Talk:Traditional bone-setting

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zerimare10. Peer reviewers: Kennyling96, Emarti84.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Osteoblast link
Why is this article linked with osteoblasts and vice versa??? I don't see a huge connection between them. 193.1.229.15 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be really interested in further details on the boks referred to in the artice, the Fourth book of the dire craft... and six boks of constellation.Babbybulldog (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be the worst article in the history of wikipedia. 174.101.174.190 (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... several sections of this article seem to be gibberish. The stuff about garrotting and apprenticing is well nigh unreadable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.48.83 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just when I was thinking of donating to Wikipedia, I had the misfortune to read this so-called article.

Critique
@zerimare10: Not sure which parts of this you edited. I'm assuming you undertook the History section of the article. I think this is an interesting topic, especially the perception of bonestters as "charlatans," as was mentioned. There is, however, great potential for improvement in this article. A few recommendations: 1. Add more sources to support claims. Many claims are made without reference to a source. There are only 4 sources that I can see in the history section. 2. Consider doing a reread to clean up sentence structure and work on the continuity of the article. It seems that some statements are disconnected or do not follow. For example, there I suggest clarifying the example of Sally Mapp as a charlatan. It is mentioned that charlatans are "fake healers" who "pretend to have skills they do not actually possess." After Sally Mapp is labeled as a charlatan, her supposed success and high skill is also mentioned. Was she erroneously perceived as a charlatan? Was she accepted by some and disregarded by others? Please clarify. Also consider adding the relevance of this example to bonesetters generally. Does this example of Sally Mapp convey the way in which most bonesetters were perceived? 3. Regarding the following: "This allowed for some bonesetters to segway into the medical profession and encouraged interest in bone and joint surgery. As a result, surgical instruments and tools for bone-related injuries were then developed." Did bonesetters assimilate into the surgical profession? Were they still called bonesetters even after they joined the medical profession? Consider making a distinction between bonesetters and medical professionals like surgeons. Also consider adding in "Later Years" how this distinction exists today. How do bonesetters differ from orthopedists, chiropractors, orthopedic surgeons? 4. Other: Consider adding a section on Bonesetters Today. "In the Media" section seems irrelevant.

Overall, great room for improvement. Cool choice in topic though! I also edited an article in the Alternative Medicine series. The history and changes in branches of Alternative Medicine can be highly complex. This article should be amended to reflect complexity of the topic. Emarti84 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zerimare10: I thought this topic was very interesting. The feedback I had was similar to what was said by Emarti84 about clarification on the fake healers. Quacks being viewed as fake healers by the rest of society implies that there is a negative connotation to being a quack. However, the example of Sally Mapp contradicts that, since she was known as a quack yet was still highly successful. The part about people still going to bonesetters for treatment and even royal families employing bonesetters who were more adequate than court physicians is very interesting. I think expanding that part could add more insight onto how bonesetting was viewed at that time. The section labeled Later Years does not mention any period of time. You can possibly change this section to refer to how bonesetting is today, or add a time period to each particular case. Another possible expansion that could be done is on sekkotsu and die-da, and whether there are any differences between those and the traditional bonesetting from earlier on. The last paragraph in Later Years reiterates the point that bonesetters offered faster and cheaper services than licensed physicians. I think it would be possible to even make a section dedicated to that topic itself. How was it that bonesetters were able to coexist without the same legitimacy as physicians? Did the success of bonesetters relate to their skills being passed down through generations? Overall, I enjoyed reading about this topic and would like to read more about it. The article read nicely and presented the facts well. Kennyling96 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Bonesetter
Book now available on the life of self taught bonesetter - Isaac Milburn the Northumbrian bonesetter written by Bruce Burns 2A00:23C7:6C0F:2101:B59C:64E0:8255:A22F (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Issues with references
Found a few issues with the references on this page, and one in particular merits discussion in my opinion. There's a paper referenced in this article by Nwachukwu et. al that was published in "The Open Orthopaedics Journal" which is a predatory journal (ie, a not-actually-academic "journal" that fraudulently claims to be peer-reviewed but actually will just "publish" anything for the right price). The publisher of this particular journal, Bentham Open, is included on Beal's List (https://beallslist.net), and the journal isn't indexed on DOAJ.org or the Web of Science Master Journal List.

Does Wikipedia have a policy on referencing such sources? In academia they are considered essentially worthless because there's often no review on what gets published in a predatory journal (see for example https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam). However in this case, the work itself seems to be seriously lacking in rigor but acceptable enough to support the claims where it is being referenced to in this article. Thoughts?

Full reference:

Nwachukwu, Benedict (2011). "Traditional Bonesetters and Contemporary Orthopaedic Fracture Care in a Developing Nation: Historical Aspects, Contemporary Status and Future Directions". The Open Orthopaedics Journal. 5: 20–6. doi:10.2174/1874325001105010020. PMC 3027080. PMID 21270953. Anothermedgirl (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)