Jump to content

Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

New Editor

Hi! I see that someone is interested in editing this article, which is great! A few points:

  1. My Talk page might not be the best place to discuss your ideas about this article. It's preferred if you discuss articles on their Talk pages.
  2. You mentioned your concern that the "social movement" quote was repeated twice. I put it in the lead as a good summary statement of points elaborated on later in the article. (WP:LEAD)
  3. I agree with you quote about the convergence of allopathic and osteopathic medicine. I thought the Harrison's quote in the paragraph following your edit made their equality very clear. It essentially says exactly what you are saying. Do you disagree? Do you feel that the LEAD is misleading in some way?

Let's discuss this here, and work together to make the article better. Welcome aboard! PS, it would make editing easier if you had a Username, seeWP:UP. And always sign your comments with ~~~~. User:Hopping T 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes in meaning of D.O.

When was the D.O. changed to stand for "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine"? Acording to Kelman MacDonald (1925) in Osteopathy and its position in the British Isles, Still's American School of Osteopathy originally gave out a "Diploma in Osteopathy" and later awarded the degree of "Doctor of Osteopathy." NRPanikker 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the text, The First School of Osteopathic Medicine by Georga Walter published in Kirksville, MO by Thomas Jefferson University Press 1992 p 53-54, A. T. Still changed the "Diplomate in Osteopathy" degree to "Doctor of Osteopathy" prior to 1898 to avoid persecution by M.D.s of the day. The American Osteopathic Assocation changed the degree to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" in the 1970s.

Andrew Taylor Still M.D., D.O.

Charles Hill and H.A. Clegg state in What is Osteopathy (London: J M Dent 1937) , "Although Still was called 'doctor' he never took any qualifying degree. He apparently studied for a short time at the Kansas City School of Physicians and Surgeons, but, except for a reference to this in an article he contributed to the Ladies Home Journal in 1908, he remains silent about his medical education. His father probably taught him all he knew (...)" Most modern short accounts of osteopathy credit Still with an M.D., without stating where or when it was awarded, and a few also give him a D.O. Did he get one from his own college? NRPanikker 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good questions! I will try to look into this a bit too. Let me know if you find anything. The online osteopathic historical museum may have something about this. User:Hopping T 05:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the site you recommended. It states that Andrew Still was trained by apprenticeship, and attended some lectures later. There is no claim that he had an M.D. or a D.O.
The site also says that it is not known when Diplomates in Osteopathy became Doctors of Osteopathy. However, Still himself is quoted as saying it was necessary to become a diplomate before becoming a doctor of osteopathy. His college's charter from the state allowed it to grant MD degrees, but they chose to give diplomas in osteopathy instead. Perhaps that was sufficient authorisation to switch to a doctorate in osteopathy. NRPanikker 17:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a bit confusing. The "AT Still University" (the continuation of the school he founded) states very clearly that "he may have received additional, formal training at a school in Kansas City, but no records remain to establish where and when this training took place." [3] If anyone might inflate his credentials, it would be these guys, and they say flat out, "there's no record" of him having a medical degree at all. However, elsewhere, they do refer to him as "AT Still MD, DO." Which seems to be in conflict with their previous statement. [4]
I guess one way to handle this issue in the article would be to say "Although sources refer to ATS as an M.D., no formal record of his medical training exists."
He also has an autobiography. I'm not sure if he discusses his training in it.User:Hopping T 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Found an article that tangentially relates to this topic, if only in its title.
  • Mills MV. Wasn't A.T. Still an MD, too? J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2001 Feb;101(2):68-9. PMID 11293370
User:Hopping T 04:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The author, and MD, spends most of his time wishing that the AOA would allow MDs to learn OMM, and then offhand mentions that Still was an MD. I'm more swayed by the comments in Ladies' Home Journal. It appears that Still was a practicing physician, just not a physician who received an MD. To put that in the article, or to modify the way we address him here, there would have to be a better source, of course. Antelan talk 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I said "Found an article that tangentially relates to this topic, if only in its title." Right? Just wanting to make it clear that I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.User:Hopping T 05:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I just assume that others who are reading this conversation might want a summary of the article so they don't have to read it for themselves. Antelan talk 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Zacharyso (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Prior to the civil war the vast majority of practicing physicians in the US did not attend medical school with a formal medical curriculum. They were trained primarily through apprenticeships. Given this, whether he was ever awarded an MD seems inconsequential. What's important is that he was a practicing physician.

