Talk:Sports chiropractic

Introduction to Sports Chiropractic

This is arguably the most notable and integrated of the chiropractic sub-specialties hence this section. I strive for it to be an extremely high quality article that provides the best information with respect to chiropractic sports medicine. I hope that contributors will strive to bring the appropriate high quality citations (peer-reviewed when discussing a specific medical claim). Additional sections to be included, over time include:

• Education, licensing, regulation
• Scope of practice
• Use of chiropractic in professional and amateur sport
• Research into chiropractic sports medicine
• Notable athletes using chiropractic care (i.e. Tiger Woods

Any other suggestions to make this article a model are of course welcome. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Another fine article started by you! Thanks for your hard work CorticoSpinal. You truly exemplify the spirit of good article writings as put forth by the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, it's another fine example of the disruptive editing practices of certain chiropractic skeptics as they have nominated the article for deletion. The user in question appears to be Mccready. I left him a note on his talk page raising my concerns. CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be a good test. Certainly come and weigh in your opinion at the AfD. Let's see how it goes. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The same attempts at censorship and disruption is occuring at Veterinary chiropractic. Where do I comment at AfD? CorticoSpinal (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a real good beginning. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are solid; and its the biggest sub-specialty in Chiropractic. How it's not notable when DCs are now part of sports teams medical staff, on the medical staff in the Olympics and most importantly, when Google Scholar gives over 4000 hits and at least 60 citations in PubMed is beyond me. The skeptics here are ruining the point of the encyclopedia, which is to inform and collaborate. All they do is delete, delete, delete, and how a user such as Mccready and the usual suspects can simply silence and wipe out a notable topic like this makes me wonder why I even bother sometimes. Their ability to influence and effectively censor experts and use straw man fringe arguments and kill budding articles like this harms the project in the long run. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Musculoskeletal medicine

"Sports medicine core focus of treating athletes and promoting exercise which has also has considerable overlap with musculoskeletal medicine." Why do we have this statement? The musculoskeletal medicine referred to in the source is practiced by medical practitioners (MBBS - Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery), and is contrasted against sports medicine. Neither of these are on topic for Sports Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments? DigitalC (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete it unless there is a contravening source document. This article is better smaller and completely accurate than larger and of questionable accuracy. Although please check out: "Sports medicine meets musculoskeletal medicine." (2007). Aust Fam Physician. 36(6):394-6. (June): 394-6.. ISSN 17565394 PMID: 17565394. Retrieved on 2008-03-21. Before you do. I can't get access to it and I can't tell what kind of journal it is or what the article says precisely. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the article (it should be free access) and it seemed to be very focused on MEDICINE. I will remove the statement as it doesn't seem on topic. DigitalC (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

More Source

• British Chiropractic Sports Council
• Murdoch University (Australia) Prost Graduate Diploma in Sports Chiropractic
• ACA Sports Council(USA)

Practicioners

Chiropractors, along with other non-traditional physicians, such as nurse practitioners are increasingly seeing their scope of practice augmented to carry out screening examinations on high school students engaged in organized competitive sports.</<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"

The source cited doesn't support this complete thought. The source DOES support the fact that chiropractors are used more in cardiovascular screening (and presumably other activities, though that is not stated by the source), but the wording of the sentence seems to imply the opposite of what is implied in the paper. Chiropractors are the smallest percentage of non-traditional health care providers in the paper (see figure 2), and the only classification of health care providers to not see a statistically significant increase. This sentence, then, should probably be removed or reworded. Protonk (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly word it as you best see fit. We're just getting off the ground here, so I imagine there may be several cases like this or where a further source is needed. Overall, I think it's a good start! Your help would be much appreciated in whatever capacity you can spare. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reworded it a little bit to reflect that chiropractors are pretty tangential to that source. seems to be appropriate now. Protonk (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Role for chiropractors

