Talk:Manipulation under anesthesia

message: I started this article with information deposited on the Chiropractic page by an anonymous user.  I assume it may have been Dr Rob Francis but have no way of knowing.  It needs some references but is otherwise all I did was rearrenge the information into a WP format.  Please feel free to clarify, add to, and verify information.-- Dēmatt (chat) 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. The subject needs an article here. It just needs some work, starting with the heading below. -- Fyslee (First law) 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now deleted the content from the chiropractic article and copied the lead from here to that article. This seems to be a satisfactory way to include mention of subarticles. -- Fyslee (First law) 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, there was some that might be mentionable in the Chiropractic history article as well.  But lets wait to see what shows up as verifiable. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a google search on Dr. Rob Francis and found this.  While notable, I'm not sure that it is enough to keep him in this article.  Maybe in the history or if someone wants to risk a new article on him, they can see if they make it over the notability hump.  I think it is appropriate to rmv the Francis section until we see if there is anything else that surfaces. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To anyone who considers doing so, and in all fairness to Dr. Francis, I suggest getting his permission (not that it's absolutely necessary here) to make an article about him. Such an article will likely end up including both positive and negative facts about him, and he may not want to go there. Many people think that getting an article about them at Wikipedia must be some kind of heavenly publicity. They soon discover it can be a very problematic issue, since they have no control over it and can't get it deleted. --  -- Fyslee (First law) 13:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article start 

message: There are significant WP:VANITY issues here. It reads like a sales talk for the possible author. It needs to focus on the procedure without (or extremely limited) mention of people or institutions. -- Fyslee (First law) 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I left a message on the anonymous user page to see if we can answer some of those before I started to weed some of that out.  I'm not sure how much of this is verifiable without using original research. Your sig looks good;) -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked for some of these references only to find them very difficult to find online.  It seems that all sites use these references and this language.  I was able to find more complete cites here that may well be the source for all these. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity issues 

message: I see that the issues mentioned above haven't been addressed yet, and to start with a bit of clean-up, I'll move this section to this talk page. If it gets reworked into properly formatted and sourced content, it can then be added back to the article: -- Fyslee / talk 05:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: This procedure is not presented in a neutral fashion. I apologize, but the use of the word "gentle" in the lede is in my opinion no less than deceptive. MUAs do not have good evidence-based recommendations, and are unquestionably dangerous procedures. When done for the shoulder, they are frequently performed to correct adhesive capsulitis, which is itself a transient problem, and yet the patient is placed under general anesthesia and faces risks such as a humerus fracture. Furthermore, the article appears to primarily address the procedure from a chiropractic point of view. This article needs a lot of work in my opinion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/peacock issues 

message: I am not an expert, but I have witnessed a multiple upper humerus fracture re-set through MUA in the UK. The phrase covers many things, including relocation of dislocated bones. So this is also a recognised orthopaedic procedure in the UK, even if this article barely notices this. In fact, even that CAM people are barely allowed to induce anaesthesia, and anaesthetists have never given me the impression that they would readily be involved with CAM methods, I would guess that standard orthopaedic procedures constitute the majority of MUA, at least in the UK. Wee Jimmy (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in setting bones