Talk:Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Yes, but what is it?

I was linked to this article from Physician#North America and I'm struggling to understand what a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine is. My first impression from this article is that I should respect DOs just as much as medical doctors, and possibly that someone thinks that I don't (which, I suppose, is true, considering I'm hearing about them for the first time just now). The problem is that this article seems to spend most of its effort justifying why DOs are equal to MDs, and never really describes them beyond that (at least, not that I can comprehend). Could someone familiar with the subject matter please clarify the article's lead-in? I'm not exactly sure what the best approach would be, but two questions that came to mind immediately were "what is the difference between a DO and MD?" and "if they're functionally the same as I have inferred, why are they distinct and separate?"

After doing some digging, I found these articles helpful: Osteopathy, Comparison of MD and DO in the United States, Allopathic medicine. I'm still not entirely sure if my impression of DOs as physicians whose training has different historical origins is correct, but I hope my first impressions help those of you who are familiar with the subject matter to see what sort of context would be helpful to unfamiliar readers. BigNate37_(T) 12:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The main article on this topic is Osteopathic medicine in the United States which I think is mentioned more than once in the article. Bryan Hopping ^T 06:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead section in Osteopathic medicine in the United States is quite helpful. Looking at this article however, I'm not so sure about the hierarchy. At least one person thinks that Osteopathy is the main article: Template:Osteopathic medicine2 (the international template) is at the top of the article, linking to Osteopathy as the main article. Template:Osteopathic medicine (the US one) appears further down the page. Not a particularly important inconsistency anyways, if Osteopathic medicine in the United States is indeed the main article. My concern was about the confusing lead for this article moreso than my own understanding of the topic. Nonetheless, thank you for that link, Hopping. BigNate37_(T) 06:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Point of view, writing

This article appears to be an article promoting that a DO "measures up" to an MD. Try making this more straight and professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.206.200 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any specific language that you think suggests a conflict of interest? Or perhaps any specific portions of the article that you think lack objectivity? Rytyho usa (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisement. It's awful. Bryan Hopping ^T 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect claim of licensing in all 50 states?

Article states "DOs are licensed to practice the full scope of medicine and surgery in all 50 states"

Washington state department of health states :"I went to an approved medical school but was granted a DO degree. Can I still be licensed by the Medical Quality Assurance Commission? No, this is specifically prohibited by law. (see RCW 18.71.055(4) )"[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaell (talk • contribs) 23:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is correct that osteopathic physicians are licensed to practice the full scope of medicine in all 50 states. It may be somewhat confusing however, because the pathways for licensing are different for DOs and MDs. The commission you referenced is specifically tasked with licensing MDs, while a different board is responsible for licensing DOs.

• Here is a link to the RCWs concerning osteopathic physician licensing: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=18.57

• This link is to a Provider Credential Search, for looking up licensing status of physicians (and other health care professionals) in Washington State: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/providercredentialsearch/SearchCriteria.aspx

Rytyho usa (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OMM section

This section reads like an advertisement, is entirely sourceless, and was added by an unregistered user at 208.180.158.150. I don't think it should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.221.57 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's clearly copied directly from another source. Perhaps it should be removed until a more appropriate summary of OMM can be actually written. Inoculatedcities (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

History of DO program

I was disappointed to see no history of the DO program in the U.S. Why are there the 2 different programs, MD and DO? Did they diverge from one source or not? 76.113.9.242 (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The origin of the DO field is discussed on a different page- Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Hope that helps. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions by EmetHodge

Hi EmetHodge, It looks like you’ve spent some time on your edit, which is great, but your proposed changes include a massive deletion of well-cited material. You have deleted several well cited facts, and replaced them with citations from self published authors. Citations that are the work of self-published authors are questionable references. For more information on identifying questionable sources, see WP:USERGENERATED and WP:IRS. This article is a part of project medicine on Wikipedia, and needs to have high quality sources WP:RSMED, such as peer reviewed journals. You cannot delete information simply because you think it’s wrong. If well-cited information violates Wikipedia policy, then that may be grounds for change or deletion. Much work has gone into this article to ensure it remains verifiable, and major changes (especially deletions) will almost certainly require discussion on this talk page. Also, if an edit is reverted, rather than trying to restore that edit, you should first discuss it on the talk page and try to reach a consensus (see WP:BRD). Thanks for working with us on making this article better. Rytyho usa (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Student Aptitude Section

I think we should remove this section entirely, or it should be greatly abbreviated. The section compares test scores of osteopathic medical students with those of M.D. medical students, but there is already an article comparing the two professions, and that article is linked on this page. Also, it's an exact copy of the section with the same name on the comparison article. It's difficult to talk about the D.O. degree without any mention of M.D. training, but I think this section goes into too much detail. Thoughts or objections? Rytyho usa (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion here but I'm actually in favor of keeping it here. I'm with you on not enjoying the redundancy between the different articles discussing the topic of osteopathic medicine in the U.S. but I think it's important for the uninformed reader or for that matter, the lazy reader, of which I'm sure there are many. The important thing is access to accurate, unbiased information above all else for an encyclopedia. Perhaps the section can be shortened a bit but I think we should keep it here despite its presence on other pages. I'm sure there are other examples on wiki where different articles discussing an umbrella topic have lots of overlapping content and I think that's okay. However, that's just my two cents. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's sounds pretty reasonable; it's not exactly irrelevant, but it's just more relevant on the comparison page. Maybe later I'll work on integrating that section into the article a little better. Thanks Rytyho usa (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch?

I have noticed that recent edits on this page have included a disagreement about the relevance of content from "Quackwatch," a website written by Stephen Barrett about alternative medicine, which aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies" relating to the subject of alternative medicine.

So, what does everybody think about this? Arguments for and against? Rytyho usa (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two aspects to this question. Is Quackwatch usable as a reliable source, and if so is what it's saying worth including.

To the first question, QW has consistenly been found to be a RS on the topic of altmed. See

Since it is addressing an altmed aspect of DO accreditation (that it might encompass dubious practices such as CST), it's an authoritative source for that.

Is it worth saying? I'd say neutrality demands it ... it's an opinion voiced by a reliable source that is direcly related to something the article otherwises discusses (the relationship between MD/DO), but in an entirely uncritical manner, which gave rise to a POV problem. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned, and the source is good for this purpose. There is the problem of it being mentioned in the lede without being mentioned in the body, so I'm moving the content here for now. Try to develop how to mention it in the body, and then briefly mention it in the lede:

• According to Quackwatch, "although most DOs offer competent care, the percentage involved in dubious practices appears to be higher than that of medical doctors"; in particular, Quackwatch characterizes some types of cranial therapy as "dubious".

