The reason I recommend wikipedia is not because it is the definitive source, or anything like that, but because the article about chiropractics has a lot of references. That makes it possible to form an opinion based on more than articles from someone who is just out to slander chiropractics, or some random over confident forum poster.

The basis behind the entire this is indeed the nonsensical ravings of nutty American faith healer. That is the truth.
I don't question the truthfulness of the claim, but the relevance. Errors and mistakes and quackery in the childhood of chiropractics isn't any more relevant for today's practices than errors and mistakes and quackery in the history of medicine is relevant for today's medicine practice.

Such stupid irrelevancy just reflects back on the writer. If these are the kind of arguments he has to resort to, how strong is his case against chiropractics really?