- has compelled me to defend my reputation at length. From the above, I believe it is clear that if I am guilty of promoting any novel conclusion, it is that the question of Imam Ahmad Gragn's ethnic background is still sub juridice, & not a settled issue. I hope that it is understandable to all Wikipedians who understand the goals of this project that it is better to err by assuming that there are more POVs to an issue than that there are none. -- llywrch (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your listing of sources and short analyses, Llywrch. I've avoided commenting on this subject for the past week due to a lack of historical sources on hand (I don't currently have access to my university library), and I did not want to make false assertions. One of the important issues here is of reliability. As Llywrch has noted, many have written about Ahmad Gragn, him being an extremely important figure in East African history, but few have done so authoritatively. You noted that you weren't sure if you had a source stating that his ethnicity has never been stated outright by the Futuh. You can find one on the talk page of the article where I cite Franz-Cristoph Muth's article on Adal in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. First, regarding the issue of OR, I made a comment regarding the passages added by Llywrch back when they were first added. The few passages that imply arguments from silence and the exact meaning of the connections noted in the Futuh seem to be OR to me. This does not mean the whole of his additions are OR, however. Much of the information is clear by itself, however, and does not require secondary sources stating or interpreting them (while they would certainly be appreciated, things like who his sisters married &c are pretty clear in themselves).

Going back to the reliability of certain sources, I do think Causteau has incorrectly attributed some opinions to authors that made no such claims. While Almeida is an important source for Ethiopian historiography (though he often makes clear mistakes, so he shouldn't be regarded as infallible by any means), I very much doubt he identified Ahmad as Somali. I don't have access to this source atm, so I cannot be positive in this regard, but Llywrch's citation seems to support that. Can you cite the exact passage where he makes this claim, please, Causteau? Moreover, there are a lot of modern authors who have written on Gragn who are not experts of the period that have, without analysis, adopted the interpretation that he was Somali simply on the basis that it is the most "loudly" expressed opinion. Somali nationalism has had an important influence on many authors (not because they believe in it, but because their fierce claims and traditions seem to them to be evidence that he was Somali), without there actually being significant contemporary (16th c.) evidence supporting their claims. Chatterji, Adejumobi, Groves, and Langer/Bruun clearly fall under this category, their works being general ones. Moreover, Esposito's claim that the Imam's army was mostly comprised of Somalis is, in fact, refuted by the Futuh itself (which must be his source for the claim), which, although makes clear it included many Somalis at the beginning of his activities, states clearly that very early in his conquests his army was divided three ways - 1 Somali contingent, another Harla (possibly an early Afar group, but not Somali), and another Malasai (another ambiguous Muslim group, but also unambiguously non-Somali).

Anyway, in short, while I agree that we should be careful in avoiding OR, and some of those statements do seem to do so, IMO, much of it is fine as it is. We should be just as careful in choosing our sources. There's a lot that's been written about Gragn, much of it untrue or simply unfounded. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic section on evidence basis

Does Chiropractic #Evidence basis have a significant synthesis problem?

In the opinion of the section's critics, the section is a WP:SYN violation when it presents specific research on spinal manipulation (SM) as evidence of effectiveness of chiropractic care as opposed to the whole range of treatments performed by chiropractors (not just SM), because the reader may confuse the assertions about spinal manipulation specifically as being assertions about chiropractic treatment in general.

In the opinion of the section's proponents, the section clearly distinguishes SM research from other research, every claim in the section is directly supported by a reliable source, standard practice in evidence-based chiropractic relies on SM research, and excluding highly-relevant mainstream research would raise serious WP:WEIGHT problems.

See also Syn tag, SYN and implicit conclusions, and Proposed wording for NOR/N. Eubulides (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Levine2112 edited the above comment; I am taking the liberty of restoring my comment as written, and moving Levine2112's easily separable additions to the following paragraph. He is of course welcome to make further changes and additions to his comments. Eubulides (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