It needs to be more specific, with wikilinks. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This statement from "Quackwatch" is completely invalid and contradictory to itself. It explicitly compares physicians with the DO degree to "medical doctors". Physicians who hold the DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) and MD (Doctor of Medicine) degrees are both considered "medical doctors" in the United States thus rendering this cited statement nonsensical. It is obviously based off a biased, uninformed opinion and therefore should not be included with the topic.-- DrBonesaw (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reservations about the use of this specific source even though I think Quackwatch can be used as a reliable source in some instances. IMO, the language from this article seems to be written in a pretty overtly biased/negative tone and even though criticism of a profession certainly should be included for the sake of neutrality, I think the language used from a direct quote is not appropriate for inclusion in the article and should be revised or paraphrased instead. I also have concerns regarding whether the quote is an accurate representation of the field as it is today. If it is, then it should be included, if it is not representative of the field today, I disagree with its inclusion. I do not know if Dr. Barrett's personal research into the membership list of ACAM was done properly when he investigated some of these statistics since I do not have access to the membership list of ACAM and I cannot seem to find other sources verifying the validity of Dr. Barrett's claims. Without the ability to verify the statistics he claims in his article about the number of MD and DO physicians that practice chelation therapy, I must express doubt about the validity of this claim. If we have current statistical data for this, I believe that would be better suited for inclusion in the article since Dr. Barrett's article is also from a decade ago and may no longer be accurate (i.e., DOs may not be involved in some of these practices at a higher rate than MDs now). Furthermore, I think DrBonesaw's observation about Dr. Barrett's article is correct, Dr. Barrett does indeed uses some terminology now regarded as incorrect and/or out of date such as osteopathy, the incorrect separation of medical doctors (that's not what MD stands for, it stands for Doctor of Medicine and medical doctor applies to both MDs and DOs alike), and I happen to agree that Dr. Barrett's article, even if it is from a source we consider reliable, does have a tone that does not seem neutral. If indeed these statistical claims made by Dr. Barrett are true, I believe there would be other/superior sources better suited for inclusion and we should find them if they exist. If not, I think the lack of our ability to verify the claims made in this paper is problematic. If someone can help me verify them using current data, this would help address one of my reservations. Yes, we certainly respect the opinion of medical experts and researchers such as Dr. Barrett, but we do not take what they have written their papers on faith and just assume that their methodology was proper. Putting aside my concerns about my inability to verify these statistics from ten years ago, even if they were true in 2003, that does not mean they are now. The medical field is constantly changing and trends matter. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

On the tone, we don't have to use the same tone on a wikipedia article as in a reliable source. We generally use an WP:IMPARTIAL tone, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• " Yes, we certainly respect the opinion of medical experts and researchers such as Dr. Barrett, but we do not take what they have written their papers on faith and just assume that their methodology was proper." No we assume Quackwatch is reliable because they have a history of being reliable and note here how we are attributing the statements as well (any organisation is reliable for opinions, and because of their numerous awards in this area I think we can safely say they have weight to be mentioned). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an old article; most of Dr. Barrett's citations are from the 1990s. Those are fairly outdated, for a medical article. While the article was "updated" in 2003, the extent of that update seems to involve the inclusion of only two additional citations from 2001 and 2002. A lot of effort has gone into ensuring this wikipedia article reflect up-to-date information, and I'm concerned that this source would not provide a positive contribution.

I agree with Brangifer, if we include the passage, it must also be present in the body of the article, not just the lead. Rytyho usa (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be in the body too. I have included it, both attributed and dated so the full picture is clear. I have also included some more up-to-date commentary from Steven Salzberg to round things out ... see what you think ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So, no comment on the citations being from the 1990s and being fairly outdated? As for IRWolfie's comments, the original edit that I saw took a direct quote from the article, which means that it used the same tone. With respect to trusting Dr. Barrett's quality of work, I guess I'm not making the assumption you're suggesting we make. I'm a proponent of critically evaluating every article I read. I'm not saying the article from Dr. Barrett is right or wrong, I'm saying that without the ability to verify his work or a more explicit methodology, that raises concerns. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fringe practices?

FYI, I have posted a query about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

More voices here would be appreciated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Salzberg Article?

