Talk:Slipping rib syndrome

Untitled section
Hi there! @86.169.96.61 I saw you recently edited the SRS page and I wanted to talk to you about the change you made in terms of the congenital deformity in the causes section. The paper cited did not have any mention of a cervical rib, it only mentioned that it was a congenital deformity that allows the rib to slip whenever coming in contact with another rib. --Eswong3 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fine Eswong3 (sorry about that :).
 * Given the sourcing of statements with more than one source in ==Causes==, I feel it might be a good moment just to alert you and Jebbles to the general need on Wikipedia to avoid any WP:SYNTH (a key element in the Wikipedia policy of preventing so-called "original research" by editors from creeping into articles).
 * Put simply, we always need to make sure that multiple sources are saying basically the same thing (perhaps with slightly different detail). If the statement is uncontroversial, sometimes it may be worth considering sourcing it with just the most pertinent publication (though you may opt to leave several, either for additional support, or because you feel the multiple sourcing is itself potentially informative for some readers). Or if, for instance, only one of the cited sources regarding athletes happens to specify "swimmers", it may be good to move that particular source to the specific content it's supporting (i.e. swimmers,ref). Another option (though probably not necessary here :) can be to be to split a sentence into two or more separate sentences, each providing specific information.
 * Hoping this is useful going forward, 86.174.206.11 (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything you've provided is useful! I will definitely read up more on the SYNTH and adjust this area, I'll definitely do a big ol' review of everything tomorrow to ensure everything meets the SYNTH guidelines. Jebbles (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries Jebbles. It was just for your information (because it's a particular requirement of Wikipedia, which might not be altogether obvious :). 86.174.206.11 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @86.174.206.11 No problem! I've done a review of the section you specifically mentioned and I see no issue in my preliminary findings. We will definitely make sure to do a full and thorough review of the entire article. --Eswong3 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hansen Method
Hi there. I saw your recent edit adding the Hansen method and wanted to leave a courtesy note discussing it instead of just removing it. I myself and have both had the Hansen method done and we have considered heavily adding it to the article. However, in accordance with WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, the paper published by Hansen is a primary source. For us to add it to the article and be reliable, there must be secondary sources on the method.

--TheRibinator 🔔 05:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)