In the opinion of the section's critics, the section is a WP:SYN violation when it presents specific research about non-chiropractic spinal manipulation (SM) as evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic care. The proponents justify such a presentation by citing that other researchers have synthesized similar presentations about chiropractic from non-chiropractic SM research, thus we should be able to do the same sort of synthesis here at Wikipedia. Even though the non-chiropractic SM research makes no conclusions whatsoever about chiropractic specifically, the proponents still want to use such research to make conclusions about chiropractic in the Wikipedia article. Their justification is that such synthesis is "standard practice" (even though this is actually a matter of contention in the chiropractic research world and not standard practice at all). Levine2112 ^discuss 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could boil this down to a simpler question so that one could more quickly respond.Calamitybrook (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! Let me try. The question is whether it's original research for Chiropractic #Effectiveness to summarize and cite scientific studies on the effectiveness of treatments used by chiropractors, even when those studies focus on the treatments, not on chiropractic. An example study is Bronfort et al. 2008, PMID 18164469. (Is that short enough?) Eubulides (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a misleading summary as it misses the point. Let's just clarify here and expand- rather than shorten - so we can explain the whole story for clarity. Spinal manipulation (SM) is a treatment used by many kinds of practitioners (chiropractors, osteopaths, physical therapists, etc.) Chiropractors employ a specialized form of spinal manipulations with specialized techniques which differ from other practitioners. Despite the difference in techniques, some researchers have applied the findings from studies of spinal manipulation as performed by non-chiropractors (non-chiropractic SM) to the efficacy of chiropractic SM. Those few studies are not being questioned here.

What is being questioned is the use of other studies of non-chiropractic SM which in themselves make no conclusions about the efficacy of chiropractic manipulation specifically nor are there any researchers out there applying the findings from these non-chiropractic SM studies to the efficacy of chiropractic SM. Though these studies are about spinal manipulation, they are not making any conclusions whatsoever about chiropractic spinal manipulation specifically. However, currently we are using these non-chiropractic SM studies to draw our own conclusions about chiropractic SM at Chiropractic #Effectiveness. Herein lies the WP:SYN violation.

What's more, there is much debate in the scientific community about whether it is okay to apply non-chiropractic SM studies to draw conclusions about chiropractic SM. In some cases, chiropractic researchers came under heavy fire from the scientific community after they used positive efficacy studies of non-chiropractic SM to declare that "chiropractic works". In these cases, the scientific community actually said that it is not all right to apply non-chiropractic SM studies to make conclusions about chiropractic SM specifically.

So to distill it down to one simple question: If one study applies general SM research to make conclusions about chiropractic SM, does that give us at Wikipedia license to draw the same conclusions about chiropractic SM from other non-chiropractic SM studies? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I may understand it a little better. I don't think Eubulide's summary was misleading, but perhaps a little unclear. Thanks Levine, for revising your initial inquiry. Taking the latest version of the question again at face value, one simple test might be whether anybody in the real (non-Wikipedia) world is actually using these various other studies to draw conclusions about chiropractic therapy. You might seem to be implying above that the answer is that yes, somebody is (who and for what purpose?), because otherwise, perhaps there wouldn't be a "debate." If the answer is no, defending the disputed material as non-SYN becomes slightly more complicated, but I'd still be inclined to do so, given the "one study" to which you refer.

A cursory reading of the article (all you can reasonably expect from a reader) doesn't make the issues you've described sufficiently clear. Perhaps it would be useful to precede the material in question with a very brief summary of the research and an equally brief statement of what you've described as the "debate" about its interpretation. (By the way, I'm not certain that the level of detail now included is necessary, but maybe I am just insufficiently curious.)

Also, when you say "chiropractic researchers," and "scientific community," are any of these people chiropractors? Also, what about the editors? Optimally, chiropractors would not be involved in this article, due to conflicts of interest. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some non-chiropractic SM studies which some researchers have applied as evidence (for or against) chiropractic SM efficacy. There are many other non-chiropractic SM studies which no researcher has applied as evidence (for or against) chiropractic SM efficacy. It is this latter group of non-chiropractic SM studies with which this post is concerned. Though no researchers have applied these non-chiropractic studies to chiropractic, some editors are attempting to make such an application based on the rationale: "Some researchers have made the same application with some studies, so why can't we make the same application with some other studies?"