In addition to the discussion about the inclusion of Dr. Barrett's Quackwatch article, I believe the inclusion of the article by Mr. Salzberg of Forbes needs to be discussed as well. The title itself, as well as the article, has numerous instances of incorrect terminology and questions (ridiculously) whether Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine, are in fact, even physicians at all. I am of the belief that inclusion of this article will confuse and mislead readers. This article was heavily criticized and the wave of negative feedback prompted a part II article, which, for the most part, read like an article that stopped short of a full retraction (though it still employed incorrect terminology), but included admissions by the author that he had misconceptions about the osteopathic medical field. For verification purposes, here is the part II of the article in question to which I am referring: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sciencebiz/2010/10/29/second-thoughts-on-osteopathic-medicine/ The first part of this two part article series is, in my opinion, a poor addition and should seriously be reconsidered. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point. The author does admit his prior article was "too harsh," and it was poorly researched. While he appears critical of OMT, he suggests that it is similar to the alternative medicine programs offered at many M.D. schools. Rytyho usa (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I considered using both articles, but a discussion of how Salzberg made - then softened - other crticisms would take a couple of sentences and wold be undue. So I stuck with the central point which he made, and re-stated, about OMT. It would be fine to add his comment that some MDs engage in dubious practices too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Salzberg is also a single author. I think referencing only his articles while making the general statement that DOs receive criticism is perhaps a bit misleading. Even if we cited a second author, that would appear to be original research. So, I changed the wording in the lead to specify that Salzberg has criticized DO physicians. Also, I specified that his complaint with DO training relates to a lack of research supporting the efficacy of OMT. Rytyho usa (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He calls it pseudoscientific; not under-researched! Because OMT is a WP:FRINGE thing, we need to make sure it is prominently described as such. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he does describe OMT pseudoscientific in the first article, which he later admits was over the top and poorly researched. And yes, he does suggest that there is not research supporting the efficacy of OMT. I understand your concern on giving fringe theories undue weight; however, just because this author thinks it's pseudoscience doesn't mean it is. Also, I don't know that the fringe policy applies here. I see that you have posted a query about this page, which is great, but it doesn't appear that the subject has been resolved. Rytyho usa (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, with all due respect, if you look at the systematic review by Professor Ernst you added to the OMT article from the journal Pediatrics, that article certainly discusses a lack of a sufficient number of well-done studies examining OMT and its possible clinical utility and also discusses a need for such evidence. Statements like this seem consistent with the idea that OMT is under researched, nowhere in the peer-reviewed article does it suggest that OMT is pseudoscientific. I can give you an exact quote to show that they implied that additional research is needed for OMT to be a proven modality if necessary. True that Salzberg said OMT was pseudoscientific in his first article, but as I originally stated, I believe his first article to be overtly biased and a poor article for inclusion in this Wikipedia article. The rampant misuse of terminology as well as the misguided implication that Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine are not actually physicians will only mislead readers. I believe inclusion of this article is not NPOV. Certainly, criticism of OMT as being a modality that has not undergone sufficient research to prove its effectiveness is a fair and necessary addition for a truly NPOV article, but by Salzberg's own admission, his first article was largely incorrect, overly harsh as Rytyho pointed out, and poorly researched (implying his first article is of poor quality). I must strongly protest its inclusion and move to remove it from this article. Surely better sources that criticize OMT in a more neutral and informed fashion can be found. I believe that Rytyho's assessment is correct in that giving Salzberg's articles special mention in the lead over journal articles and countless other news articles is undue weight. I've seen plenty of news articles that actually have the correct information, many of which are not as high-profile as Forbes, but nonetheless, at least are accurate in their description of the osteopathic medical field in the U.S. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• We can't put (our interpretation of) Ernst's conclusion as Salzberg's view, that would simply be wrong. Salzberg called OMT pseudoscience, and in a follow-up article did not resile from this position but added the statement that claims for OMT "strained credulity". That he said other things, and modified views which we don't mention, is irrelevant.
• OMT is obvious pseudoscience; however we are being very soft by just quoting/attributing Salzberg and noting that it is on Quackwatch's radar as a "dubious" practice. WP:PSCI requires (i.e. as policy) fringe views to be prominently identified. That the article beforehand was simply promoting it as a benefit of DO training was very unfortunate.
• The under-researched meme is one we see all the time for pseudoscientific medicine. In real medicine if something is ineffective it's not used, and not "used in the hope that some future research will validate it". As to Ernst, there is no need to interpret what he means, as he summarizes it in his own word on his blog. Specifically: "for no paediatric condition do we have sufficient evidence to show that OMT is effective", "many osteopaths seemed to see little wrong in making unsubstantiated therapeutic claims" and "osteopaths seem to be violating the most basic rule of medical research by not reporting adverse-effects in their clinical trials".
• In view of these discussion which seem to me to centre on the core neutrality of the article, I would like to ask if any editor participating has a conflict of interest (i.e. a personal or professional connection to osteopathic medicine and/or the teaching of it). For myself, I have none (for additional info about me, see my user page; however I am not asking for personal information, just for a declaration on COI). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we can put our interpretation of Ernst's conclusion as Salzberg's view. Your reason for using Salzberg's view is because of his expert opinion, though why his opinion outweighs that of other experts when used in scientific papers is unclear to me. However, on this topic, as mentioned previously, he (Salzberg) made some serious errors in the article you wish to include in this Wikipedia page, which he admitted. Ernst is a recognized expert in complementary and alternative medicine, and while he makes some mistakes as well, this systematic review (arguably a far more reliable source than a Forbes opinion article piece), implies (I did say implies before, so I don't know why you're stressing that it's my interpretation of the discussion, of course it is, and as I said, I can provide you a direct quote that seems to imply it pretty clearly) that OMT requires further research if it is to be a more widely recognized treatment modality. Under-researched does not equal pseudoscience, and by outright stating your opinion that OMT is "obvious pseudoscience", you've revealed your bias. I think it's evident that you are not editing under the principles of NPOV and instead injecting your opinion into your edits as well as this discussion. I won't deny a certain degree of bias in my opposition to your edits, but the edits I propose are at least consistent with NPOV as I am advocating the use of sources that are factually accurate. Note that I did say before in my earlier comment (feel free to go back and look) that criticism of OMT is fine and necessary for NPOV (we agree on this point), but it should be from a reliable source that has its information completely correct and the Salzberg articles are not reflective of this. It is absolutely not irrelevant that Salzberg published a follow-up piece to his first article that admits the first article had errors in it, misleading implications, and was overly harsh. If that were not true of the first article, why did he have to clarify his position and retract or correct much of what he said? Where exactly in this article did it say that the training of OMT is a "benefit", as you say, of DO training? I believe it was phrased as a difference or an additional form of training, but these claims that the article was lauding OMT as an exclusive benefit of DO medical training is untrue. If you're really going to force me to quote Ernst from his own paper: "In general, reporting of trial methodology and results was often inadequate. To make progress in this area, future studies of OMT should follow the accepted standards of trial design and reporting (eg, CONSORT guidelines)." and "More robust RCTs are needed to clarify the many open questions regarding the effectiveness of OMT." This is clearly a call for additional research. Yes, that's my opinion, and I think it's certainly a reasonable interpretation. I think we may need to get additional voices into this discussion as I feel you are being unreasonable and making unreasonable assumptions (that everything in "real" medicine that is used is based on robust evidence). I do not understand why you continue to harp on the conclusion of Ernst's review, I made no effort to contest the paper's conclusions stating that the current evidence base for OMT in pediatric conditions is insufficient to consider it to be a proven modality. So far, I've yet to see you even address anything about the overtly biased tone and frank errors made in Salzberg's article. Such factors clearly indicate quality problems with the article. If you look over Dr. Ernst's blog page that you cited, it simply reiterates what is stated in the systematic review, that the evidence for OMT is currently inadequate and that much of the research performed to examine if OMT has clinical benefit has been of weak methodology. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My comment was replying to all the above comments, not just to TylerDurden8823.

OMT is generally accepted as pseudoscience, not least from cheesed-off DOs who find themselves saddled with its dogma. WP:FRINGE guides us to ensure pseudoscientific concepts are properly surfaced and described. Salzberg is a good source for this, especially since we cautiously attribute and quote his view. We could add more, but on an article on the DO qualification that would be undue I suspect, as would providing a running commentary on which views Salzberg modified in arriving at his final position.

Ernst's call for more research should not be represented as an endorsement of OMT. More research could close-out the possibility of its worth, likely as not. The core points from Ernst are well explained by Ernst himself as I quote above, especially perhaps, "many osteopaths seemed to see little wrong in making unsubstantiated therapeutic claims".

Nothing on COI? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you've mischaracterized the "general" thought on OMT. I never said Ernst's call for research was an endorsement of it, I said it's a call for more research. Certainly, more research could show conclusively that OMT does not work or it may show that it does have some clinical benefit. We'll have to wait and see. I'd ask that you don't add to what I've said since if you read what I said above, I did not say Ernst's comments were an endorsement of OMT. The article's conclusion was that OMT's benefit in pediatric conditions is unproven. The letter to the editor you're citing is also from nearly ten years ago...just saying. If your comments are replying to everyone, I believe you should clarify that since that wasn't clear (at least I didn't think so). I disagree with you that Salzberg is a good source for this at all and I think his article should not be included on this page for reasons I feel I have thoroughly explained. Also, please do not conflate osteopaths and Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine, they're not the same thing. The quote you've provided from Ernst is an important one commenting on the quality of research on OMT and there have been discussions that better quality studies are needed, so there's no dispute there. Let's stay on point here, the central question in this discussion is the inclusion of the Salzberg article and I'm saying my vote is against its inclusion on this page. I am also against the inclusion of the Barrett article for similar reasons as I have explaind on the FTN noticeboard. Please note that other editors have also expressed similar viewpoints. As for COI, I could say I have a potential COI, but I do not believe it has impacted my ability to edit from an NPOV standpoint. I do believe you have edited from a POV standpoint and I think we do need some outside perspectives to make a final decision. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If OMT is unproven, yet practiced, then it is - like homeopathy or magnet therapy - obviously pseudoscience - at least according to our own article on the topic: "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status" (my bold). WP:FRINGE applies. However, we don't need to reason it out ourselves as we have sources that point-out the pseudoscience for us. Wikipedia policy says we have to describe fringe views as such, it is not an option. We do so carefully and caveated with the statement that most DOs are good doctors. 3 citations (out of the article's 39) are critical, yet you want to remove them so that we get back to the previous state where the OMT training was mentioned without a whisper of criticism? (remember the article before mentioned this extra so-called training, it is not something I have added). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I do not think that saying that a modality of treatment has not been well-researched enough to conclusively prove efficacy is the same as being pseudoscience. I don't agree that OMT meets the criteria you mentioned above. Regardless, I feel we are again getting off topic and that is happening far too often in our discussions. Let's please stick to the question of the Salzberg article which is the central topic of discussion. I want to remove your specific choice of critical articles, that's correct. I have asserted (numerous times) that I am fine with critical articles, but the ones you have selected are poor examples. They are either old, utilize overtly incorrect terminology, have been stated as largely incorrect, etc. The choice of articles is poor, the use of articles criticizing OMT is fine (again, I've said this numerous times). Out of curiosity, are you also including similar articles of criticisms of fringe MDs, NDs, DCs, homeopathic practitioners, and other forms of medical practitioner? I'm just wondering if you're giving equal attention to these articles. I don't even see a criticism section on the Doctor of Medicine page just as an example. This is by no means to say that this article should not have articles that espouse valid criticisms, but I'm wondering about how much attention you are giving to other articles in addition to this one. I'm certain it wouldn't be difficult to find high-quality articles that discuss fringe methods practiced by these other various medical practices. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

