Talk:Allopathic

the course of discussion on the linked articles shows that the definitions as given here are contentious. I am also concerned whether this sarticle might be empty enough to qualify for speedy deletion. DGG (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't even give a definition, let alone more than one. It only discusses the usage, and attempts to do so in a neutral POV. ^Touro Osteopathic Freak ^T 02:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awful quote from Dr. Norman Gevitz "-Although policy makers, social scientists, and others often refer to the MD profession as allopathic, this term is actually an historical artifact that does not reflect any body of beliefs shared by the members of this profession. For more than 150 years, the American Medical Association has pointedly rejected the adoption of any philosophical belief system governing health and disease and has argued that the profession's approach to medicine is based solely on scientific evidence."

That's nonsensical because science, empiricism and the scientific method and acceptance of scientific evidence, ARE philosophical belief systems! Perhaps the AMA rejects the official promotion of any belief system, but it is impossible to not have one.Cuvtixo 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that empiricism is a belief system. However, the quote does a good job of contextualizing the term. The term is an historical artifact, with a modern usage. It is important to note that there is no group that actively promotes an allopathic approach to medicine. To not do so would be misleading. ^Touro Osteopathic Freak ^T 03:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tie the term "allopathic" to particular university degrees will not be completely accurate. In the UK, medical homoeopaths and medical osteopaths (LLCO or MLCOM) would usually be bachelors of medicine and bachelors of surgery, though they may well only be licentiates.

The Wiktionary definition, that "allopathic" relates to "allopathy", is hardly worth including. Dorland's dictionary definition, recently deleted by User:OsteopathicFreak under his new name, was more useful. NRPanikker 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two resources for source listings of the usage of allopathic: HighBeam Search & Google Scholar My concern is the tendency to present the term as somehow controversial or pejorative, which seems to be a minority view. Thoughts? User:Hopping ^T 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more: google books User:Hopping ^T 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the above three web references. The pages are crammed with osteopathic, homoeopathic, Chinese medical, etc, etc, items and adverts originating from the USA, which fits in with the term's current use in the American alternative medical world. No doubt a similar case could be made for saying terms such as schismatic, heretic and infidel were factual rather than controversial when discussing religion, but only for holders of one point of view.

As a descriptive term, allopathic fails, as no one has taught that sick people are, as a rule, to be given treatments that produce the opposite effect on the healthy: such a school of thought was invented by Hahnemann, the proponent of the opposite doctrine which he named homoeopathy. The other alternative groups picked up the term later: for example the osteopaths, whose first school in England was set up by an American homeopathic graduate, and who subsequently twinned their qualification with a diploma in naturopathy. NRPanikker 11:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a range of definitions of "allopathy" into the main article recently: I don't see how it helps anyone make sense of this if you cut out (or "update") those you don't like.NRPanikker 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands suffers from recentism and is thoroughly USA-centric. A list of definitions is unusual in a Wikipedia article, although I agree that arbitrarily culling the list is a poor content decision. I've asked for outside input previously but got few takers. Ante lan ^talk 03:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I didn't like them, its that some of them were not from dictionaries, or even definitions at all.

I attempted to deal with the USA-centric aspect with a section on the usage from other countries, but the only country that I could find good sources for is India. If anyone has some UK sources, that would be great. As far as the recentism goes, I hope you'll read this testimony before congress by one of the directors from AAMC, demonstrating again how commonly, and non-pejoratively, this word is used within the US medical world.

