Talk:Sacroiliac joint dysfunction

Variation in joint configuration
I reverted a because there was no edit summary to explain its purpose, and the edit removed a sourced statement. A more minor issue is that the term "some believe" is a red flag at Wikipedia: articles should avoid such vagueness (see WP:WTA). Please add any comments here (click "edit" on the far right of the heading of this section): What is the problem? Is the source invalid? Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:Mcibulka for an explanation of some problems that Mcibulka believes are apparent in this article. I have asked for assistance at WT:WikiProject Medicine.
 * Further comments on the article should take place here (that is, on this article talk page). It might be best to start a new section (click "new section" above), or reply by editing this section. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq - I have read Mcibulka's reply to your revert, as well as his accusations of plagiarism, among other things. Firstly, I find it ironic that someone as seemingly credentialed as Mcibulka had his own authored Wikipedia article, "sacroiliac joint", flagged for uncited material and improper tone for so long (many good samaritans have undoubtedly corrected these problems). His accusations as far as plagiarism, among others, are completely baseless. I have made use of ALL known sources that support any given information, including secondary and primary sources. This, to me at least, shows that if a medical professional chose to write a journal article and use another medical professional's views/words in their own article, this view is now supported by at least two different professionals. Therefore, I feel, contrary to Mcibulka's opinion, that it is important to include both primary and secondary references and in no way do I think this is plagiarism. This makes no sense to me at all (as do many of Mcibulka's words). If anything, I am giving credit to all parties that have expressed a particular view. Mcibulka's other accusation: "What is even more disturbing is that many of the references cannot back what is said in the SIJ dysfunction paper, they appear without any backing".....how is he coming to this conclusion??? I don't know if we are reading the same article, but nearly every sentence is cited with at least one source throughout the entire article (unlike Mcibulka's original "Sacroiliac Joint" article which long had a problem with unsourced material). In fact, the disagreement he started with "variation in joint configuration" has three distinct sources! Given some time to research further, I will be happy to add additional sources that support this view.
 * I am finding Mcibulka's complaints to be disingenuous. In reading his edits made on July 3 and 4, I am hard-pressed to find any value to any of his revisions aside from creating run-on sentences and making the article sound less like a Wikipedia article should (in the style of an encyclopedia) and more like an amateur with bad diction. I am very new to Wikipedia, but I went to great lengths to abide by Wikipedia's philosophies and studied many well-written articles before I attempted to contribute my own article. Of course I will never be able to prove this, but I am beginning to think there are personal reasons for the Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction article to be under attack by Mcibulka. The first indication to me is that he is specifically and repeatedly targeting citations of two very well-known physical therapists who are among the leading experts in sacroiliac joint dysfunction in the country (if not the world)- Vicki Sims and Richard Don Tigney. One of these physical therapsists have assisted the three surgeons who have performed thousands and arguably the most sacroiliac joint fusions and fixations in the world. People fly from all over the world to see them, so I can assure you they are "valid" sources and challenge anyone to tell me why they are not. Additionally, these two physical therapists who Mcibulka are picking on do not work together but they have their own, similar protocols on how to treat the disorder. They are referenced by Mcibulka (references #6, 8, 11) more than a few times and these appear to be the key citations he is in disagreement with. He even went as far as to accuse me of being a physical therapist making a shameless plug-- he claimed that having an external link to one of the therapist's websites for an featured article was 'biased'. Notice how he did not make mention of the website featuring the MD??. I am NOT a medical professional (I am flattered though that the article was written well enough to think so); I have flown around the country and have gotten various medical opinions over the past several years on how to treat my own long-standing sacroiliac joint dysfunction. I had seen the article on "sacroiliac joint" and noticed how much was lacking, so I set out to write the most comprehensive article as possible about the disorder of the joint. The reason I created the "Misdiagnosis and Controversy" section is because there IS a great deal of controversy surrounding SI joint dysfunction. I am clear to state this. Mcibulka is in search of a "truth" that exists in his own opinion only, because you can talk to 10 different doctors and may get 10 different opinions on sacroiliac joint dysfunction. In fact, you will likely find many physicians who do not even believe it exists! Having had my life destroyed by the condition, and having met people all over the world suffering with the condition, I am certain it does exist, but I was clear to state in the article that there is much disagreement over the condition. Mcibulka has violated the most basic principles of editing anything (Wikipedia or any other cited article for that matter) by completely changing other people's cited words with their citations attached at the end of the "revised" sentence. As you had also noted, changing a phrase just so it can read "some people believe" is completely unnecessary and to me it furthers my opinion of Mcibulka's juvenile approach to disliking another sacroiliac joint article appearing on Wikipedia besides his own. As I mentioned earlier, I believe there is some personal agenda behind the baseless revisions and accusations, particularly that two other expert physical therapists (much better known in discussions of SI joint dysfunction than Mcibulka) have been cited in the article.
 * PS---I reread Mcibulka's revisions made on July 3 and 4 and do not see any "MAJOR" changes as he so states he has "MAJOR" problems with the article. Again, I am finding his gripes are disingenuous. The only one that appears to be name-dropping and "plugging" is Mcibulka himself.
 * PS If any Wikipedia editors feel my wording is too similar to the source, I would be happy to add quotation marks to the sentences as to show this and hope to be allowed the opportunity to do this first before anything is just deletedCindyC78 (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone! May I offer some suggestions about how to proceed. At Wikipedia, there is a strong requirement that we focus on content—we discuss edits and do not discuss editors (except on noticeboards for that purpose, and even there we are supposed to stick to the facts). Everyone is being civil—good. However, while it is entirely understandable under the circumstances, there are too many mentions of editor names in the discussion so far. The only questions of interest to Wikipedians is whether the article is correct and well written, and whether it is due and verifiable. It is best to focus on a very small number of points in relation to those issues. I do not think there is much that CindyC78 can say at the moment because whereas the article has been criticized, the comments were very general and did not give any specific examples of claimed problems. Even the suggestion of plagiarism cannot be answered because there is no statement of what text in the article is supposed to be excessively quoted from what reference. My suggestion would be that we wait for comments claiming two or three specific problems; then others may like to address the claims. Welcome to Wikipedia! This is part of how it works. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