To answer your questions from above: "Chiropractic researchers" in this case could be chiropractors researching chiropractic, non-chiropractors researching chiropractic, or the chiropractic community in general. "Scientific community" refers to the vague body of all scientific-minded researchers. Some of our editors are chiropractors, some are outspoken chiropractic skeptics, some are chiropractic proponents, and some are neutral editors. As for myself, I am not a chiropractor. I am not a doctor or health practitioner of any kind. I see no COI issue with chiropractors editing the chiropractic article, nor do I see any issue with chiropractic skeptics editing the article. That is, provided that the individual editor can put their biases and POV in check when it comes time to edit the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• one simple test might be whether anybody in the real (non-Wikipedia) world is actually using these various other studies to draw conclusions about chiropractic therapy There's little question that these studies are used in that reason. The example source I cited (Bronfort et al. 2008, PMID 18164469) is too recent to be cited by other sources, but it's quite clear who its authors and audience are. It is a review of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain. It has five authors, all chiropractors, and it says "The vast majority of SMT (previously estimated at 94%) in North America is provided by Doctors of Chiropractic (DCs)". The older sources being cited along the same lines (e.g., Assendelft et al. 2004, PMID 14973958) are explicitly cited in later chiropractic guidelines such as this 2007 guideline. Eubulides (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the issue here is not only whether chiropractors use 94% of spinal manipulation (SMT), but that SMT is not "the only thing" that chiropractors do. When editors cite conclusions from research on SMT, the reader thinks we are talking about "chiropractic care" - which obviously includes other things as well. It would be like writing about all the research around Vioxx in the Medicine article. While a mention of the research on spinal manipulation is appropriate on Chiropractic, the details and nitty gritty need to go in the Spinal manipulation article where it can be discussed NPOV. To try and word research on SMT as if it is talking about chiropractic and putting it under a heading about chiropractic is misleading the reader to conclude that the results of the research on SMT can be equated with chiropractic as a profession and we suggest is really a synthesis error. BTW, I am a chiropractor, so do consider that in your thinking. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• The analogy with Vioxx is flawed. Spinal manipulation (SM) is identified with chiropractic; the overwhelming majority of chiropractic patients are treated with SM. This close relationship does not exist with Vioxx and mainstream medicine.
• The text in Chiropractic clearly states when it is discussing SM, and distinguishes it from other treatments used by chiropractors, which are also discussed briefly.
• This noticeboard is about original research, not about which articles text should go into; if the text in question were original research in Chiropractic, it would equally be original research in Spinal manipulation.

Eubulides (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Same name

My 2c is that wikipedians do not have the authority or expertise to make the judgement that a paper studying a technique with the same name as a chiropractic technique is actually studying the chiropractic technique, unless the paper explicitly states it. Another reliable source would be required to make the connection. As an analogy, two papers on Induction for example, are not necessarily related - you could be talking about mathematical induction or inductive reasoning. --Surturz (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This particular case differs from your 2c, for two reasons. First, chiropractors prefer to call the technique "chiropractic adjustment" or "spinal adjustment"; "spinal manipulation" is the mainstream name for the treatment technique. Second, we have reliable sources saying that the various names are aliases, and that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation, even if the latter research includes some data from non-chiropractic sources. Sorry, I don't follow the analogy; it seems to be saying that one can't rely on the words used by reliable sources, which is surely not what was intended. Taken to an extreme, the analogy would mean that one could not trust a paper on mathematical induction as a source for Mathematical induction, since the paper's "mathematical induction" might be something other than the "mathematical induction" of Mathematical induction. Eubulides (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