Salsberg, Edward. Testimony to United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Assoc of American Medical Colleges. User:Hopping ^T 04:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does that resolve concerns about recentism? Ante lan ^talk 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that it does not address your concerns. I'm struggling a bit with how recentism applies here. With some topics, recentism as a concept makes a great deal of sense, for example people flooding the New Orleans wiki with facts about Hurricane Katrina. For other topics, I don't see how recentism, as a concept, applies. The word "allopathic" seems fairly straight-forward, at least to me. It is a word; it has a meaning. We can look up that meaning in current dictionaries, and we can find examples of it to demonstrate the usage. This word has historical origins too, but those seem of secondary importance to the word's actual meaning and usage. I guess I'm asking where your concerns of recentism fit into this. How does that concern apply here? User:Hopping ^T 04:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, since the word has conveyed two major meanings, both of those can and ought to be treated within the article. That you feel that one definition is more important is a reason this article suffers from recentism, not a reason to maintain such a bias. Ante lan ^talk 04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find current, reliable sources for one major meaning of this word, and numerous examples of it actually being used this way by major sources. I have a much harder time finding current, reliable sources for any other meaning, and very few examples of this usage. User:Hopping ^T 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary, which you've cited in this article, is a good example of the "other" definition. It's just that the rest of the article seeks to downplay, or at least ignore, this usage, instead of describing it. I'm not asking you to expand the article with this material; I'm asking if you will oppose others' doing so. Ante lan ^talk 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed, but I would like to make a request. I would really like to embrace the regional differences in the usage of this word and clarify them, rather than obscure them. If the OED definition reflects a usage more common in the UK, let's create a UK section and really discuss that there. As with the India section and the US section. Let's sort out these definitions & usages by where they seem to be most appropriate. I say this because, for example, the Indian usage seems wholly un-related to osteopathy or homeopathy, and I think we should acknowledge this and make that clear. Likewise for the British usage, which seem more about distinguishing from homeopathy and that paradigm, versus the US usage which seems more about distinguishing not a paradigm, but a set of accreditations and governance (osteopathic v allopathic). I'm speaking very broadly here, to indicate a direction.User:Hopping ^T 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Yes, that's what I'm aiming for. The historical origins of this word are relevant, and its current usage is geographically variable. This combination would make for a complete article that has both a historical section, and a modern section that addresses its different uses in different regions of the English speaking world. Ante lan ^talk 05:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but if we are going to have show the word being used in different ways at different times and different places, we have to stop deleting examples because they are not recent, or American, or from a dictionary. The web site examples that were deleted by OsteopathicFreak under his new name were examples of recent American usage not consistent with what he claims to be the current meaning.NRPanikker 17:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article should be based more on sources, and less on a single editor's experience and opinions. Ante lan ^talk 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRPanikker, this is your second reference to my name change. This feels like a personal attack. The change of my Wikipedia name was not performed surreptitiously. I made an effort to do so through the appropriate channels. I asked to have my contribution history moved by an administrator so that they was no confusion about my edit history. I announced on various pages I was editing at the time that I changed my Wikipedia name.

I made changed my username to my actual last name. I like the idea that I'm not using some a pseudonym, that I stand by my edits in real life, not just via an anonymous avatar. My full, actual name (Bryan Hopping) is included on my User page, as it was under my previous username. I have made no effort to conceal my identity. My userpage contains links to organizations that I am actually a member of, in real life.

It's not a secret that I am a medical student, and I happen to attend an osteopathic school, much as Antelan's userpage reveals that he happens to attend an allopathic school. I don't believe these facts alone compromise our objectivity, it merely means we have different POVs. My name "OsteopathicFreak" merely reflected my enthusiasm for my profession, a topic in which I'm interested on and off of Wikipedia. It's not a call to arms.

I didn't delete some of some of the definitions because I "don't like them". I think a reasonable standard for a list of definitions on Wikipedia is that they appear in a reputable dictionary, unless the term does not appear in such dictionaries, in which case I would defer to lesser known sources. In the case of the term "allopathic," there are many well-known sources that seem to agree on what this word means, with a bit of variation.

In my opinion, the definitions which present the term allopathic as a pejorative, are minority views, at least in the United States. As such, I think minority views can distract from the article and inflate a controversy where no real one exists. As I've tried to demonstrate with reliable sources, in the United States, the term allopathic is widely used, in a neutral way, by the very groups and people it describes. Examples include the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the US Dept of Labor, and many others. This is my position on the subject of the term allopathic; it is not meant as a slight or an attack on anyone.