SIJD Abnormalities and Resultant Symptoms due to increased Activities
(treatments section) New Heading or Discussion Request: I suffer SIJD and LLD, over the years i have developed other symptoms due to the painful conditions, i would like to request the 'article contributing community', a new heading that discuss post/resultant symptoms that may arise in cases of continuation of activities while suffering with SIJD, Compensatory Scoliosis and LLD. Due to unawareness of my conditions and ignoring pains i continued gym workout and took muscle growth supplements (for a few months), that caused following issues over the years - muscular asymmetry in shoulders (lifted on left, right one is drifted outwards and lower), uneven pecs, weak left forearm and over grown right forearm, smaller left calve, weak flys on left shoulder. other resultant symptoms include slipped disc, hemorrhoids-piles, nauseas-vomiting, neck pains, lower-back pains, upper spinal stress and head rotation issues, scoliosis spinal rotation, ribs are rotated and tilted, needle piercing pains, weakness tiredness and exhaustion, stresses and memory loss minor speech disorder or forgetfulness during dialogues, trauma fear and emptiness or too many thoughts, indigestion, damaged working routines, hair on right side of head falling, eyes seem uneven, many other noted illnesses. how can physiotherapy, corrective workout and strict diet play important role in overcoming such issues. in past i tried taking anti-inflammation medicine but they caused other side-effects, while trying to remove one symptom the other-one arises (unless the root cause is cured the resultant symptoms keep on coming back), what treatment sequences are used in such cases. I have mentioned the above for 'resultant symptom discussion cases and possible treatments' discussion... the current article contribution has improved over the years, it is easier to notify others of the illness, i don't have to repeat the entire story every time, while explaining the long list of issues people often think i am exaggerating about the condition, but medical reports and test say otherwise seem more convincing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilalmunir80 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links
There's at least one link gone bad that I don't have time to repair, but someone might:


 * Indented line #5: ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n "Sacroiliac Dysfunction: General Information, Anatomy, and Treatment"http://www.sidysfunction.com/general-information-anatomy-and-treatment.php#anatomy.  is dead but the website is still up, so it's possible the content might be on a page on that site, just moved or renamed.TjoeC (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative names, "sacroiliitis" article, and "sacroiliac joint pain" disambiguation
I found many different names for this disorder. I made them redirects to this article, and I added what seemed to be the most popular alternative names to the introduction.

I found the article sacroiliitis while searching for alternative names. I found that some websites used sacroiliitis as an alternative name for sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SJD) or the alternative names I made into redirects. I left the sacroiliitis article intact, but I added a link to this article in the "see also" section, and I put a link to the sacroiliitis article in the SJD article (this article) in its "see also" section.

In addition, I made a disambiguation page for the term "sacroiliac joint pain" ("sacroiliac pain" redirects to it). I explained why I did this on the talk page of the disambiguation page.

I am hoping that an expert in the subject (or at least an enthusiast) could decide what, if anything, to do with both the sacroiliitis article and the sacroiliac joint pain disambiguation page. I am fine with whatever choices are made, but I hope that you could explain your reasoning in the edit summary, when possible, or the article's talk page, when necessary for length. If you want to contact me for some reason, please use my user talk page rather than posting here. Thanks, Kjkolb (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Prolotherapy as a recommended course of treatment?
Prolotherapy is thus far dismissed as junk science and should be removed from the article. Or at leat stated that prolotherapy is at most, an alternative and experimental treatment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.215.187 (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This is actually not true. See the very well done randomized controlled trial by Kim et al in 2010 for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21138388/ - Anonymous, 16/7/20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.232.98 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)