Talk:Abdominal thrusts

message: Yes, I know this text is redundant within the article. However, it is previously indicated in italics rather than in the emergency procedures. I feel it's more likely to be noticed if it is mentioned redundantly, and it is critical information. --Steven Fisher 13:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications on when not to use 

message: I think it would be clearer if a photo of an actual demonstration of the maneuver was used, or maybe a diagram showing how it is performed should be included. Eilu 14:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Image

message: On Drowning, someone added the following text to the advice against the Heimlich maneuver for drowning: "Furthermore, news articles have raised concerns that the entire concept is not only useless, but that Dr. Henry Heimlich used fabricated case reports to promote the idea: ". Can someone clarify this, and if possible expand this Abdominal thrusts article (if true) or work comments on the critique in the article somehow if false? Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabricated results? 

message: Several editors have been doing mass changes in connection with the spelling of the word "maneuver"  I would suggest that we are seeing UK vs US and classical vs modern styles.  Let's stop the editing on this long enough to settle on one style.  Pzavon 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add a note to keep it to British-english. Coulomb1 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The wording of this whole article is a mess. This article needs clear instructions without redundancy.
To me, this article looks like it has been translated from many different languages using an Internet translator. 
Master Thief-117 19:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The entire article seems to me to be in standard, correct English - perhaps with a flavor of the style of the UK rather than America.  I don't see a mess here at all, and certainly no problem with the use of the language.  Pzavon 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: The article mentions the procedures is controversial but fails to explain exactly why it is controversial. The controversy, which I have never heard of, should be made clear  in the article, if it indeed does exist. --Cab88 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy lies in resuscitating near-drowning victims.  The American Red Cross says to go immediately to CPR, Dr. Heimlich says that the Maneuver should be performed 4-6 times, to make sure no water is in the lungs before beginning CPR.Cgirten 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversal? 

message: I did earlier today, after some consideration redirect this article to choking, but his has been reverted back, so I feel we should discuss the way forward for this.
I find it very hard to justify an article entirely on abdominal thrusts.  The procedure is only used for choking, and with how-tos removed, verges on being a stub.  I will cut down the article without how-tos (as per wikipedia policy) and everyone can take a decision.
I think this should be the case because:
* Abdominal thrusts are only used for choking, and therefore logically sit in that article
* With how-tos removed from abdominal thrusts, the article is very short, verging on being a stub
* It avoids people looking either term up having to flick between pages to find the information they require
* It follows the logic of some other similar changes on the project such as the creation of Emergency bleeding control from the stubs of tourniquet, pressure point etc.
* It provides a single place of reference on Wikipedia for the information, rather than two 'competing' pages who repeat a lot of the same information
I would very much appreciate any input you might have to support or oppose my view (hey, i'm not right all the time) on the talk page 
Thanks for your time, Owain.davies 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although I think the section on abdominal thrusts needs to be beefed up in the choking article. If we do keep this article as seperate, a lot of it needs to go, and it needs to be written in a less americacentric style. --John24601 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense. As you said, abdominal thrusts are used only for choking, and abdominal thrusts is not a terribly long article. I see how choking could be a much better article with "abdominal thrusts" as a subheading. Sean William 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: DRAXW : I'm not sure it's helpful to revert the change after it's been completed with quite a wide base of support.  Unless you can support the revert with more than a one line reason, i will have to change it back again.  Owain.davies 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With a very short discussion time frame. My reason is reason enough its like redirecting apples to oranges cause they are both fruit. DXRAW 07:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the aggressive stance doesn't help reasoned argument.  I apologise if you think the time scale was short, but i was aiming for a week, and performed the change after 6 days because of the 100% support given (and to be honest, 4 replies on an issue like this is as many as you tend to get).  I think the best resolution would be if you can come up with a proper reasoned argument in a similar vein to my points above, and then an informed decision can be made.  (incidentally, you further removal of how-to on the page makes it look even more like a stub, and i'm not sure what you could replace it with to make it a proper length article).  Regards, Owain.davies 12:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because they are two different things! It would like redirecting Facial tissue to Sneeze you might be choking but not have anything in your airway in that case abdominal thrusts would be useless. DXRAW 19:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Errrm, aside from the fact that the definition of choking is airway obstruction....? I fail to see how a seperate article on abdominal thrusts is needed, particularly if we do a redirect from here to choking. I don't see the value in segregating topics for no reason. When you remove all the how-to from it you have left a stub, and this would fit far better (albeit in an edited form) in choking. --John24601 10:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I object I fail to see how this helps. How are people meant to help when they can't find the article just leave it be. DXRAW 06:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping you might find this an acceptable middle way.  The way people find out is that when you have written an article of sufficient quality on your user space, you place a tag on the new choking article which suggests that abdominal thrusts be split out.  People then comment, and democracy prevails.  Good wikipedia ettiquette is to move with the will of the majority!  Owain.davies 07:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is good quality already, Why would you put something about a worldwide procedure such as the Heimlich Manoeuvre into another article, You guys instead of just saying merge should help improve it. The "Abdominal thrusts" section in the chocking article does not need to be than one or two lines are the rest can be put in here. DXRAW 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Owain.davies your edit summarys such as (*sigh* here we go again) are not helpful in anyway. Please WP:AGF DXRAW 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to choking 

message: I recovered some of the article from 2007 and updated it today. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article brought back and updated

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Abdominal thrusts. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140214093540/http://www.resus.org.au/policy/guidelines/section_4/airway.htm to http://www.resus.org.au/policy/guidelines/section_4/airway.htm
*Added  tag to https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/100222_1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think many many people look this up in time of EMERGENCY. 
Compressing below diaphragm are academic words.
I'm not very good with simple english for non native reader, I think press below rib cage or one palm above belly button is a lot clearer. 
Maybe write a very tight hug below rib cage? YogiHalim (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Heim is NOT the recommended first thing to try in an emergency. See Choking. Artoria2e5 🌉 08:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple instruction at first paragraph 

message: Heimlich maneuver is not a found object. It is a technique created by Henry Heimlich. Therefore I'm reverting the recent edit of "discovered" back to invented. "Popularized" I'd be fine with too, if there is good support for it over "invented." ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invented or popularized, not discovered 

message: The current text of the article mentions that Dr. Heimlich's son disputes the validity of his father's claim that he saved someone himself, but on this BBC podcast, his daughter says the very opposite, and includes a clip of her father telling the story himself, along with that of the woman he saved. Witness History - The Heimlich Manoeuvre - BBC Sounds - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct4xhp Typofixer76 (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus or not bogus?