The source cited for this is also very thin. Pelletier, JC. "Sports related concussion and spinal injuries: the need for changing spearing rules at the National Capital Amateur Football Association (NCAFA).". J Can Chiropr Assoc. '50' (3): 195-208.. ISSN 17549157. This is an article that mentions chiropractors once at the introduction and once in the conclusion. The meat of the article is a discussion of the health effects of "spearing", a tackling practice banned in the US but not (at the time of printing) in Canada. Where the author mentions chiropractors it seems to be more of an exhortation than an illustration.

he chiropractic profession ought to become directly engaged in all aspects of sports injuries and actively help developing systems by which it can be recognized as a core participant within the sports medicine world.

Chiropractors can advise players, in lay terms, to practice the best techniques in order to reduce risks of

serious injury.

that's from page 11, the last page (not including references). I didn't include a sentence in the abstract, which basically says the same thing. There has to be a stronger source than this on to support the claim that chiropractors would serve to prevent spinal injury. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Integration section

[1] is a good source, but the text in this section is confusing. The text leaves the matter unclear as to the future role/limitation/etc for chiropractors. the source is rather more clear. This source can and probably should provide some more support for other sections of this article, as it is basically the scholarly equivalent of this article--a survey of the profession. specifically, the athlete-centered format for care needs to be a separate section, as it is one of the critical distinctions between the type of care offered by non-traditional medicine and traditional medicine.

Be careful when excerpting the article, as portions are interviews with subject and can vary wildly in tone. Protonk (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that is it a good source and agree that other sections could use some of the important points covered by Theberge. It definitely seems, to me anyways, that this article is a good example of WP:INSPECTOR in which the AfD request was made very prematurely and it didn't have the time to be fleshed out and correct some of the points you've mentioned here and at the AfD page. Nonetheless, if you could spare the time, I'd much appreciate some fresh eyeballs and thoughts and by all means insert what you feel would make the article better. I'm going to try and get more sources tonight; just been busier IRL these last few days. Cheers CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I'm personally not a fan of chiropractic work in general, but what is important is changes in patient outcome. If the patient responds to treatment, then the treatment is probably good, regardless of the causal mechanism. I might dig through that source some more but others can to, as it is freely available from that link (unlike much of the material owned by blackwell synergy). Protonk (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent insight re: changes in patient outcome. Athlete-centered care is just a specific branch of patient-centered care which, in chiropractic medicine , (and maybe all medicine) is where the trend is heading. Theberge raises many good points that I'll add to the article a bit later, I don't have time this weekend to do any significant work but do stop by periodically to check comments. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Edits

Jefffire recently made 5 consecutive edits (none of which I believe improve the article)

[2]

Pre The focus of chiropractic sports specialists is to provide expert care in the conservative management, rehabilitation and performance optimization of neuromusculoskeletal system for elite athletic populations and to participate in a multi-disciplinary sports injury care environment.

Post The sports chiropractors apply chiropractic treatments to sports people.

Question

Is this the kind of editing practices we're going to develop here? I think it's time we call a spade a spade. The vehement opposition from righteous skeptics such as Jefffire is because they treat Chiropractic medicine like a fringe movement; something equal to Flat Earth or AIDS reappraisal. This is not an accurate, reliable nor valid position based on the scientific literature. To have a core group (I've counted 6-7 so far) of skeptical editors to overrule the body of scientific research the validates that chiropractic is as mainstream and integrated as ever disrupts not only chiropractic, it's disrupts all of CAM and all of Wikipedia. We need to have a ArbCommitee have a RfC on CAM subjects and topics and come up with a better system than dealing with nonsense like this.

Here's the biggest slap in the face of them all:

[3]

Pre (with source attached)

Sports chiropractors have made contributions to protective gear and trauma management in contact sports, athletic health maintenance, therapy, and enhanced rehabilitation after injury.S pinal injury prevention has been identified as a role that sports chiropractors play.