Let's try to remember that WP:EQ is an official policy. User:Hopping ^T 18:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yours is one view. It is a view that is limited in scope and breadth, as is the view of any one individual. You and several American organizations do not see this word as an attack; others see it as such and use it as such. Ante lan ^talk 19:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, can we generate a list of these other organizations that currently see this as an attack word and/or use it as such, versus those that do not see this work as an attack? That may help to broaden my perspective. From my understanding, these groups are very minor, when compared to organizations like the AMA, AAMC, NBME, US Dept of Labor, etc. User:Hopping ^T 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like "f**" is used in Britain to harmlessly denote a cigarette, the same word in the United States may be deeply offensive. I will not assemble lists for you. I will adequately source my entries, as always. Ante lan ^talk 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I like how the disambig page for Fag does an excellent job of sussing this issue out. Are you suggesting something like that here? I would like to say that I never heard of anyone saying the term allopathic was deeply offensive, and it seems impossible to me that the AAMC, the AMA, etc would publish such an offensive word so publicly, or utter it in their congressional testimony.User:Hopping ^T 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever used allopathic to refer to cigarettes, either. This is how analogies work, and I'm glad you obviously understood my point. Ante lan ^talk 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that I would support a disambig page for the word, in the same fashion as the word fag, IF another, offensive meaning of allopathic could be shown. I am saying that I'm not aware of the offensive usage of which you speak.User:Hopping ^T 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hopping, I am sorry if you thought mentioning your other username was meant as a personal attack. I had assumed you were a sock puppet of User:OsteopathicFreak, but if you are open about being the same person that can not be the case. Turning to the point at issue, you keep pushing osteopathy and allopathy into articles all over Wikipedia. How can you not be aware of the offensive usage of "allopathic"? You have deleted several references explaining just that, including the dictionary definition by Dorland himself (on the grounds that they were too old, or not reliable, or not dictionary extracts). All you need to do is to look at Samuel Hahnemann's own words:

As far as I can see, only the 5th and 6th editions of his "Organon of Medicine" are available online. The term presumably originated in his earlier writings, which may only be available in German. By the time he was writing the later editions of his main textbook, he had removed the detailed discussion of allopathy versus homoeopathy from the preface, but he made it clear that by allopathy he meant, according to his translater, "the old school of medicine."

From the third paragraph of his Preface to the Organon, sixth (posthumous) edition, "... there sprung up a mode of treatment with mixtures of unknown medicinal substances for forms of disease arbitrarily set up, and directed towards some material object completely at variance with nature and experience, hence, as may be supposed, with a bad result - such is old medicine, allopathy as it is termed."

From the fourth paragraph, "Far beneath my notice is that mechanical routine of treating precious human life according to the prescription manuals, the continual publication of which shows, alas! how frequently they are still used. I pass it by unnoticed as a despicable practice of the lowest class of ordinary practitioners."

Much of the time Hahnemann's invective is directed against the bleeding, purging, vomiting, etc, which characterised late 18th and early 19th century medicine, and also against surgical treament of disease. He is clearly not referring to "modern, research-based medicine" since the theoretical basis for this was often the ancient humoral pathology rather than experience. He was not against research, either, since he tested his drugs systematically, but only on a healthy person, not on those with the symptoms they were supposed to relieve.

From these and many other statements of Hahnemann and the later alternative practitoners, it should not be difficult to see why objection was taken to the label of allopath. NRPanikker 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, I, and several others across Wikipedia have raised issues with the word "allopathic", and I have previously offered alternatives to its use that convey the same meaning but lack any offensive, derogatory, or pejorative connotations. Hopping/OsteopathicFreak has previously rejected my suggestions, and he continues to insert the across various articles through Wikipedia and insist on his favored descriptions of the word in this article. This needs to stop; Hopping, you have not even remotely gained a consensus for your actions. Ante lan ^talk 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you take issue with my editing outside of the scope of this article, and my contributions to Wikipedia in general. I'm happy to discuss this further. What is the appropriate venue for this discussion?User:Hopping ^T 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it involves your editing in many articles, including this article. Because it revolves around the use of this word within this article (among others), this is a fine place to discuss the usage of this word. Ante lan ^talk 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRPanikker Thanks for the name change aknowledgement, I appreciate it.

The only issue I take with you statement "it should not be difficult to see why objection was taken to the label of allopath" is that Hahnemann uttered all this nonsense 200 years ago. The word has the origins, true. Just like "hysterical" originally referred to a woman's uterus floating throughout her body, the presumed cause of "hysteria". While such origins are interesting, they are not reflective of these words' current usage / meaning. I'm hard pressed to find any evidence that the word is pejorative, amongst hundreds of sources. HighBeam Search, Google Scholar, Google Books User:Hopping ^T 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would care to respond to the bulk of my comment above, I would like to read your reply. Ante lan ^talk 00:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that seriously or rhetorically?User:Hopping ^T 00:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant amount there that you didn't reply to, and I would prefer not to retype it.Ante lan ^talk 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to NRPanikker. Should I have placed my comments directly below his? I wasn't sure if inserting comments between two users was kosher. User:Hopping ^T 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think doing that is fine. Some may see it as disrupting the flow, but I see it as the most logical way to go about it. If you're concerned, you certainly have my permission to move my comment down so you can put your reply directly beneath his. Ante lan ^talk 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]