* I think you misread my post. My analogy is that if a paper talked about "Induction", wikipedians would not be able to use it in either the Mathematical induction or Inductive reasoning articles, unless another RS could be found linking it to one or the other. I don't know about the international experience, but in my country a chiropractor would never use a 'spinal manipulation' because 'manipulation' is a chiropractor-jargon word meaning 'non-chiropractic technique'. I cannot see how a wikipedian can draw the conclusion that the study of a technique, that is not explicitly stated to be a chiropractic technique, somehow relates to chiropractic. I am sure there are a wealth of studies of actual chiropractic techniques that can be cited, no need to draw a long bow. --Surturz (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• No such confusion exists in the sources in question. They use "spinal manipulation" to refer to the techniques that many chiropractors prefer to call "spinal adjustment". We have reliable sources saying the two terms are synonymous in this context. Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Above Eubulides says that "we have reliable sources saying that... it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation, even if the latter research includes some data from non-chiropractic sources". Neglecting the fact that we also have reliable sources saying just the opposite, while it may be valid for researchers to draw such conclusions, when editors do so here at Wikipedia, it is a clear OR violation. And that you are basing your rationale to draw such a conclusion by pointing out that some researchers do it (so why can't we do the same?) is what makes this a SYN violation. You are taking (A) non-chiropractic research and taking (B) some researchers' opinions about how it was okay for them to apply other non-chiropractic research to chiropractic, then combining A and B together to make (C) an original statement about chiropractic. Again, there would be no issue with you using (in context) a specific piece of non-chiropractic research at Chiropractic when there is a reliable source applying that specific piece of non-chiropractic research to chiropractic. However, to do the same when there is no reliable source making such an application is problematic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Every claim in Chiropractic #Evidence basis is directly supported by on-point citations; no one is disputing this. Surturz's comment "Another reliable source would be required to make the connection" directly disagrees with your analysis; not that this is relevant, since the kind of (A)-(B)-(C) statement you're talking about does not appear in the section in question. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Either you don't understand my analysis or you don't understand Surturz's comment, because it seems he/she completely agrees with me. You are joining A and B to make point C. This is a SYN. When Surturz says "Another reliable source would be required to make the connection", he/she means that you would need a source which directly connects A and B (and thus makes the conclusion C itself), rather than you doing the connecting of A and B and making the conclusion C yourself.

Essentially, you are trying to use non-chiropractic source A to make a conclusion C about chiropractic. And you are using source B - which though is not directly about the research in source A - does tell the story how the researchers used some other non-chiropractic research to make some other chiropractic conclusion. You are just trying to follow their lead by doing the same with other non-chiropractic research. However, in doing so, you are violating OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with that analysis of my comments. Furthermore, this noticeboard is about articles, not about comments in talk pages. Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not have the (A)-(B)-(C) pattern that you describe. Again, every claim in Chiropractic #Evidence basis is directly supported by on-point citations; no one is disputing this. Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's clear things up. Do you agree that Chiropractic #Evidence basis contains material derived from and sourced to references which - on their own - state nothing specifically about chiropractic? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some references state something specifically about chiropractic; others state something specifically about spinal manipulation, chiropractic's primary treatment modality; others state something specifically about treatment guidelines for low back pain, the problem that most people go to a chiropractor to see for; others state something specifically about other topics highly relevant to chiropractic.
• This thread is repeating a long discussion that's already been held in Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 24 #Syn tag, Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 24 #SYN and implicit conclusions, and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 25 #Proposed wording for NOR/N. As far as I can tell, no new points have been raised in this thread. I see little point in repeating it here; this section is already too long. I suggest re-raising the issue, if there's interest, in Talk:Chiropractic.

Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, so it does sound like you agree that Chiropractic #Evidence basis contains material derived from and sourced to references which - on their own - state nothing specifically about chiropractic. As you point out, some of these non-chiropractic studies are actually studying spinal manipulation as performed by non-chiropractors (osteopaths, physical therapists, etc.) My next clarifying question: Do you agree that there is disagreement in the scientific community about if it is "okay" for chiropractors and others to use the results of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research in order to make some conclusion about the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not point that out. All the studies in question rely on chiropractic data. Some also included data derived from non-chiropractors but this data is in the minority, as the vast majority of spinal manipulation is performed by chiropractors. I see no evidence of any disagreement in the scientific community about this standard research practice. Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that all the studies in question rely on chiropractic data and I have shown you several accounts where that is false. Further, regardless if the studies used chiropractic data mixed with non-chiropractic, if in their conclusion they don't say anything specific about chiropractic, we shouldn't be using it at article Chiropractic, but rather at article Spinal manipulation. I am astounded that after months of me showing you quite the opposite, you still are claiming that there is " no evidence of any disagreement in the scientific community" about confounding non-chiropractic research with chiropractic effectiveness. For instance, there was a RAND study on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation which came out quite favorable for spinal manipulation. When chiropractors jumped on that research to proclaim things such as "Chiropractic works!", the chiropractors were in turn jumped on by the researchers who said that these studies were not about chiropractic specifically, but rather spinal manipulation in general and that chiropractors were in effect misusing these studies. RAND spokesperson Dr. Paul Shekelle, released this statement:

"...we have become aware of numerous instances where our results have been seriously misrepresented by chiropractors writing for their local paper or writing letters to the editor... RAND's studies were about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic... Comparative efficacy of chiropractic and other treatments was not explicitly dealt with."