Two high quality, verifiable, reliable sources (the book is published by McGraw Hill, Jefffire, in case you didn't notice. What does your edit summary say though? That is not a RS for that claim. How f*&ked is that! This absurd treatment of chiropractic like fringe.

Now, here is clearly overboard. Jefffire actually takes a direct statement from the cited source which is relevant to the topic, scope of practice:

Non-traditional health care professionals, such as nurse practitioners and chiropractors are increasingly seeing their scope of practice augmented to carry out screening examinations on high school students engaged in organized competitive sports.

A 2007 study reported "...states that permit practitioners with little or no cardiovascular training (such as chiropractors or naturopathic practitioners) to provide medical clearance of high school athletes increased from 11 (22%) in 1997 to 18 (35%) in 2005".

...and replaced it with this, a non-sequitur that deliberately portrays the POV 'weaknesses' of CAM professionals when we are talking about scope of practice. It's these little civil POV pushing things and deliberate, malfeasant edits that provokes needless edit wars and tension for no good reason. Jefffire, these edits weaken the wikipedia project and causes needless tension. Please stop.

Yet the source is from a medical journal who is passing a POV on the [DC and RN] professions whereas the original edit represent a factual statement. Shall I deconstruct your obtuse and highly inappropriate edits (especially given the tense situation on CAM articles) and let you explain yourself? I'm going to go make the minor tweaks and restore the cited material you've deleted. That's a no-no; and you know better, or you should by now. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• General Thoughts

1. Fix the first edit. He is wrong to shorten the sentence to that length but the basic idea (that peacock words need to be removed) is corret.
2. Revert the second edit. Ask him to post on this talk page a challenge for the source.
3. Leave the third edit alone, or be careful (and cite page numbers) fixing it. I don't like the third edit because he is changing a sentence I wrote and I wrote the sentence that way for a reason. But, as I said before, the way to win this is to stick to the facts and refuse to write anything that isn't already in a secondary source. I'm pretty sure that the line I wrote was very close to the wording in the source quoted, but I might be wrong.

That's my take. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I went through the references quite carefully (I have full access to them all). In most cases I found that they had been used somewhat dishonestly. Some bore only passing relation to their sentence. For example, that "non-sequitur" is a direct quote from the article you had been citing, and is part of the main thrust of the article. I invite all editors to go through the references and come to their own conclusions on this. Lastly, if one has lifted text verbatim, one should use quotations to indicate it. Jefffire (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are incorrect in general. However, with the Practitioners ref specifically (see same name talk section above), I think that the current text is supported by the references. The text shows that the article means to put chiropractors behind NPs but in the same category as other non-physicians who are being used to broaden athletic screening. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify? The practitioners section is referenced by "Opportunities in Chiropractic Careers", which is quote clearly a partisan source. If S.C have made contributions to these fields, then cite it from the relevant field. Jefffire (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I mean this section in the talk page and this section on the main page. Specifically I'm referring to the sentence that has been removed a few times: "Non-traditional health care professionals, such as nurse practitioners and chiropractors are increasingly seeing their scope of practice augmented to carry out screening examinations on high school students engaged in organized competitive sports". There are a few problems with the sentence, namely that not all NPs would want to be listed in the same breath as chiropractors, but it most certainly isn't a misrepresentation of the source. I took pains to make sure of that. I mean, I see where you are coming from. Here is a paragraph from the source material:

In 2005 (compared with 1997), a greater number of nonphysician examiners were sanctioned by states to perform preparticipation sports examinations and provide medical clearance for high school athletes. Over this 8-year period, the proportion of states allowing nurse practitioners (21 to 37) or physician assistants (21 to 35) to perform such clearance examinations increased significantly (p <0.01; Figure 2). Furthermore, states that permit practitioners with little or no cardiovascular training (such as chiropractors or naturopathic practitioners) to provide medical clearance of high school athletes increased from 11 (22%) in 1997 to 18 (35%) in 2005 (Figure 2). In addition, 3 states (Montana, Nebraska, and Minnesota) permit any licensed practitioner to conduct medical clearance examinations, while 3 other states (California, Hawaii, and Vermont) allow high schools to decide who may perform examinations, thereby potentially increasing the number of states using chiropractors to 24.