To the point: Salzberg is surely a reliable source for Salzberg's opinions or a critical view (which is how we frame it)? As to my editing, there are only 24hrs in the day but I do happen to work on the some of the other topics you mention (e.g. homeopathy) ... not that that's relevant to the current discussion. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because an article comes from Salzberg does not automatically make it a reliable source. His credibility is quite strained within this article because of his own second articles that basically states that his first article jumped the gun, was overly harsh, and had incorrect/potentially misleading information in it. It is most certainly relevant to the discussion if you are devoting an equitable amount of time to discuss and add sources to articles of medical practitioners describing the proportion of practitioners engaging in fringe practices. Doing so only on certain pages indicates certain biases. As I said before, MDs, just like DOs, have a minority of practitioners that engage in fringe practices, yet I have not seen you attempt to add articles portraying this criticism of the M.D. community on that page. That does not seem like neutral editing in my view. Note, I am not saying that DOs are above criticism, they are not, but if we're going to be including critiques of medical fields for having a minority of practitioners engage in fringe practices, why not that page as well? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Both the Quackwatch and Salzberg inclusions seem very out of place in the article. The number of MDs in the USA is significantly greater than that of DOs; so it is reasonable to assume that MDs probably partake in "dubious" and "pseudoscientific" therapies at least as often as DOs. In Salzberg's follow up article he even mentions that MDs are known to practice "pseudoscientific" treatments as well. If we are calling OMM a "dubious" or "pseudoscientific" treatment, then it is worth noting that OMM is actually offered as an elective at various MD grating institutions (including Harvard Medical School). If we are citing highly controversial, outdated references that utilize incorrect terminology regarding DOs and their practice trends, then it is only fitting that the same additions are included in the "Doctor of Medicine" article. That...or we just don't include it here. I vote the latter.DrBonesaw (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

An extraordinary comment in every way. What happens to the MD article is irrelevant to what happens here. Other than that, I see no reasoned argument for removal of the source ("seems out of place" is not that). What I see is a WP:SPA arguing for removal of all criticism. Any COI to declare? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The comment is not extraordinary in any way and it is not irrelevant. I am questioning if you are giving equal attention to all articles discussing medical practitioners that occasionally engage in fringe practices (as you have agreed multiple times that only a minority of DOs have been said to engage in fringe practices). It's really a simple question and your answer seems like an evasion rather than an answer. How is my account an SPA? I edit on multiple topics, so that's really a nonsensical argument and simply an additional attempt at an evasion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My only COI is that I prefer reading unbiased articles containing accurate and the most current information. Something you seem to be trying to avoid here. "Seems out of place", was merely a personal observation on the flow of the article with your inclusions..."citing highly controversial, outdated references that utilize incorrect terminology regarding DOs and their practice trends" was my reasoned argument for removal of the source. Regarding the WP:SPA claim; the majority of users seem to be against your current contributions to this article and have expressed their concerns with the sources you have chosen to use. I am simply voicing my opinion, which appears to be in line with the majority of users who have done so thus far.DrBonesaw (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Salzberg's piece of 2010 is hardly out-of-date, and the characterization of OMM as pseudoscience is hardly controversial is it? (Is any source claiming it's not pseudoscience?). As to terminology, it seems to me a lot of the sources are out-of-sync with the usage this article wants to insist on. That's a wider problem than can be addressed here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct; there a many sources that misuse terminology. Why do you insist that these "out-of-sync sources" be used in an encyclopedic article? There are many reasonable sources that can at least get basics (such as terminology) correct and those are the type that should be utilized here, otherwise we are doing a disservice to the readers. Salzberg refers to osteopathic physicians as ODs in his original article. ODs are optometrists. As has already been mentioned, this article was the recipient of an extraordinary amount of negative feedback stemming from unprecedented incorrectness and bias. Even the title of the article: "Osteopaths vs Doctors", implies a complete lack of understanding of the topic of osteopathic medicine and doctors of osteopathic medicine. Do you honestly not see the problem with using a source that is this grossly misinformed in (what is supposed to be) a NPOV encyclopedic article? If you feel that NPOV will only be preserved with a criticism of OMM included, find a less biased, quality source to use and insert it into the article where it makes sense. The article you have chosen is not that, and the lede is an inappropriate place to put it.. Again, this seems to be the position of the majority in these talks.DrBonesaw (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying Salzberg's piece is out of date, Barrett's piece is out of date. Salzberg's piece (and Barrett's) both use incorrect terminology and have a rather obvious bias in the way they are written. I know that sources themselves do not necessarily have to be neutral and often are not, but we should strive as editors to use neutral sources. Please answer the questions I have posed about the articles themselves aside from their bias regarding their age with respect to Barrett's article and the issues with the Salzberg article (the central topic of discussion), please stop deflecting/evading, and attempting to undermine the credibility of other editors-assume good faith please per Wikipedia policy. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Both of these sources need to be removed from the article as most have agreed they are either non contributing, blatantly incorrect/biased and retract from a NPOV. After reading through WP:FRINGE I realize that Salzberg's Forbes article is not considered a valid source since it was heavily disputed and not accepted among the academic community. I will be editing them out when I have a moment while leaving some criticism of OMM to appease user Alexbrn. I will go about this by moving the piece in the lede to the "distinctiveness" section and deleting the numerous additions which basically say the same thing over and over…it is unnecessary to have the pseudoscientific/unproven aspects of OMM mentioned 3-4 times in one section. Once will suffice. This article links to the OMM article and if readers wish to further research that topic they can go there to get more in-depth information on OMM. Objections?DrBonesaw (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I object, and you are misrepresenting the position in saying "most editors have agreed". The criticism/controversy needs to be in the body and the lede. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 00:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you are missing the general consensus here, but either way, the body which you have edited by adding at least 3-4 sources which say the same exact thing (except in a progressively more biased tone) is unnecessary. Your repetition of the "pseudoscience/unproven" quotes is a bit much and stretches the boundaries of maintaining NPOV. Lets choose the most unbiased most correct version, perhaps the quote used in the lede and insert into the body in the "distinctiveness" section after the sentence about receiving the training. It will then read like this:

• However, D.O. schools provide an additional 300 – 500 hours in the study of hands-on manual medicine and the body's musculoskeletal system, which is referred to as osteopathic manipulative medicine. DO training and practice has been criticized for its incorporation of a "pseudoscientific" osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) element, the effectiveness of which has been found to be unproven.

