Talk:Joint dysfunction
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Massive synthesis problems[edit]
The whole section, with its subsections, on Biomechanics of spinal dysfunction, seems to be a huge piece of OR/synthesis, using primary research and hypotheses, all in violation of MEDRS, and pretty much all sourced to chiropractic literature, yet portrayed as if it is ideas shared by all manual medicine practitioners. That's not true.
Instead, the article describes the chiropractic philosophical approach to manual medicine. This is what chiros, and a few of the old-fashioned DOs, still believe. (Very few DOs manipulate anymore.) The paucity of mainstream sources used here (are there any at all?!) that use the words "joint dysfunction" is very telling. The whole article is chiro synthesis drawn from many chiro sources that use all kinds of ideas and wordings.
An example of misleading wording is the "Examination" section, which contains these words: "Manual medicine practitioners commonly examine for these specific indicators of joint dysfunction..." The source? The ACA. It should read "chiropractors commonly....." That would be true. Do PTs also look for these things? Yes, but they aren't using the concept of "joint dysfunction" as worded here. They are working in another paradigm which does not include hypothesized "vertebral subluxations" in need of correction. They are seeking to lessen pain, increase ROM, reduce swelling, etc.. They don't consider stiff joints or loss of ROM as "subluxations" at all. In fact the opposite! Could one call it all "joint dysfunction"? Sure, but that would be synthesis. One must use the wording RS use, and mainstream sources....well, which ones use this wording? I've been in physical medicine for a quarter century, and whenever I see this wording, I know its written by chiropractors.
If the whole article isn't deleted outright as synthesis, it needs drastic reduction and cleanup. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to replace with a redirect to one of the chiropractic articles but I'm a bit afraid that the titles means something else in legitimate medicine. I suggest redirecting to *something*. TippyGoomba (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- That redirect is a good solution. Vertebral subluxation is what is meant anyway, they are just trying to use a euphemism for its intended purpose, which is to disguise and repackage an offensive phrase that has gotten them into trouble. That's what makes this article a huge synthesis/OR problem. They still believe the same thing, and when they are searching for it, the content they really want is found in the VS article anyway. If any change should be made, it is there, by noting that when chiropractors refer to "joint/spinal dysfunction," they really mean VS. They are trying to repackage pseudoscience in terms that sound more scientific. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- These are bold claims. Do you have any sources that support this Brangifer? DVMt (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that a redirect would be the best solution. DVMt, what gives you the idea that WP:BRD lets you revert to your preferred version, but forbids reverts by all those people who disagree with you? bobrayner (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- These are bold claims. Do you have any sources that support this Brangifer? DVMt (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- That redirect is a good solution. Vertebral subluxation is what is meant anyway, they are just trying to use a euphemism for its intended purpose, which is to disguise and repackage an offensive phrase that has gotten them into trouble. That's what makes this article a huge synthesis/OR problem. They still believe the same thing, and when they are searching for it, the content they really want is found in the VS article anyway. If any change should be made, it is there, by noting that when chiropractors refer to "joint/spinal dysfunction," they really mean VS. They are trying to repackage pseudoscience in terms that sound more scientific. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Mass deletion and redirection[edit]
Given that this is a medical related article, mass deletion of content and a redirection is not discussed or has consensus (as it can change). Besides, this applies to osteopathic physcians, physical therapists, chiropractors, and other manual medicine practitioners. DVMt (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note again, that Bobrayner has not discussed his edit which deletes the entire article which was rated B per WP:MED. He was bold, I reverted him (per the BRD cycle) and he has avoided discussion (again). I hope this isn't an attempt to personally attack me, the editor, as opposed to focusing on the content. Brangifer made an unsupported claim, I challenged him to provide evidence and we are waiting for the result. In the meantime, do you have anything you wish to contribute? DVMt (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- A WP:OR problem was identified. Until it's addressed, no article. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Protected[edit]
I've fully protected this as a redirect to Vertebral subluxation for two months per a request at WP:RFPP, due to the usage of socks to participate in reverting the article. Feel free to gather a consensus that this should be restored as an independent article. If so, the protection can be lifted. Discussions on this topic fall in the domain of WP:ARBPS. See the protection policy at WP:PROTECT and the sock policy at WP:SOCK. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)