Hi Zacharyoso! Do you have any sources for this info? Bryan Hopping T 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I got it from "The D.O.'s" by Norman Gevitz. I can cite the page number at a later date. I'm not at home right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America, Norman Gevitz, 2004 (2nd Edition), paperback, The Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0-8018-7834-9. Page 4:

"American medicine in the 1850s and 1860s was generally characterized by poorly trained practitioners employing harsh therapies to combat disease entities they understood insufficiently. Before the Civil War the great majority of physicians had never attended medical school; they either had been trained through the apprenticeship system or were engaging in practice without benefit of any formal background."

Gevitz cites William Norwood, Medical Education in the United States before the Civil War (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944) and Martin Kaufman, American Medical Education: The Formative Years, 1765-1910 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1976) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Osteopathic Cultural Cringe?

The main article tells us that the training of American D.O.s is "virtually identical" to that of American M.D.s, yet they are described as "osteopathic physicians" or even "osteopathic medical physicians" who practice "osteopathic medicine" but are nevertheless to be distinguished from the M.D.s, who are always labelled as "allopathic." The original name of "osteopath" is excised from the text. Is there an element of cultural cringe going on here, not to say self-hatred? NRPanikker (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as a aside, I think there's major elements of both going on. More seriously, as it pertains to this article, I think you raise some important questions. The history of osteopathic medicine in the United States over the past 50 years is one of trying to establish this tenuous "separate, but equal" position within American medicine. No explanation is offered for this position, at least no rational one, but the rhetoric is passionate. At time, its difficult to find any agreement whatsoever as to even the definition of "osteopathic medicine," except that it is "separate, but equal" to allopathic medicine. There has been a great deal written on this tension, which many of the sources demonstrate.
As far as the word "osteopath" being excised from the text, you'll notice that it is actually used in a few of the quotes, so it hasn't been completely removed. However, the convention these days is to reserve the term "osteopathy" and "osteopath" for non-physicians practicing outside the U.S., and "osteopathic physician" and "osteopathic medicine" for physicians practicing within the U.S. If you have any suggestions on how to make this distinction clearer, I'd be very interested. The problem is, by all accounts, U.S. "osteopaths" have far more in common with U.S. "allopaths" than they do with European "osteopaths." I haven't found a very satisfying solution to this difficulty.
I'm curious, what do you think this article needs to make it better? Where is there too much, and where to little? What, if any, are the most significant POV issues? Other issues? User:Hopping T 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
These two article might be a good source for this question.

U.S. / Non-U.S.

I moved the content on osteopathy/osteopathic medicine in the U.K. to the osteopathy article. We've struggled with the international issue before, I'm following the general guidelines set out in these two discussion by various editors.

The "other uses" template above the article lead redirects readers to the osteopathy page. NRPanikker, if you find the current arrangement unsatisfying (understandably), we can revisit the issue of how to appropriately delineate the boundaries (or lack there of) for these articles.