To keep it in the lede we could do something like this:

• One notable difference in the education at D.O.-granting medical schools is the inclusion of 300 – 500 additional hours in the study of hands-on manual medicine and the body's musculoskeletal system, the effectiveness of which has been found to be unproven.

Again, this article links to the OMM article, so readers interested in further exploring that topic can go there. No need to turn this article's central focus into OMM, since that already exists elsewhere. This way we include the criticism of OMM, and still maintain a NPOV. What do you think?DrBonesaw (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The word 'pseudoscience' (or some variant of it) needs to appear in the body and lede in relation to OMM; how it's sourced is immaterial so long as the sourcing is good enough. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 00:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, not to mention the word "pseudoscientific" is already in the lede. Just saying... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Alexbrn was commenting on my edit which would have removed pseudoscience from the lede.

Using the quote from the OMM article lede and inserting it in an appropriate place in this lede:

• One notable difference in the education at D.O.-granting medical schools is the inclusion of 300 – 500 additional hours in the study of hands-on manual medicine and the body's musculoskeletal system. This training, referred to as osteopathic manipulative medicine, is absent in the M.D. curricula. Critiques of the technique have characterized it as pseudoscience.

Does this suffice?DrBonesaw (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're happy with it, then yes! Since the OMM article is better now we can rely on that ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 01:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823, since you have had a significant role in these discussions, I'm interested in hearing your input as well before any changes occur. The current edits that are presently under consideration would remove the the original quotes that were in question and reduce the amount of criticism to a single, general mention in the lede and a single, general mention in the body. These changes will convey a less biased tone than currently exists in the article and rids the article of the blatantly incorrect terminology. What do you think?

Add: I just noticed Alexbrn did some considerable editing to the OMM article itself (removing other editors additions of peer reviewed journal articles under the banner of "fringe journals" and spamming that article with claims of pseudoscience and ineffectiveness as per usual)…smh…can't say I'm surprised. Sad for the readers who are interested in this topic as they will now be receiving biased information. It is obvious spamming because of the persistent nature that this user is inserting the information into these articles which states the same thing over and over again. If mentioning any criticism is necessary, then it really only needs to be done once…not repetitively throughout each article. Alexbrn, your bias is showing.DrBonesaw (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said on WP:FT/N at the time: "I have re-worked the Osteopathic manipulative medicine article so this is now clear, and placed it in the Pseudoscience category and included OMM in our List of topics characterized as pseudoscience". It's important we follow the reliable sources when dealing with a WP:FRINGE topic. The sources are not "repetitive", but show a history of skepticism coming from different quarters. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"It's important we follow the reliable sources when dealing with a WP:FRINGE topic."--lol, ok.DrBonesaw (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I stepped away from this article for a few days and return to see that other editors have tried to improve it's quality since the NPOV has been disrupted. However Alexbrn reverts all other's edits. Alexbrn, have you been appointed the biased guardian of all things OMM? Viewing the edit histories of the osteopathic manipulative medicine and doctor of osteopathic medicine articles, it certainly appears so. It seems that the editor who attempted to fix your biased inclusions with the BioMed article discussing the efficacy of OMM satisfied your requirement of including criticism and also using the term pseudosience. They then counterbalanced it with a valid source (at the very least as valid a source as the Forbes magazine article you have chosen to use). What was the purpose of your "POV pushing" revert there?DrBonesaw (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't use a review of OMM's effectiveness for back pain to state it is effective for "a variety" of conditions. Besides, ledes should only be summarizing content that exists in the body. Anyway, I thought you were going to edit the lede as agreed above. What's stopping you? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it reasonable to say that there are a variety of conditions that cause back pain? If OMM is effective for back pain and there are a variety of conditions that are the cause of back pain then I see nothing wrong with that editors addition. Before touching this article I wanted to step away and see if any other editors had anything to add to the article or the conversation. Apparently there were a few attempts at edits that you quickly reverted which seems to be a theme with your editing on this topic. DrBonesaw (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not reasonable, no. See WP:SYNTH. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to include direct quotes from sources that compare DOs to medical doctors, implying that DOs themselves are not medical doctors? Is it reasonable to include quotes from articles that refer to DOs as ODs (optometrists)? Why are you able to revert other editors additions as POV pushing yet you include such grossly misinformed sources yourself?DrBonesaw (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is reasonable. Because OMM is a fringe topic, the bar for the skeptical counter-view is set low: see WP:PARITY. By the way, have you ever thought "OD" rather than "DO" might just be a simple transposition error? The only person using the word "optometrists" is - you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that you do not like to acknowledge that most other editors have disagreed with your edits/opinions both here in the talks and on the fringe topic you started about this article. But really, the only person labeling OMM "fringe topic" is-you. Add: So you are saying the bar is set so low that you can include incorrect information--like the implication that DOs are not medical doctors?DrBonesaw (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DrBonesaw, I'm coming into this late and would like you to provide the wording in the article that implies that "DOs are not medical doctors." Maybe it can be fixed. I just need to know where and what to fix, if it's really "broken". -- Brangifer (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

break

I (and Wikipedia) merely follow the sources. As I've said before, if there are reliable sources which say that yes indeed, hands-on therapy could treat (say) pancreatitis, then produce them ... and we can amend Wikipedia accordingly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not attempting to prove the effectiveness of OMM at the moment. My concerns lies with the disruption of NPOV you have created in the article and the other articles related to it. You are not addressing the issue surrounding the fact that you have directly quoted sources that imply DOs are not medical doctors.DrBonesaw (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Salzberg's view is Salzberg's view. We relay it accurately and attribute it as neutrality requires. That you are hypersensitive to its "implications" is not something we can address by editing. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy. Readers will readily comprehend Salzberg's meaning, and our article here contains clear authoritative information on what makes D.O.s distinctive. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said get rid of it because I don't like it. I said get rid of it because it is blatantly incorrect and in being so disrupts the validity and NPOV of the entire article. "In 2003 Quackwatch published an article which stated: "although most DOs offer competent care, the percentage involved in dubious practices appears to be higher than that of medical doctors"--is what I was referring too. I guess the title article "Ostepaths vs Doctors" by Salzberg could be lumped in with this too tho.DrBonesaw (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Err, but QW did publish that article in 2003. How is our stating that "blatantly incorrect"? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Err, that is my point. QW published an article that you are choosing to quote in an encyclopedic article comparing DOs to medical doctors--this implies that DOs are not medical doctors. This is incorrect. How do you not see the obvious POV manipulation this causes?DrBonesaw (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh no - not this again! As I said several weeks ago, "The QW article interchangeably uses the terms "osteopathic physician" for DOs and "medical doctor" for MDs - if you think this terminology needs to be made clearer we can easily unpack it a bit". I'll have a go at paraphrasing ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