I showed you this and other evidence many times so I honestly don't think that you should claim that you haven't seen such evidence. Please acknowledge (either publicly or privately) that this evidence exists and that confounding general spinal manipulation studies with chiropractic effectiveness is not standard research practice at all. It is frowned upon by many. And for us to continue such a practice here ourselves - doing the confounding ourselves in an article - is a clearcut case of original research regardless. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which study cited in Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not rely on chiropractic data? This is a new claim that I don't recall seeing before. (The rest of this discussion is merely rehashing old arguments.)
• None of the studies are summarized inaccurately or misleadingly in Chiropractic. If a study is about spinal manipulation, it is clearly summarized that way, and only the conclusions drawn by that study are summarized.
• Shekelle's 1993 letter warns about confusing SM and chiropractic. No such confusion exists in Chiropractic #Evidence basis. The two notions are clearly distinguished, and evidence about the one is not presented as if it were evidence about the other.
• More recent studies make a regular practice of combining chiropractic and non-chiropractic data to study SM. They are careful to not confuse chiropractic with SM, just as Shekelle warned against. Leading mainstream chiropractic researchers have said that this current common practice is normal and acceptable. We should not exclude mainstream chiropractic research on the fringe grounds that it is tainted by non-chiropractic data; that would be substituting our own judgment for that of the mainstream experts.

Eubulides (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For months now, I have pointed out several studies which either make no mention of chiropractic in any meaningful way in terms of the research conclusions and/or do not rely on any chiropractic data. Even if we explain that these studies are about spinal manipulation and not about chiropractic, it still doesn't justify including it at an article entitled Chiropractic. It misleads the reader. (Could we include research about astronomy if we make it clear that it isn't about chiropractic?) And the only way you are justifying the relevance of this non-chiropractic research is by original research. Move these pieces to Spinal manipulation where they are more appropriate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If some editor wrote about research about astronomy in Chiropractic, it would soon be removed as irrelevant, just as any vandalism would be removed. That would not be a WP:OR issue, and this is not a WP:OR issue either. Eubulides (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If those editors supporting the inclusion of astronomy research at Chiropractic were basing their rationale on the fact that some researched have applied other astronomy research to Chiropractic (so why can't we as editors apply other astronomy research?) then that would be OR. And that is exactly what is happening here. Now I am a person of the world and I recognize that spinal manipulation is more relevant to chiropractic than astronomy is. But that doesn't mean that spinal manipulation is the same as chiropractic. Hence the two distinct articles chiropractic and spinal manipulation. But because they are somewhat related is why confounding spinal manipulation with chiropractic is more dangerous than confounding astronomy with chiropractic. It is harder for the reader to know the difference. I mean really read the section in question. It is very confusing. The way it is written, it feels as though it has nothing to do with chiropractic and only to do with spinal manipulation. That's why this info is more apropos at the spinal manipulation article. And remember, chiropractors perform a specialized version of spinal manipulation, distinct in technique, diagnosis and philosophy than spinal manipulation performed by osteopaths, PTs and even MDs. That why their specialized techniques are referred to as spinal adjustment. That's why scientific researchers (chiropractors and non-chiropractors alike) dispute using spinal manipulation research to say anything specific about chiropractic spinal manipulation. Note that even at Wikipedia, we have distinct article for the general spinal manipulation and the specific chiropractic spinal adjustment. Clearly, a Wikipedian who applies non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research to a section about the evidence basis of chiropractic specifically has violated the basic principle of OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If the section is confusing, then it would be helpful to point out the confusing wording; confusion can be addressed by clearer writing. But that is a style issue, not an original-research issue, and it does not belong in this noticeboeard. As for "a Wikipedian who applies non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research to a section about the evidence basis of chiropractic", this noticeboard is supposed to be about what's in Chiropractic #Evidence basis, not about Wikipedians; and every claim in that section is supported directly by a reliable source. Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty misleading way to put it when you write: "Do you agree that there is disagreement in the scientific community about if it is "okay" for chiropractors and others to use the results of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research in order to make some conclusion about the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation?" Something similar happened, but fundamentally different. Spinal manipulation was studied, and when the results were favorable, chiropractors immediately trumpeted the results as vindication for the profession of chiropractic, NOT of "the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation", as you put it. That incensed the researchers so much that they had to write in a chiropractic source and scold the profession for doing that. They made it clear that their study was only about spinal manipulation (which included 94 or so percent chiropractic manipulation), not about the profession and all of its other methods, odd ideas, and unscientific practices, etc.. They weren't about to legitimize the profession with all its baggage, and they made that clear.