There is a section for Osteopathy in the U.K. Osteopathy#Osteopathy_in_the_United_Kingdom User:Hopping T 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article on "Osteopathic Medicine" was meant for the eyes of Americans alone, it would have been appropriate to excise references to other countries: but the term is used in the titles of some colleges and the degrees awarded by them in the United Kingdom also, where there is clearly no distinction between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. This is similar to many forms of alternative medicine. No distinction can be drawn between homoeopathy and homoeopathic medicine, or between ayurveda and ayurvedic medicine. The American situation is closer to that in India where practitioners ostensibly qualified in another system incorporate forms of investigation and treatment from modern medicine, in which they may or may not have also been trained. NRPanikker (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved article to Osteopathic medicine (U.S.) Does that solve the problem? User:Hopping T 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's sort of a strange move, because there is no "osteopathic medicine" article. Perhaps at least a stub or a DAB should be created on "Osteopathic medicine" to avoid this confusion. Antelan talk 01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at WP:RELATED, WP:HAT, & WP:DAB, I see a few different possible solutions.
  1. Keep the status quo & clarify the hatlinks.
  2. Redirect Osteopathic medicine to Osteopathy, which is an article about worldwide osteo, with a short section on U.S. osteo that links to the main Osteopathic medicine (U.S.).
  3. Redirect all forms (osteopathic medicine, osteopathy, D.O., etc.) to a disambig page, with links to each article.
User:Hopping T 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
At a minimum, this article should probably be titled "Osteopathic medicine in the United States." Since pretty much all of the links to "osteopathic medicine" are related to US-practiced osteopathic medicine, I'd suggest having "Osteopathic medicine" redirect here and put {{otheruses4|osteopathic medicine, as practiced by physicians in the United States|osteopathy practiced in other countries|Osteopathy}} or {{Redirect|Osteopathic medicine|osteopathy practiced outside of the United States|Osteopathy}} on the top of this page. If at some point there start to be links to "osteopathic medicine" that are about osteopathy in other countries, then Osteopathic medicine could become a disambig page or redirect directly to Osteopathy. --Scott Alter 04:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Both sound reasonable. A question first (since I don't know): Is osteopathy outside of the USA (with "non-medically-trained osteopaths") referred to as "osteopathic medicine" or is it simply referred to as "osteopathy"? If it is referred to as osteopathic medicine in some cases, I would prefer Hopping's suggestion, creating a DAB and (manually) updating the wikilinks that are clearly intended to point to the USA page directly here. If the rest of the world simply calls it "osteopathy", then I think that keeping the redirect from osteopathic medicine pointed here and just creating dablinks on this page is OK. Antelan talk 05:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The above point was clarified in the paragraph recently cut out of the "Osteopathic Medicine" article for being Un-American. The relevant details are reproduced below.

Outside the United States, "osteopathic medicine" may be a synonym for osteopathy, rather than meaning "medicine practiced by people with D.O.s." For example, in the United Kingdom, there are eight schools of osteopathy or osteopathic medicine running four or five year courses: two award Bachelor of Osteopathy degrees, another creates Bachelors of Osteopathic Medicine, two give Bachelor of Science degrees with honours in Osteopathic Medicine and five (some colleges have two courses) hand out B.Sc. (Hons) degrees in Osteopathy.[1] The old Diploma in Osteopathy (often awarded along with a Diploma in Naturopathy) was abandoned after osteopathic training became integrated into the British university system. Despite the difference in nomenclature, these degree courses all lead to statutory registration with the General Osteopathic Council and not the General Medical Council. The American sense of the term is approximated most closely by the London College of Osteopathic Medicine[2] which teaches osteopathy to medical graduates from all over the world. NRPanikker (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ General Osteopathic Council [1]
  2. ^ London College of Osteopathic Medicine [2]
In that case, I would support creating a true DAB page at osteopathic medicine, with a link to this page being one of the DABs, instead of redirecting that article here. Antelan talk 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm uncertain as to which way to proceed. I'm looking at other articles where there's similar country specific issues like Chinatown or Communist Party, to see how others have dealt with this. I can't seem to find a guideline that directly addresses these issues. I created a Template which might be helpful. Thoughts? User:Hopping T 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Osteopathic Medicine and Osteopathy
Osteopathy in Australia and New Zealand
Osteopathic medicine in Canada
Osteopathy in Europe Osteopathy in the UK
Osteopathic medicine in the United States
This box:

I doubt that a lay user is looking for info on all of the different types of osteopathic medicine. They probably just want to know about it as it pertains to them, where they are. Given the above, I don't think think another template is necessary. If a DAB feels too short, we could do something like what has been done for medical school - write an article that is essentially a list, but gives a bit more explanation than you see in a DAB (a paragraph instead of a sentence). Antelan talk 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Such an article seems to already exist. Osteopathy_around_the_world User:Hopping T 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's excellent. We could just split that from the osteopathy article and make that the "osteopathic medicine" article. Thoughts? I'll propose it on that page if we agree it's a good idea. Antelan talk 00:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This seems a very involved, and somewhat convoluted, way of getting across the simple point that American osteopaths mostly practice medicine and not osteopathy. NRPanikker (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
NRPanikker, I agree with you, but the only reason we are suggesting all these changes is because you felt the current naming arrangement was ambiguous. What do you suggest be done? User:Hopping T 01:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather than make out that "Osteopathic Medicine" is a distinct profession practiced only in the U.S., why not keep a single set of articles relating to "osteopathy," and make it clear that in the United States D.O.s are trained mostly in medicine and can practice that profession exclusively, but they are also trained in osteopathy and some work in that field to a greater or lesser extent? NRPanikker (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what we're doing. Antelan talk 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that's what we are trying to do. I'm not sure what the problem is, or what NRPanikker would prefer. It seem the current article Osteopathy makes the exact points that NRPanikker is suggesting. User:Hopping T 02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So how about redirecting Osteopathic medicine to Osteopathy, maybe adding a little more osteopathic medicine content throughout the osteopathy article, and calling this article Osteopathic medicine in the United States? --Scott Alter 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


My personal preference would be for osteopathy and osteopathic medicine to point to a disambig page similiar to the following:

disambig candidate

Osteopathic medicine and osteopathy are sometimes used interchangeably. They may refer to:

I like this approach because its brief, and quickly points the reader where they want to go, which is very likely one of these two places. User:Hopping T 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean a page somewhat like this one: Osteopathy (disambiguation) ? apers0n (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at that! And its been there for quite a while. Perhaps we should just direct there with hatnotes, but leave the redirects as they are for now? Bryan Hopping T 03:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a distinction between non-U.S. "osteopathy" and U.S. "osteopathy/osteopathic medicine" i.e. the American D.O. degree which is a well-recognized medical degree. Carolinskis (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): } b (MoS): }
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): } b (citations to reliable sources): } c (OR): }
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): } b (focused): }
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: }
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: }
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): } b (appropriate use with suitable captions): }
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: }

This is certainly a very good article. It is well written, comphrehensive and nicely structured, (with which I was particularly impressed). There were some minor Wiki linking of years issues, (which I have fixed) and some even minor referencing ones, (which I fixed too). The article would benefit from making some of the headings intelligible, this one for example is not. 1969, AMA residencies open to DOs nor is this one, 1976-1987, Principle 3 and Wilk v. AMA. They make the article difficult to read, because I kept thinking I had missed something. They could read something like: House of Delegates approval , for example. Also, the article would benefit from some criticism of the practice; the neutrality is not clear. Having said that, I great contribution, well done. Something to be proud of.--GrahamColmTalk 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of images ?