(add) right - I just changed the quotation. Are we done now? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The point is that your source is poor. If you source substitutes medical doctor for MD then it lacks credibility. Much worse than the sources being used by other editors that you immediately revert at every attempt to strengthen the article. Since the article in question was created in 2003, should it be mentioned (with source) that many MD programs are now offering OMM at their institutions, or that many MDs seek out training in OMM post medical school to maintain NPOV. As I've mentioned your source doesn't seem to coincide with current trends in medicine.DrBonesaw (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

QW is a fine source for altmed topics, as has been repeatedly established at WP:RS/N. The consensus has been to use it here, but maybe not in the lede; which is what we're doing. Quibbling about its nomenclature is just preciousness; it just illustrates that nobody (other that some D.O.s) really cares about policing usage that much. As to OMM and doctors - that's interesting. Currently the article is saying OMM is a distinguishing characteristics of DOs (long-standing text). Of course, as has been said elsewhere MDs these days are increasingly incorporating all kinds of BS into their regimes, so even if we can source it, it doesn't legitimize OMM. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But it does legitimize NPOV in the article regarding the topic of MDs and DOs. Since you are using sources that compare the practices of each type of physician, NPOV can only be preserved if this trend is noted. DrBonesaw (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if there's a reliable source for this "trend" we should mention it (but of course not adduce a "trend" ourselves from raw data, that would be WP:OR). What's the source? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DrBonesaw, I'm coming into this late and would like you to provide the wording in the article that implies that "DOs are not medical doctors." Maybe it can be fixed. I just need to know where and what to fix, if it's really "broken". -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it help more if you said "comparing D.O.s with M.D.s? That's exactly what is meant. Both are medical physicians with doctoral degrees. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn has just changed it to very clear wording: "...difference between D.O. and M.D. training ..." Do you still have a problem with that? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DrBonesaw, you wrote above: "substitutes medical doctor for MD then it lacks credibility." No, not at all. If the source had substituted "osteopathic physician for M.D." it would indeed lack credibility, because D.O. and M.D. are two different degrees, both granted to medical physician professions which are coming from extremely different historical backgrounds. They are not 100% identical. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

When you substitute medical doctor for MD when comparing the degree to a DO then yes it lacks credibility. That implies that DOs are not medical doctors, while only MDs are. This is obviously incorrect. You keep saying they are not 100% identical degrees…What exactly do you mean by that? If you are talking about historical backgrounds…ok. If you are talking about the "extra" training that DOs receive beyond the standard medical education…ok. But if you are saying that the US DO and MD do not have privileges and responsibilities that are 100% identical in the US, then you are incorrect. Thanks for your contribution though DrBonesaw (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

M.D. is the older degree and stands for "Medical Doctor". D.O. is the much newer degree and stands for Doctor of Osteopathy. Medicine and Osteopathy had extremely different backgrounds, but in the United States D.O. is recognized as a medical physician, largely on a par with M.D.s, but their historical backgrounds are different, and their educations are still slightly different. They are not 100% identical. What part of this do you not understand? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It actually stands for Doctor of Medicine. Just saying. Also, D.O. stands for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, not Doctor of Osteopathy. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Slip of the tongue, -- Brangifer (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, do you live in the United States? I can see how this would be a confusing topic to someone who lived outside of the US and where DOs are not medical doctors and are known as doctors of osteopathy. In the US, the general education is identical for MDs and DOs, except that DO granting institutions include OMM as part of the curriculum. MD does not stand for medical doctor…it is a Doctor of Medicine while the DO (in the US) is the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine--both of which are considered medical doctors in the US. These are just facts. I am personal friends with holders of both degrees. I have seen their diplomas. Trust me when I say that you are wrong here.DrBonesaw (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am American and have lived in Europe for many years, so I understand this from both angles, and have studied the subject and its history for many years.

You wrote: "That implies that DOs are not medical doctors, while only MDs are." No, it implies that D.O.s are Doctors of Osteopathy, and that M.D.s are Doctors of Medicine. Both are doctors, in the sense of possessing doctoral degrees, but one is an Osteopathic Doctor and the other is a Medical Doctor. If you totally erase this distinction, then you have succeeded in erasing the justification for the existence of the D.O. profession. Thank you for doing that, because many wonder why it still exists as a separate profession, if not to be misused by a few who wish to mix old osteopathy doctrines and practices with their modern medical physician D.O. practice, thus making them practice quackery and pseudoscience. Note I wrote "a few", so don't get upset. We know they exist. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have your facts mixed up. You are simply incorrect on this topic. If you have truly studied this topic then I am sorry to report that you have come to the wrong conclusions. I do agree that there is room for debate to whether two distinct pathways for becoming a physician in the US should even exist. However that is a different conversation. Two distinct pathways for becoming a physician in the US do exist and that just is what it is. DOs are considered medical doctors in the US as are MDs --as are physicians who received an MBBS from overseas but come to practice in the US. I apologize if you cannot understand this, but it really is just a fact. I am not upset at all…there are both MDs and DOs that practice quackery…glad we can agree on that.DrBonesaw (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To be pedantic, MD stands for Medicinae Doctor (literally "of medicine, teacher"), and that can be rendered into English in different ways. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the original latin term, but not the convention in conversation. It doesn't change that M.D. does not stand for medical doctor. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And according to Booth's History of Osteopathy DO (as formulated by Still) stands for "Diplomate Osteopathy" and the title conferred by the degree is "Doctor of Osteopathy". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Historically true, but the accepted term today is (and has been) Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. Period. That is simply the name of the degree earned at osteopathic medical schools in the United States and is the proper title. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