As to the use of spinal manipulation research that happens to include some few other professional practitioners, the studies are nearly always of 94 or so percent chiropractic manipulation plus a smidgin of others, IOW its conclusions still say more about chiropractic manipulation than anything else.

Now if a study specifically uses manipulation exclusively performed by non-DCs like PTs (such as a famous Dutch study), then specifically that study should be disallowed. Otherwise, by far most studies are about chiropractic manipulation with a near homeopathic dose of others, not enough to alter anything.

As far as safety studies go, the most notable and best study of this type ever done specifically revealed that chiropractors are implicated in far more injuries and deaths than other professions: "Manipulation of the Cervical Spine: Risks and Benefits", by Richard P Di Fabio, Phys Ther, Vol. 79, No. 1, January 1999, pp. 50-65. It was a very thorough analysis, and none since has topped it. -- Fyslee / talk 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think your last paragraph adds much to this particular conversation (and is a can of worms I don't we should open here), I do note that you agree that non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research should not be used at Chiropractic and that there is in fact disagreement in the scientific community about if it is "okay" to use the results of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research in order to make some conclusion about the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation (semantic debate aside :-). Therefore, would I be correct to assume that you agree that to use non-chiropractic research (performed by non-chiros and makes no specific conclusion about chiropractic) in the Chiropractic article violates OR? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Please don't put words into my mouth ("I do note that you agree..."). That's a QG trick. Only research (it matters little who performed it) that explicitly mentions that none or only a small minority of the performers of the spinal manipulation were chiropractors (such studies exist), should be excluded. The Dutch study is one. On a case by case basis I'd need to see the research to be absolutely certain, since we are speaking hypothetically here. Exceptions to my reasoning might occur if I see a definite case that deserves making an exception. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Only trying to make sure we are on the same page. I just did a poor job explaining it, it would seem. Because what I was trying to say that you agree about is that research about spinal manipulation not performed by chiropractors (such as the Dutch one) should not be used at Chiropractic. This is what you explain just above, yes? If so, I am in agreement with you. I think I had a dangling participle or something further above, so I understand the misunderstanding and I apologize to you for it. So, would you say that the use of such non-chiropractic research (like the Dutch one) at Chiropractic would constitute OR, or would you disallow it based on some other policy? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No problemo

[outdent]

No problemo. I too have difficulty making myself clear at times, especially when dealing with these complex matters. Here are a few thoughts:

1. If you can find a single study or more about SM (which we have cited) that specifically mentions that none of the participants were chiropractors, it should be disallowed from edits regarding SM at the chiropractic article, but could still be used at the general SM article. So far such a disallowance wouldn't change any conclusions we have written, if I recall correctly. Until now (quite a few months, or is it more than a year now?) you have been trying to disallow all SM research that was not conducted by chiropractors and/or SM research that included others than chiropractors, ostensibly because of concerns about how such allowances could affect the "concerns about safety" discussions we have had. Have you changed your position?
2. Above you write about "...confounding general spinal manipulation studies with chiropractic effectiveness..." and you cite Paul Shekelle, who scolded chiropractors for doing that. Here you are attempting to use that reasoning when you scold us for doing the opposite, when that hopefully is not the case. Of course "chiropractic effectiveness" is so vague a term that no one on earth should touch the subject with a ten foot pole. Only specific methods can accurately be studied in that manner. (The success of the general chiropractic encounter is another matter, and it should not be used as evidence of the effectiveness of specific chiropractic techniques or specific claims, as it often is. Some chiropractors still haven't learned from Shekelle and try to argue both ways.)
3. Speaking about the "can of worms" you mention above, any research that reveals facts about chiropractic effectiveness or safety issues is potentially fair game. The di Fabio mega metaanalysis above certainly does that, and so far we aren't using it. We should do so.