I must admit, I find the rules governing use of images a bit baffling. I understand that for images of copyrighted logos, a fair use justification must be given for every page on which the image appears. Is it possible to add this page to the fair use explanations of the school logo pages, or is that stretching the fair use policy beyond reasonable? Bryan Hopping T 15:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on the use of copyrighted logos is more restrictive than those actually in copyright law. I do think they can be too restrictive, but I just follow the rules. My understanding is that Wikipedia only permits copyrighted logos (and images) to appear on the article for which the logo represents, for identification purposes. Usually, non-free items are minimally used and only if their use adds to the understanding of the article. I don't think using schools' logos on this article would be fair use. A fair use rationale must include the purpose for including the item, and must answer yes to: "is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?" per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos if you have time for a long read that should clarify things. --Scott Alter 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the rule book. I'll look into other ways of generating legal images which may enhance the article.Bryan Hopping T 19:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The external links section should be cleaned up per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK. Given that the article is extremely well sourced, I think this section should only include links to articles that are reliable sources on the topic that not currently used and that contain information not already well-covered in the article or current references. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the external links section contains no links to articles, reliable or otherwise. Its mostly a listing of organizations/groups that are relevant with the topic "Osteopathic medicine in the US." If this is nonkosher within WP:EL then it should be removed, or limited to what's appropriate. Limiting it only to sources however, seems redundant to the references section. Bryan Hopping T 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"the external links section contains no links to articles, reliable or otherwise" Yes, that's the problem. So what I'm saying is it should be removed completely until more appropriate external links are found. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine and primary care

This topic seems much discussed by current authors / papers regarding Osteopathic medicine and seems particularly noteworthy to the overall topic. I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on how to distill this discussion within this article. Here's some sources that discuss it:

Bryan Hopping T 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC closing notes

On closing the FAC, I wanted to mention something that wasn't highlighted by any of the reviewers; in addition to the issues raised, there is extensive WP:MOS cleanup needed throughout, so a peer review might be helpful before re-approaching FAC, or you might ping Epbr123 (talk · contribs) who is a good MoS reviewer. On peer review, see the suggestions at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Allopathy

Though I stated that I didn't mind reverting of my edit removing "allopathy" in the article, I am troubled by the tone of this edit. Please assume that I know that there are a few sources that use the term, and that I read those sources. However, many editors and most physicians find it pejorative and insulting. I find very few articles on Wikipedia that refer to "allopathic" physicians except for Alternative medicine articles. Every single other medical article refers to physicians as physicians, and by assumption, includes DO's if they are licensed to practice Medicine as they are in the United States. This article can stand on its two feet without utilizing a pejorative term. And yes, I've shot off a rather long and pointed email to the American Medical Association on how offensive I find it that they consider my hard-earned MD at one of the top Medical Schools in the country to be "allopathic." OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the discussion, Hopping. This uncommon and derogatory term was massively overused in this article, without note that some find it offensive. Even after the recent edits there are still over ten occurrences of this term on this page. --82.253.69.22 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to this Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States page. Do you want to register so we can keep track of your comments & edits for this article? That would be really helpful. Bryan Hopping T 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is pseudoscientific bull.

And if you ever read the journals you will see that most of the claims in this article about the validity of osteopathic practices which are different from "allopathic" practices, are in fact ineffective at best. I love how this article uses the term "allopathic" by the way, since it was invented by the founder of homeopathy, which also is pseudoscientific bullshit. --75.63.51.33 (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article specifically mentions these criticisms at many points. Do you feel there's more references we could cite? Also, this article is about Osteopathic medicine in the US, as a whole. Specific info and discussions about the validity of of Osteopathic manipulative therapy belong in that article, though I think its good to touch upon them here as well, which has been attempted in the current version. Do u agree? Bryan Hopping T 04:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

United States and Canada

  • "North America" refers to Canada, US, Mexico, and (usually) Central America.
  • There are no Colleges of Osteopathic medicine in Canada.
  • This article discusses Osteopathic medicine, as taught in the United States, hence the title.
  • There are at least two colleges in Canada that teach what they refer to as "osteopathy," a topic not discussed in this article.
  • If you want to properly discuss this issue, I'd suggest creating an article called "Osteopathic medicine in Canada."

Bryan Hopping T 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


DO Stigma

A recent edit adding a section titled DO Stigma was removed as poorly sourced. It reads as opinion with whole paragraphs not supported by citations and even citing a tweet as supporting information, as you can imagine the notability of a tweet is of questionable encyclopedic value. Besides, the so called DO stigma pre-dates the discussion on national news regarding Trump's physician which makes this discussion appear politicized when it does not need to be. A quick search with the words stigma and osteopathic yields hundreds of news, opinion and journal articles about the topic which makes the lack of citations look as a poor investigation effort not worth of encyclopedic publication.