break 2

So in fact it looks like this whole article makes a whopping category error by conflating the title conferred by the degree (which is what this article is meant to about) with license to practice as a physician (which may or may not be the same thing). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What you listed is true…historically. The modern degree that is awarded by all of the colleges of osteopathic medicine in the US , is in fact the doctor of osteopathic medicine. This can be confirmed on any of the medical school websites and also the AOA (main governing organization for the DO profession) website as well.DrBonesaw (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Like at Princeton?. Something is beginning to smell awfully odd about this article. Why does it say that having a D.O. degree gives the same rights etc. as as M.D. degree, when in fact those rights stem from licensing and not from the awarding of a degree. It's like it's desperate to equate the two things. I wonder if COI-tainted editors here have had an undue influence. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously COI tainted editors have had and undue influence here …thats what I've been trying to sort out in these talks. The link you provided is to a test prep company's website. The Princeton Review is a company that sells test preparation materials to people who are preparing to take standardized tests--for instance the MCAT, LSAT, GRE, SAT etc... The Princeton Review is hardly a place to get information on any sort of degree. Princeton--the actual university-- is not affiliated with The Princeton Review and does not have a medical school that grants either degree (DO or MD)… That being said, MDs and DOs both have to go through a licensure process before they can practice medicine in the US. Neither degree alone grants that privilege. Holders of both degrees must go through a series of licensing exams that span the course of a few years (starting in medical school and ending within residency) before one is fully licensed to practice medicine as a physician in the US. Once licensed both MDs and DOs have medical rights and privileges that are 100% identical in the US.DrBonesaw (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The link was to show that the term "Doctor of Osteopathy" was in use. As recently as 2005 an osteopathic textbook said the degree title was either "Doctor of Osteopathy" or "Doctor of osteopathaic medicine". It seems at some point recently the AOA has decided that everything needs to be consistent to one brand and so has worked up some preferred terminology - something this article seems a bit over-keen to follow even when common usage shows this terminology wasn't/isn't ubiquitous. Picking up QW for using the term "Doctor of Osteopathy" in 2003 when Osteopathy's own textbooks were using it in 2005 is, at the least, a bit rum. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again...The Quackwatch article was mainly criticized for it's comparison of DOs to medical doctors--implying DOs were not medical doctors themselves. This is a problem in the Salzberg article as well titled "Osteopaths vs Doctors". These are inherent mistakes that show a lack of understanding of the topic.DrBonesaw (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it compares D.O.s to M.D.s. That's the clear intention, and picking fault won't help you when you are intentionally misinterpreting what it obviously means. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think not. A quick google shows JAOA itself uses similar terms. For example this 2009 article with its tables of "Perceptions of Osteopathic Medicine Among Medical Doctors", or this survey in which the term "allopathic physicians" is glossed as "medical doctors". Perhaps you're going to claim that the DOs writing for JAOA don't understand the subject! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

MDs, allopathic physicians (medical doctors)--as your link noted is fine. Just as stating DOs, osteopathic physicians (medical doctors) would be appropriate. The link you provided above doesn't directly compare the two implying that one or the other is not a medical doctor as the sources you use in the article do. [User:DrBonesaw|DrBonesaw]] (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Inflammatory Language introduced in recent edit?

I note that the most recent edit has used language that seems confrontational to a degree, as follows -

Nevertheless, some DOs continue to use the old terms and the American Academy of Osteopathy retains the old usage in its very name.

I think that the use of the word 'very' in this sentence is inflammatory and unnecessary, and should be removed. Comments?

Otherwise, I note that the article has been improved significantly by Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI}'s work, in the face of significant COI and SPA opposition, and he is to be congratulated. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 11:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Awww - I was rather pleased with that "very" :-) At least I resisted an exclamation mark ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bravo Alexbrn. Another comment showing your bias. Either way, The only topic which seems particularly outdated still is the one comparing the likelihood of "dubious" practices between DOs and MDs. We touched on this a bit above, but never completed that conversation due to the inadequate wording of the statement. Now that it has been solved resolved, the comparison still seems to be highy opinionated and without substance. You even quoted another source (Salzberg's article) that conversely notes that many MDs are also practicing "dubious" practices. This seems to be contradictory.DrBonesaw (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There's been a lot of talk today, and the article is beginning to get into better shape. I can't tell precisely what edit you are proposing - could you make it explicit what your proposal is? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In 2003 Quackwatch published an article which stated that "although most DOs offer competent care, the percentage involved in dubious practices appears to be higher than that of [MDs]"; in particular, Quackwatch characterized some types of cranial therapy as "dubious".[32]-->In 2003 Quackwatch published an article which stated that although most DOs offer competent care, the utilization of certain types of cranial therapy by some DOs can lead to "dubious" practices.--and then keep the rest of the paragraph as is.DrBonesaw (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change it. It looks fine as it is, and helps you by writing M.D. instead of "medical doctors". So, no reason to fix what isn't broken. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Helps me? Where did your previous comment saying my edit looks like a good addition go? You seem to be getting overly emotional in these talks. Maybe you should walk away from the article (per WP advice) until you can calmly contribute to the discussion? DrBonesaw (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bonesaw's edit is problematic as it misrepresents the source; I think the use of QW is okay as is. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Time to make progress or stop this

DrBonesaw, I know there is a lot here, but read it all very carefully. We need to get this settled, because you take up an awful lot of time from editors who need to do actually constructive things here. You are a time sink for them. Your response to what follows will determine whether I’m right or not. I hope you prove me wrong.

This all comes down to whether this is your personal opinion, or a matter which can be settled by RS. The burden of proof is on you, so I’m going to give you a job which can progress this to a conclusion, one way or the other.

Although this is a matter of semantics, and, apparently for you, it really touches a nerve, RS don’t care about your feelings or opinions on the matter.

Calling both professions "medical doctors" is relatively innocent and common, but it’s careless and imprecise spoken language. We let it slide in ordinary conversation where precision isn’t expected, especially since most people haven’t a clue that there is any difference at all between the two professions. We don’t’ really care in that situation because both D.O.s and M.D.s really are medical “physicians”. Both are doctors in the "teaching" sense, and also in the "degree" sense.

But when dealing with specifics, and these articles are very specific, we must be precise. That’s why we object to just using ordinary, spoken, and imprecise language here. This is a serious encyclopedia.

Here is a job for you. If you really wish us to document the use of such careless and imprecise spoken language, then please find RS which actually “discuss” (not just demonstrate) this difference (formal versus informal use of the term “medical doctor” to apply to both professions), and bring those RS here, along with your suggested wording, for possible inclusion. I’m totally open to that possibility, but it’s YOUR responsibility, since we don’t share your burden. Until you can do that, I suggest you drop the stick and walk away, because your continual harping on this subject, especially since you don’t come with a possible solution, is disruptive.

DrBonesaw, I will also answer your expressed concerns:

• “You keep saying they are not 100% identical degrees…What exactly do you mean by that? If you are talking about historical backgrounds…ok.”

• Yes, I am talking about historical backgrounds. We are agreed.

• “If you are talking about the "extra" training that DOs receive beyond the standard medical education…ok.”

• Yes, I am talking about the “extra” training. We are agreed.

• “But if you are saying that the US DO and MD do not have privileges and responsibilities that are 100% identical in the US, then you are incorrect.”

• No, I am not talking about that. I have made it clear, including in my editing, that they have identical privileges and responsibilities in the U.S.A.. I think we are agreed on that, too.

Regarding differences, the very fact that the two educations and degrees exist implies differences, and this is one of the many subjects on which scientific skeptics are agreed, and they are indeed defined by the targets of their skepticism. (Other areas of agreement are skepticism of chiropractic, paranormal abilities, creationism, etc.). Skeptics see no legitimate reason for the existence of the D.O. education and profession, now that they have achieved identical privileges and responsibilities with their M.D. colleagues. The differences seem to only allow for some D.O.s, like Joseph Mercola and the now deceased John Upledger (Craniosacral therapy), to revert back to the quackeries so common in osteopathy, which is the historical background of D.O.s. (I suspect that this phenomenon might exist more among older D.O.s, whose education was even more divergent from what the two educations are today, and that younger D.O.s would be less likely to do this. The same applies to some degree, all depending on the school and their first mentors and employers, to chiropractors.) The point is, if the D.O. education and degree were eliminated, then all medical students would become M.D.s and this connection to the unfortunate past would be severed. It’s problematic to maintain a connection to a past that is loaded with quackery. Chiropractic needs to do the same, but they refuse.