-- Fyslee / talk 07:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides states "Second, we have reliable sources saying that the various names are aliases, and that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation". Where is this reliable source that says it is valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation? I have seen a reliable source state that it was valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from CERTAIN STUDIES on spinal manipulation, but never such a blanket statement. This seems to be a BLATANT misrepresentation of the truth. - DigitalC (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly legitimate to ask for a source, but there's no need for such strong words. AGF. Now your words lead me to think of something (which will bring us back to what you state about Eubulides' words). It has often been claimed by chiropractors (and certain editors here) that a spinal adjustment is much more "specific" than a spinal manipulation, but where is the evidence for that claim? Of course the intent is different, in that it is claimed that the adjustment is "specifically" directed at the correction of vertebral subluxations. (IOW what mainstream scientists and skeptics would call manipulating an illusion.) Well, that's the intent, but what about any proven "physical" differences in the specific performance of the techniques? They would normally affect the same structures. (Let's not get bogged down in the obvious differences between widely different adjustment and SM techniques. Adjustment techniques exist which don't even touch the body, yet claim to effect changes in it.)

When directed at the same structure in a specific and identically well-performed manner, is there really any "physical" difference that the body will "notice"? Where is the proof for any "physical" difference, besides what the chiropractor or mainstream performer (and their respective patients) believes? I strongly suspect that only straight chiropractors will maintain that there is a physical difference, hence Eubulides' statement of an equatability between research results, if I am not mistaken. If there is no physical difference in performance and results, and most research deals with that, then the results should normally be comparable and interchangeable, IOW it would be "valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation." An exception is JVSR research, which deals with proposed philosophical and metaphysical differences that are purported to make an (unproven) physical difference. It's a journal that claims to perform "scientific research" on what amounts to an illusion... Well, what is the "physical" difference? -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Meeker & Haldeman (2002) wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine 137 (8), p. 702, "We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point. Chiropractors use all forms of manipulation. In the United States, more than 90% of all spinal manipulation services are provided by chiropractors, and research on spinal manipulation, like that on any other treatment method, is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it." The course of mainstream research since then has followed this principle, without dissent by any reliable source that I know of. Eubulides (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what I thought. I'll make some emphasis here. "We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point...". The statement that research on spinal manipulation is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it does not state that it is valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation. Again, where is this source that states that it is valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation"? - DigitalC (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Meeker & Haldeman are among the most senior and respected DC researchers; it's not our place to second-guess their expert opinion (unless, of course, we have found just-as-reliable sources who disagree; but such is not the case here).
• The emphasis on the phrase "we described" is misplaced; Meeker & Haldeman's argument is about the principle in general, and although they mention their study their point is not limited to their study. Obviously if research is equally of value regardless of the practitioner, then there's no scientific reason to ignore or discount research simply because of the types of practitioner studied. This point is not controversial among reliable sources these days.
• The question about "draw conclusions about spinal adjustment" is irrelevant here, as Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not draw conclusions about spinal adjustment. It doesn't even mention spinal adjustment.

Eubulides (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said there was a scientific reason to ignore research because of the type of practitioner. However, there is no reason for Chiropractic to cite research that does not mention Chiropractic. Again, where is the source that YOU stated says "that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation". It isn't irrelevant here, because it was a misrepresentation of the facts about the dispute which is being discussed at this noticeboard. - DigitalC (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• If there's no scientific reason to ignore such research, then why ignore it? Certainly spinal manipulation is highly relevant to chiropractic; it's chiropractic's core treatment.
• The dispute seems to be over research that incorporates data from non-chiropractic practitioners along with data from chiropractic practitioners; this is not the same thing as "research that does not mention Chiropractic".
• I don't see misrepresentation of the facts either in Chiropractic or here.
• Certainly reliable sources say that "spinal adjustment" and "spinal manipulation" are two names for what is essentially the same thing. For example, Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498) say, 'The core clinical action that all chiropractors agree upon is spinal manipulation. Chiropractors much prefer the term spinal “adjustment,” reflecting their belief in the therapeutic and health-enhancing effect of correcting spinal joint abnormalities.' This is a difference in terminology, not in substance.

Eubulides (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The reason to ignore such research is the exact reason we are here at WP:NORN. It is original research/a SYN violation to mention general spinal manipulation research under the heading "Chiropractic effectiveness". It is implying a conclusion that this research is related to chiropractic effectiveness, which we DO NOT HAVE A SOURCE FOR.
• If the source specifically mentions chiropractic, I don't know how there can be dispute.
• The misrepresentation of the facts here is clear. You stated that we have sources that say ""that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation"", when no such sources have been presented. I have repeatedly asked for such a source, with none being presented. Is this a case of WP:IDHT? Please either present such a source, or strike your comments above.