It supports your very precise wording of the surveyed increase in usage. I am, however, prepared to word it in a broader sense, as it supports that more generally as well. Protonk (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a direct quote, not my wording. There is no sense in not allowing the authors to say this in their own words. Jefffire (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't think we are on different sides here. My point is that as written, both sentences can remain, or with slight modification for style. I fully agree with you (see other portions of the talk page) that this article can and should be built very carefully from secondary sources. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I can across as combative, it's just that I think that the current wording is perhaps a little verbose and redundant. To be more specific the phrase "increasingly seeing their scope of practice augmented", is unclear and even unnecessary since the direct quote before it gives the stats for the increase. Jefffire (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's cool, I think we just disagree. I think the sentence about NP's and chiro's and whatever is pretty economical. I also don't think that it is particularly redundant, as it helps to explain the data you quoted. If you can find a way to condense or otherwise make that sentence more clear, then please fix it, but I feel that an explanation of the wording in the study is within our scope of practice. I think I'll take a crack at re-wording it, let me know what you think then. Protonk (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent rewording. Jefffire (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the book looked like a piece of garbage. Big-ass font and the authors adding their titles on the front page (yeah, that classic howler). That's just superficial stuff, what's important is that you cannot expect such a partisan book to neutrally report on issues. If chiropractors have helped design saftey equipment then quote a saftey equipment book, not a chiropractic one. Jefffire (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The book "looked like a piece of garbage" is your reason for reverting sourced text? I agree, I wouldn't buy the book. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. It was written by DCs, and that should be taken into consideration, but I don't think the claim made in the article was contentious, or POV. In fact, it was delivered as fact. If you have another source that disputes the fact, then lets incorporate it into the article and have a truly NPOV section. In the future, before making major changes to an article, consider gaining consensus on the talk page for the edits first. DigitalC (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just said that my personal reservations were not the reason for removal. The issue is that a highly partisan source is being quoted as fact. Jefffire (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that again this highly partisan source is quoted as fact. I have taken the liberty of adding proper attribution. Jefffire (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. From what you can read in google books, it doesn't look terribly balanced. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Practice Parameters

It seems like the section has been deliberately tanked. I'll leave it alone for today, but it seems like someone's trying to make a point. CorticoSpinal (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up. Without any more sources, it should probably stay that way. Protonk (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it, but I'm not sure it is productive to keep changing this around. All things considered, it is probably not worth the stress, but like I said, I'm not going to revert it. Protonk (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that revert, CorticoSpinal should be aware of the relevant policy on ridiculously biased sources making factual claims. Jefffire (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire, you are coming very close to getting sent to ANI if you keeep making unfounded accusations and keep assuming bad faith. Your sketicism is beyond rational, it has gone into the righteous mode. Also, you do realize that 2 of the 3 authors have their Masters Degree in Education, right? Given that medicine has historically and continues, to an extent, marginalize chiropractic care and chiropractors, your requests that everything come from a medical textbook or source is not realistic. I suggest that you desist from making anymore reversions; your edit is NOT a good one, and does is not consistent with wikipedia's manual of style. Eubulides has already lectured you on this type of editing at the main Chiropractic talk page, I suggest you heed his advice. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If requests for a mainstream source is not meetable then that is because the subject is not mainstream. Now, why on Earth is proper attribution so unreasonable? Jefffire (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a mainstream source published by a mainstream publishing house. You're treating like fringe still. Nice attempt at character assassination, BTW. I've got enough diffs on you now to prove this. Did you go to school with Hillary Clinton? CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: You do realize that 2 of the 3 authors have their Masters Degree in Education right? Have you not read Eubulides' reply to your edits at Chiropractic where you are pulling the same stunt? CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is proper attribution so objectionable? It is covered quite clearly at Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. Jefffire (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Was the cited source not attributed properly? You're going out of your way here to make a point. Anyways, there's nothing productive occuring from exchanges with you, so I'm going to move on now. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is policy. You are quoting a highly partisan source as fact. You must attribute it as I have done, otherwise you are violating WP:NPoV. Jefffire (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave the attribution as it is right now. Presumably it doesn't harm the article to have the source attributed (as a matter of fact, that is a good test. If the claim made looses authority from being cited and attributed specifically, rather than gaining authority, then it is appropriate to attribute it, as the claim is probably an appeal to authority). The claim is a little opinion based (though not as much as Jefffire is claiming, IMO). In this case, when in doubt, attribute. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous Athletes w/ chiropractors