Other things to think about: It would be improper, fraudulent, and likely illegal, for a D.O. to sign their name with “M.D.” after it. M.D. and D.O. are not 100% identical educations or degrees, and anyone trying to erase the differences is doing D.O.s a disservice by denying their heritage, and doing M.D.s a disservice by borrowing undeserved credit from their reputation. Some D.O.s, who lean toward the alternative “osteopath” side of their heritage, would be proud to NOT be M.D.s, because they consider M.D.s to be “bad”, and anything alternative “good”. Joseph Mercola, D.O., is one of them. He is an avowed enemy of modern medicine and the M.D.s who practice it, is very alternative, and pushes the envelope of what is legal and ethical all the time. He has an anti vaccination agenda, believes in several forms of quackery, and sells products and dietary supplements that are at best borderline, and at worst ineffective or even dangerous. He has become extremely wealthy doing this. He’s the medical equivalent of Kevin Trudeau, but the FDA and FTC haven’t jailed him....yet.

Regardless of one’s opinions on the subject, we'd need strong RS to make any change which erases the distinction between the two professions. DrBonesaw, when I saw you had returned, I groaned and said to myself: “You’ve got to be kidding! This person has a serious fixation and hangup on this matter. It’s bordering on pathological.” I have rarely seen so determined an SPA (single-purpose account), concentrating on a miniscule matter of semantics. And yes, in spite of your denials, you are a textbook example of an SPA. You only edit regarding this one subject. That’s the definition of an SPA.

I will repeat my unanswered request to you: I would like you to provide the wording in the article that implies that "DOs are not medical doctors." Maybe it can be fixed. I just need to know where and what to fix, if it's really "broken". Now you have (1) a job to work on and (2) a question to answer. Please help us by:

1. doing that job. Please stop discussing this until you have done it. When you have found the RS and formulated some wording, then return and start a new section.
2. answering the question right now so we can work on that matter while you do the first job.

Brangifer (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, honestly I didn't read all of that, because it appears the struck nerve is yours. Also, I did answer your question about the wording…Alexbrn had already altered it by the time you arrived to reflect the conversation that you obviously skipped over. Either way, after reading through the article I am reasonably happy with it--once my above edit is included. Also, relax.DrBonesaw (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change it. It looks fine as it is, and helps you by writing M.D. instead of "medical doctors". So, no reason to fix what isn't broken. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That is intereting you say that now, when you originally wrote that the edit looked to be a step in the right direction--which you subsequently erased and have now changed your mind. You need to stop letting your emotions get in the way here. My edit is obviously appropriate--which you said yourself before you got heated. The comparison still seems to be highy opinionated and without substance. The rest of the same paragraph uses another source (Salzberg's article) that conversely notes that many MDs are also practicing "dubious" practices. This seems to be contradictory. Also, this article has made tons of progress in the last month. My contributions to the talks has not detracted from that at all.

(add:)restoring. There is no consensus for your change. My comment on the talk page was removed. You should read the edit summaries Apparently you like this run around. Did you remove your comment or did someone else? Please don't let your personal vendetta towards me affect my privileges as an editor. Thank you. My edit is more than fair which you even agreed to before you became obviously upset.[User:DrBonesaw|DrBonesaw]] (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to read edit summaries before making edits. They explain the reasoning behind an edit. I have now reverted your violation of BRD with this edit summary: "Your edit was reverted, and per BRD, you must not restore it. Get consensus. My removed comment was only referring to the "[MDs]" part." I removed my previous comment because I discovered that it wasn't you who had changed "medical doctors" to "(MDs)". I had assumed that you had fixed it, but it was Alexbrn who did it. I was only commenting about that aspect, but I immediately deleted my comment and didn't get around to saying it. Sorry that my vagueness caused you to think I was 100% behind 100% of your suggestion, because I wasn't.

BTW, my placement of the 3RR template on your talk page is procedural. It serves as evidence that you were notified, in case you continue to restore your edit. The 3RR rule covers any edit in the area of that content, so be very careful to stay away from it, even if you aren't directly editing the words themselves. It all depends on the admin. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am obviously allowed to make edits to the article just as other editors are. You were the one who began automatically reverting my edits without bringing the issue to the talk forum first. You are the one who is in violation of BRD and the 3RR. You were also warned with the template as you began this edit war without following procedure. The topic that was edited was discussed prior to your participation in the talk page.DrBonesaw (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The matter was disputed, under discussion, and you did not have a consensus. You even restored your version AFTER being warned about 3RR. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you need to step away from this article for a bit. It is obvious from your recent contribution to this talk that you have become very emotional. You began the reverts, not I. Feel free to begin a conversation about my edit on the talk page. You haven't even made a clear claim as to why you reverted in the first place and seem to be making quite the fuss about an edit that didn't even change the content much.DrBonesaw (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Do I sense ownership issues here? I suggest you stop deciding who can edit or comment here, and also stop commenting on other editor's motives and learn to follow the policies here. We strongly frown on edit warring, even when you are right. I have started an AN/I thread here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DrBonesaw_reported_by_User:BullRangifer_.28Result:_.29

BTW, my edit summaries make it clear why I reverted your non-consensus edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ownership? Look at the first post in this "new" section you created. The article was making progress until you became belligerent today in talks. Instead of starting a section demanding that I do what you tell me to do (which is what happened today), it would have been wise to make a section discussing my edits, rather than auto reverting them repeatedly. This is forgoing the personal attacks that were even pointed out by other editors in the Fringe Topics discussion.DrBonesaw (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Protected 4 days

Due to the outstanding content dispute between several editors, I have protected this article for four days to give the editors a chance to continue working out the content issue here on the Talk page. Zad68 15:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding: Suggest trying WP:3O, asking for more input at appropriate project boards, or looking into starting a WP:RFC or WP:DRN case if it doesn't look like things will be resolved between just the editors here. Zad68 15:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not 3O because it's 5 editors involved. DRN could be good. First would it be possible to describe what the outstanding proposals are crisply? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No bites? Is it safe to assume then, that there is now consensus for the version of the article as it stands? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There always was, except for COI and SPA editors stirring the pot. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 05:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Consensus has not changed. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

More on pseudoscience, for your consideration

I just noticed that the excellent Science-Based Medicine blog recently published a piece on OM, DOs and pseudoscience. So: another source to throw into the mix. Maybe we could use it as well as, or instead of, one of the existing ones here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems as though this source would be better suited for the OMM article as it's content centers around the use of OMM and influenza.DrBonesaw (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

.....by D.O.s, hence the relevance here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent developments in AOA/ACGME talks

The article states that DO and MD post-graduate education will be merged by Jun 2015, which was the plan a while back, but since this summer the merger talks fell through. For now the plan is to keep them separate as they currently stand. I've never edited wikipedia besides fixing a typo or two so I'm not sure what to do. Hopefully one of you veterans can fix this.

http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/Pages/ACGME-single-accreditation-system.aspx

This link is to a reverse chronological timeline of recent developments in this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmcafert (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3