|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
|Text from Brace (orthopaedic) was copied or moved into Orthotics. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Brace (orthopaedic).|
- 1 Foot: the great and powerful shock absorber
- 2 Why only for injuries?
- 3 1000 miles per year?
- 4 External Links
- 5 Primarily a commercial for specific types of orthotics
- 6 possible copyright violation
- 7 Copyright problem removed
- 8 Redundancy
- 9 photo for Orthotics#Ankle-foot_orthosis_.28AFOs.29
- 10 Variants of spelling
- 11 Canada
Foot: the great and powerful shock absorber
In the U.K, orthotics are provided by orthotists. However, podiatrists may provide foot orthoses (and with additional training, ankle foot orthoses). In addition, I know that occupational therapists and orthopaedic practitioners provide orthotic devices for the upper limb. Should there be some mention of these professions? I see there is a mention of pedorthists, which I understand to be a U.S-specific profession.. JTT Young (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)J Young
There was an interesting little factoid in the podiatrics section:
- As shock absorbers, feet cushion up to one million pounds of pressure during one hour of strenuous exercise.
What kind of perversion of mathematics is this? I wasn't aware that pressure is a measurement that can be compounded over time ;) ~ Booya Bazooka 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What's up with the "Foot orthotics" section at the end? I'm no expert, but the whole friggin' ARTICLE is about "foot orthotics." I didn't even think there was any other type of orthotics, although apparently there can be. Foxmulder 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, most parts of the article are about foot orthosis. Someone has coppied parts from a homepage mentioned in the External Links. Nine paragraphs are from the homepage http://www.hss.edu/Conditions/Orthotics/Prescription-Foot-Orthotics, these are the nine paragraphs starting right under the pictures of the foot orthosis. You can find the copied paragraphs under the headline "Custom / Prefabricated". That means either someone has offended copy rights or someone wanted to place his advertisement on wikipedia. However, I would recommend to delete the mentioned paragraphs. At least these paragraphs should be moved to "Foot Orthotics" because they are abaout foot orthotics. Its also necessary to shorten the text and to summarise them, not only because of copy rights, but because of repetitions.Oliver Münz 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Somehow in the changes the first paragraph of the article no longer made sense, so I reverted back a few edits to Booyabazooka's latest, including the addition and subsequent deletion of the aforementioned commercial link. By the way, I came looking for this article trying to figure out what "social orthotics" were, so apparently there are orthoses for things besides feet. I'm presuming a social orthotic is some hypothetical technological tool for helping autistic people navigate social interactions more smoothly. But I'm just guessing so I don't want to write anything. Cbogart2 03:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Why only for injuries?
The fourth and fifth sentences of this article seem to contradict each other. Even if you aren't an "Individual.....(who has)sustained a physical impairment such as a stroke, spinal cord injury, or a congenital abnormality such as spina bifida or cerebral palsy", why wouldn't you want a product that "allow(s)the muscles, tendons and bones of the feet and lower legs to function at their highest potential"? What about people wih plantar fasciitis,neuromas and bunions (HAV)?
Indeed, why would an enlightened person wait for disease to be the reason to correct poor foot function? By the time pain and deformity are obvious the condition may be too advanced to cure without the extreme measures of surgery, constant medication, or a plethora of adaptive pads or special shoes. Arches tend to collapse progressively over time due to the relentless effects of gravity, hard and flat floors, obesity and sedentary lifestyles. As the arch collapses, the foot becomes increasingly less able to resist over-pronation after heel strike or re-sunpinate for push-off. Such loss of healthy foot function leads to adaptive changes such as bunion, mortonn's neuroma, metatarsalgia, plantarfasciitis, etc. A proper orthotic can restore healthy foot posture and function and thus prevent these common conditions.
The fact is our bodies were designed to walk on dirt, sand and grass,...soft, natural surfaces that support the arch and allow flexibility. The world has only been paved for a short time, relatively speaking, and hard surfaces were only necessary since the invention of wheeled transportation, not feet.
Therefore, the 26 bones and 19 muscle and tendon groups in the foot are being weakened with each step in hard shoes on hard surfaces. If we wear a well-designed and -fitted orthotic, we can all function at our "highest potential."
1000 miles per year?