Are there other sources for this? I'm not arguing that the two sources there are not true, but there should be some more independence from the subject. Both appear to be chiropractic related websites. Maybe the personal pages of the subjects? Protonk (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this for Lance Armstrong? [4] Read the last paragraph. In my search, I came across these videos presented by Armstrong's chiropractic doctor. Maybe off topic here, but I though you all might be interested. [5]. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this for one better? CNN is obviously a more reputable source but this has a little more detail. Protonk (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's good too. However, for the mere means of listing famous athletes who utilize chiropractic, I think the sources we already have are fine. I don't see a problem with them being chiropractic websites. That said, perhaps others will think it is an issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While we are at it, we could probably throw Barry Bonds in the mix as well. [6] -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we need to avoid bias or the appearance of bias when it is possible. If there is a source that is independent from the chiropractic world, it behooves us to use it. If there is no other source then we need to figure out whether or not to keep the piece of information in. In this case we should stick to sources outside the chiropractic world (esp. not websites). Protonk (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how bias factors into this. How would you feel about a chiropractic publication with an interview of a pro athlete discussing his/her use of chiropractic? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, bias factors in from a pragmatic standpoint. If this article is frequently edited by skeptics, it is in the best interests of the authors to make their case as bulletproof as possible. If there is a case where bias can appear to taint the article, then it should be removed, or else skeptical editors will remove it for you. And they won't technically be wrong, they will just be disruptive. In this case see what Jefffire has reverted/removed on the topic. The idea is to fix the problems in a loving fashion before someone who doesn't love the subject comes in and deletes them. In this case if we have sources who are not part of chiropractic organizations vouching for a factual claim then we should use them over sources which are part of some chiropractic organization. this, of course, is just my opinion, but I think it helps to stop edit wars before they start with users who are not destructive. But these are just my feelings on the subject. If you feel that a source is independent of the subject of the article and supports a factual claim, then put it in. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have 0 problem with using BBC, CNN or other newsites. I didn't think that was allowed, to be honest. If it helps I can track down the sites that mention these things and we can supplant the references from 3rd party sources. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) they are fine. Check WP:RS for clarification. In a lot of cases scholarly sources are preferred, but it is pretty unlikely that someone would right a journal article about Lance Armstrong's chiropractor. Protonk (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Lance's own book? He specifically states that his DC was "the most important" physician on his sports med team. I agree that it's unlikely that we'll find scholarly cases but like you mentioned above, it's better to have the most neutral source so skeptics don't revert endlessly.

No real problem w/ citing both. Protonk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sports chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080830002527/http://www.vancouver2010.com/resources/PDFs/07_05_08_VANOC_Business_Plan_EN_e.pdf to http://www.vancouver2010.com/resources/PDFs/07_05_08_VANOC_Business_Plan_EN_e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sports chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081012180037/http://www.parkercc.edu:80/chiropractic.aspx?id=13662 to http://www.parkercc.edu/chiropractic.aspx?id=13662

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced, dubious statement involving a BLP