There is also a whole Wikipedia article comparing DO vs MD (Comparison of MD and DO in the United States). RevertedMedGME (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Rytyho usa (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

For-profit Medical Education

More recently, the topic of for-profit medical education has become an issue.

Is this an issue? Dumaka (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See section Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States#For-profit_medical_education for details and references. Bryan Hopping T 04:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Different from Osteopathy, right?

It would be good to have a section (however brief) on the relationship and differences between Osteopathic medicine in the United States and Osteopathy. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but beyond the historical connection (which the article discusses) there is (nearly) no relationship between these entities, though there once very much was. What would be even better would be a graphic showing the relationship between chiropratic, osteopathic, osteopathy (canadian, european, american) and mainstream modern medicine? Also, a "history of" article might be in order.Bryan Hopping T 02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction Too Long Tag

I had tagged this article as having an introduction too long, but this tag was removed. I think it ought to be re-added, because this article clearly goes against the WP guidelines about lead sections, namely that "The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs." While all of the information currently in the intro section seems relevant, and is very well sourced, it should probably go in a "History" section, and the introduction should be a short, concise summary. Jhfortier (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Having received no response for a month, I'm going to go ahead and re-add the "intro too long" tag. Per the WP guidelines on layout and introductory sections, this introduction is too long and should be shortened to include only a summary of what is in the article. Jhfortier (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Professional attitudes and criticism

"Some DO's do choose to sit for the USMLE in order to obtain competitive MD residency programs achieving an overall pass rate of 69%-73% on Step 1 (compared with a 91% pass rate for MD's)[57]" These statistics are very outdated being from 2004. The latest statistics (2008) should replace those currently being used, and for the record, the DO pass rate is much higher (80%). I have provided the following link to the most recent stats, still using the usmle.org website as a source.

http://www.usmle.org/Scores_Transcripts/performance/2008.html

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.226.118 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is outdated info. It is really school dependent as well especially for the best osteopathic schools - for example, TCOM (Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine) graduates just posted a 94% pass rate for 2010 USMLE1. Latest (2009) USMLE3 scores show a 96% pass rate for DOs vs. 93% for MDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.73.81 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Combining OM in the US and Comparison of DOs & MDs

I see that there has been much talk the past few years about combining these two pages. I have tried to do so in a coherant way that is also encyclopedic in nature, with hard facts. There was much old urban legend and unsubstatiated opinion that was in these pages or material that was frankly outdated. This has meant going to the original source material, in as much as possible. Many historic document are now being posted online by the state of Missouri, JAOA, JAMA, etc. The AT Still Museum has now scanned many documents, but requires login access (not sure how to handle that stylewise - couldn't find anything in the WIKI MOS on that one.) I would welcome some advice as to how to handle that properly.DrATStill (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Space Bar

Whoever wrote this article needs to get it fixed.204.140.185.228 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please limit <cquote> use

<cquote> is overused and incorrectly in this article (see instructions for use at Template:Cquote). This may overemphasize certain points and decrease reading flow. Please use {{quote}} or <blockquote></blockquote> instead. -Temporal User (Talk) 08:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

I removed the POV tag at the top of the article. There is no discussion concerning the neutrality of the article, and the only recent discussions concern possibly wrong statistics. The editor who placed the tag did not start a discussion, nor did he explain the tag in the edit summary. If you're going to take the time to tag an article you could at least explain why you're doing it so someone can correct the problem. Primium mobile (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference

As a reader and autodidact, I came here wanting to learn the difference between an M.D. and a D.O. There's nothing here (or if there is it's deeply hidden) that says "D.O.'s have different letters after their name because _____________." In fact, quite the opposite. It seems the entire article has been written by D.O.'s on a mission to prove they're really no different. So far, the only difference I can tell is that they study the musculoskeletal system for a couple 100 more hours.