Can someone get a citation for humans walking an average of 1000 miles per year? I find this hard to believe. That's almost 3 miles per day. I don't believe that the average person walks 3 miles per day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Bold text
There was a tag on the external links, saying they may not conform with wikipedia's standards. I looked those standards up and did my best to clean up the external links. I removed a few links that were company websites, a bunch of websites representing orthotics professionals with no information about orthotics themselves, two dead links, and a website that was not in english. Feel free to undo the edits I've made, but let me know why! I'm trying to get better. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Primarily a commercial for specific types of orthotics
Recommend adding the non-NPOV message and the original research message. This article breaks both the NPOV and the unverified claims rules. Very few citations are given for the benefits of orthotics or the non-benefit of the plaster-cast type. One of the few references goes to a commercial site which is apparently copied into the article. I'm not podiatrist, but there must be professional journals and papers that can help support the claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miqel (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
there is a divergence in the use of this word amongst health care professionals. one camp believes the word describes an entire science and profession, the other camp uses the word to describe an end product. in that wikipedia is profoundly a part of the new world order, it would seem appropriate to forego grammatical correctness and encumber both descriptions of the the word's use- even it is cumbersome(orthoses are constantly accused of being cumbersome) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Fundamentally non-NPOV article, very similar in tone to commercial messages by manufacturers of orthotic inserts which start with precise sounding statistics, and go on to make claims of fixing multiple conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
possible copyright violation
I have listed this article as a possible copyright violation of http://www.northhoustonchiropractic.net/site/customfootorthotics.html - see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 20
The earliest versions of this article are a one-sentence stub that are not worth reverting to. Further history is complex and it appears that this or other copyrighted content may have been added, edited, removed and re-added previously. There may be a non-infringing early revision with significant content but I don't have time at the moment to find it if it exists.
Although the source url has a copyright statement of 2009 and the content in the WP article appears before then, it really does not read like a Wikipedia article and is more what I would expect from a commercial site like North Houston Chiropractic, or another similar source.
I don't have the time to do further investigation now, hence listing it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems where others with time and expertise should hopefully be able to sort out what is happening here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- While the source tagged was a backwards infringement issue, given that content in their page evolved naturally in the Wikipedia article, copyrighted content was introduced very early and retained through the present version. I have restored the last verifiably clean and will give the contributor of that content, who may be in position to authorize its use, notice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.hss.edu/conditions_14431.asp. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
In copyediting this article I removed the following, since it had been stated more than once:
An orthotist is a clinician involved with assessment and/or evaluation, design, fabrication of an orthosis or orthoses.
Licensure in some states of the USA may also be required for these medical professionals. The orthotist maintains certification through the mandatory continuing-education program of the board under which s/he is certified, and adherence to the board's Code of Professional Responsibility is compulsory.
Wi2g 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
photo for Orthotics#Ankle-foot_orthosis_.28AFOs.29
Does File:Unterschenkel Orthese Keile.jpg fit at Orthotics#Ankle-foot_orthosis_.28AFOs.29. If yes please put it in. If not please correct the image's description. I tried to translate from German. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Variants of spelling
- It has no regional or national significance with respect to MOS:TIES, so, per MOS:RETAIN, I'd say
American. The first non-stub version is inconsistent in its usage; it refers to "orthopaedic braces" but also "orthopedic surgery". The earlier stub versions use American spelling in "othopedics", which was kept unchanged in the first non-stub version, so I'd say the precedent goes to American.After reading more of MOS:RETAIN, it says that, to break ties, we should keep going forward for the non-stub versions, instead of going back to the stub versions, and in this edit, the original author removes the only instance of American spelling that he added (although he did not correct the American spelling that was already in the article), so I guess it goes to British, actually. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
An ip has been repeatedly deleting the Canada section without comment. It looks like the section could be better referenced and rewritten with a more neutral tone. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've declined the request for a WP:3O for this issue; there appears to be no discussion yet, so a 3O request is a little premature. (The request for the above issue can also be considered declined, although I did decide to respond anyway. Such are the vagaries of 3O.) Anyhoo, the idea of 3O is that it's used to break a deadlock in discussion between two editors, not force one to the table or serve as a proxy. 3O Wikipedians have no special authority whatsoever (if anything, we have less authority than any other random editor), so bringing us into a dispute where there's no discussion really just can't resolve anything. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)