2001:56a:75b7:9b00:9182:29b3:54cb:59bd: I re-reverted your recent unrevert of this statement: and appointed Mike Reed as the medical director of the US team. and I might have accidentally messed up the link to your IP address in the edit summary, so I'm posting here to make sure you get a ping. Please re-add the material after you've "fixed the spurious claim" by adding a source, but not before. Per WP:BLPCITE, "All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed from articles and talk pages immediately." Who is Mike Reed? Where did that information come from? I don't care if that statement is in there with a source. PermStrump(talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

2001:56a:75b7:9b00:9182:29b3:54cb:59bd has re-unreverted my removal of dubious claims about a BLP without adding a source. I'm leaving it for now. If this is such an important statement, it should be easy to add a source. If it's verifiable in a reliable source, I'd have no argument about keeping it. PermStrump(talk) 17:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about PermStrump? I reverted, you re-reverted and said I had to add a source. So, I added a source, what is the problem now? 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:9182:29B3:54CB:59BD (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I overlooked that. I'm not comfortable referring to him as the medical director though. When I searched Mike Reed chiropractor olympics on my work's database and filtered for peer reviewed journals, there was only one hit, Shawn Day (2010) in Chiropractic History[7]. This is what it says reference to the 2008 Olympics (my emphasis): "In 2008, the four chiropractors were Mike Reed (also one of the heads of the USOC Sports Performance Division and possibly the head of the medical staff)..." The 2007 BOD meeting minutes of the U.S. Bobsled & Skeleton Federation refer to Reed as a volunteer coordinator for medical staff. (WP won't let me link to the URL b/c it's a PDF with a 'google.com/url?' which is apparently blacklisted, but you can find it by googling USBSF meeting minutes 2007 "mike reed"). Team USA's website still lists the staff from the Sochi 2014 Games and only MDs and DOs were given the job title, "medical director." They're using the title "managing director, Sports Medicine Division" for the chiropractor that I assume holds the same position Reed had. Obviously the title could have changed, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in RS that's independent of the subject. In fact, the one peer reviewed source (Day 2010) that does mention Reed at the 2008 Games, cited an ACA newsletter as the source and the newsletter did call Reed the medical director, but Day, writing for Chiropractic History, clearly doubted the accuracy of that statement, probably for the same reason I tagged it as dubious from the beginning... I'm pretty sure it's illegal in the US for any profession other than a licensed medical doctor or doctor of osteopathy to use the title "medical director." I'm pretty sure nurse practitioners and and physician's assistants wouldn't even be allowed to use that title. PermStrump(talk) 20:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the term "medical director", chiropractors are considered physicians by definition in the US and thus the title 'medical director' was likely not a problem.(The source for the claim chiropractors in US are physicians is here, but is not available as free full text. An article that was critical of the inclusion of chiropractors in the definition of physician is available here if you are interested). Below are some additional independent sources verifying Mike Reed's position in 2008, not sure which you would like to include:

• This news release from the US Olympic Committee in 2008 describes Mike Reed as the "Olympic Committee Medical Director, Performance Services Division."
• This press release from 2010 describes Mike Reed simply as "Medical Director"
• This press release from 2009 describes Mike Reed as "Medical Director" .

2001:56A:75B7:9B00:9182:29B3:54CB:59BD (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

PermStrump, your recent edit (with edit summary "capitalizations") has also modified the title for Mike Reed's position at the 2008 Olympics from "medical director" to say "chiropractic medical director". I cannot find a source that says the title was "chiropractic medical director", thus your change seems to fail WP:V. Can you provide a source to verify the position title that you have suggested? Otherwise I think it is better to use the title that is found in the sources. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:41E2:60FE:E387:8A62 (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be misleading. I had the screen open for a while and I forgot I had done that. I was using it as an adjective as opposed to a title. PermStrump(talk) 05:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing talkrefs

I couldn't figure out which thread the talkpage references corresponded to or if they were from multiple threads and they always bug me, so I'm collapsing them to get them out of the way.

Talkrefs
References