DigitalC (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I've quoted a reliable source saying spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation are different terms for the same thing. It is certainly valid to draw conclusions about X from research about X; it happens all the time. There is no misrepresentation, either here or in Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I've quoted sources that say just the opposite. Clearly there is no agreement about this in the scientific community, therefore us drawing conclusions on our own here about chiropractic spinal adjustments from research about non-chiropractic spinal manipulations is OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what quotes you're talking about. I just now checked the comments in this section, and found no quote in any of your comments that contain the phrase "spinal adjustment". There is a consensus in the mainstream scientific and mainstream chiropractic communities that spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation are two names for the same thing. Again, please see Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498), which I quoted above. And again, the question about "drawing conclusions on our own here about chiropractic spinal adjustments" is irrelevant here, as Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not draw any conclusions about, or even mention, "chiropractic spinal adjustment", "spinal adjustment", or "chiropractic adjustment". Eubulides (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See the quote from RAND above which makes it clear that those researchers believe there is a difference between spinal manipulation and chiropractic. There is no scientific consensus as you claim. So yes, by presenting research conclusions about non-chiropractic spinal adjustments in the "Evidence basis" section of the "Chiropractic" article, you are drawing your own conclusions about chiropractic; and thus the OR violation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the issue by creating a distracting straw man when you state "believe there is a difference between spinal manipulation and chiropractic". We're talking about the difference between "spinal manipulation" and "chiropractic adjustments", not chiropracic itself. You keep switching back and forth when it suits your whim. Please stick to one issue. -- Fyslee / talk 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The RAND quote distinguishes chiropractic from spinal manipulation, but that's a quite different thing. Chiropractic includes many treatment forms, not just spinal manipulation (or if you prefer, "spinal adjustment"). Even if the RAND quote did dispute the mainstream consensus that spinal manipulation and spinal adjustment are two names for the same thing (which it doesn't), that would not affect Chiropractic #Evidence basis, a section that never uses the words "spinal adjustment". Eubulides (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're dancing around the obvious here. RAND made the distinction, Terrett made the distinction in JMPT's "Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury" and DiFabio notes the difference. It's more than semantics, it's more than philosophical. There is a mechanical difference between the spinal adjustment techniques which chiropractors employ and the spinal manipulations employed by non-chiropractors. But you have found one source which says it was okay for them to confound the two in the particular studies that they looked at and then you claim there must be scientific consensus and therefore we can violate OR by do the same confound with completely different studies. A merely presenting the non-chiropractic studies in the chiropractic article creates the original research violation, no matter if you are careful to call it "manipulation" and not "adjustment". They are not the same thing. However, you are presenting the non-chiropractic manipulation studies as though they were directly relevant to chiropractic. Consider this, in closing, if there isn't a difference between Spinal manipulation and Spinal adjustment, then why have we had the to two distinct articles here at Wikipedia for so long? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are still confusing the issue. You keep switching back and forth when it suits your whim. Please stick to one issue. RAND wasn't making a comparison between spinal manipulation and chiropractic adjustments.

When you write: "There is a mechanical difference between the spinal adjustment techniques which chiropractors employ and the spinal manipulations employed by non-chiropractors.", you seem to be ignoring my comments above about a physical difference for comparable techniques. You claim there is a mechanical (IOW physical) difference, when the only proven difference is one of belief, philosophy, and intent. When the same technique that is called "spinal manipulation" by non-DCs, and "spinal adjustment" by DCs are compared, just what is the mechanical/physical difference? We are of course talking about HVLA manips/adjustments directed at the same structure in a specific and identically well-performed manner. Is there really any "physical" difference that the body will "notice"? Is there a proven physical difference? I think not. Please provide a RS that proves there is. The WCA, ICA, and F.A.C.E. will of course confirm that there is a difference in intent, and maybe even claim there is a mechanical difference, but where is their proof? -- Fyslee / talk 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This comment mentions two older sources not previously discussed here. The first (Terrett 1995, PMID 7636409) is like the RAND quote: it says that "the words chiropractic and chiropractor commonly appear in the literature to describe SMT, or practitioner of SMT", which is not the dispute here. The disp