If I pay money to go see a D.O., how is my experience as a patient going to be different than if I went to see an M.D.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.146.227.4 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's because osteopathic physicians are now, in nearly all respects, indistinguishable from their M.D. counterparts. I understand your point that this article does not focus on the differences between the two but the article's title is not indicating that it is going to focus solely on the differences between M.D.'s and D.O.'s. That article would be the Comparison of M.D. and D.O. in the United States which is a separate article though that article too focuses on their similarities more so than their differences. Again, that is because M.D.'s and D.O.'s have far more similarities than differences today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What I (and probably a lot of people) wonder, is why, if M.D.s and D.O.s are basically identical these days, why there still is a separate "branch of medicine" of O.M.? jae (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jae:There is an article in Science-Based Medicine which explains the difference well... See here for the pertinent quote/ref I added. I believe something from this ref should be added to THIS article as well. 16:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a major issue in this article and the article comparing MDs and DOs. It's all about DOs trying to convince people that they are just as good as MDs. Natureium (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature DO vs Osteopathic Physician

I really do not see a clear distinction between the use of DO and osteopathic physician. In fact, the article states at the beginning that osteopathic physicians are known as DOs. DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and yes, while it is also the name of the degree, people refer to Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine as DOs as well as osteopathic physicians and MDs as medical doctors or Doctors of Medicine which are equivalent to the name of the degree. I think that changing the phrase osteopathic physician to DO is a more parallel comparison if we're comparing MDs to DOs and not "allopathic" physicians to "osteopathic physicians" that kind of nomenclature has fallen out of favor. The convention in the article is also to use MD and I think a parallel comparison should be used in the interest of NPOV not to mention that it makes each sentence a bit more concise. Feel free to respond on my talk page if you wish to discuss the matter further. If you still disagree perhaps we should consult wikipedia's editors or third parties, etc and see if they think there is enough of a distinction that osteopathic physician must be used or whether DO is a satisfactory replacement and is synonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Take for example the following sentence: "DOs are licensed to practice the full scope of medicine and surgery in all 50 states, equivalent to their MD counterparts." This sentence comes straight from the wikipedia page called Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and while the first sentence in the article says DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, the degree, it is also clear from the context of this sentence( and many others) that "DOs" is not referring to the degree but to the holder of the degree. So, while I do not disagree with your assessment that DO refers to the professional doctorate degree, I disagree with the statement that DO cannot be used to describe the holder of this professional degree in a similar manner to the way MDs are described and assert that DO is synonymous with osteopathic physician, especially considering common usage. Even the AOA uses it synonymously if you need more concrete evidence of its being used in this way. http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/what-is-a-do/Pages/default.aspxDoctorK88 (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature DO vs Osteopathic Physician

There is currently a dispute over whether or not DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is a valid substitution for the term osteopathic physician in this article. Only a few editors have participated in this discussion and to ensure that a comprehensive, representative stance is taken on this issue, more opinions are needed. Objections have included potential for confusion in distinguishing the DO degree from DOs (the holders of this degree), the formality of the term and recognition of the term. Counterarguments have included potential confusion between the terms "osteopathic physician" (U.S. trained) and "osteopath" (foreign trained), the use of the term DO as synonymous with osteopathic physician by the profession's central organizations, medical literature, government pages, and other encyclopedias as well as the fact that the term is clearly defined at the article's start and links out to Wikipedia's Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine article. Also, please note that a modification to this proposal has also been offered: to expand DO to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and MD to Doctor of Medicine instead of the proposed change. Please discuss, a wide variety of opinions is needed and welcomed. It is encouraged that whether or not you agree with the proposed change that you make other suggestions for change instead of simply shooting down ideas. Please make your decision based on evidence, logical arguments, and wikipedia's policies. Thank you. DoctorK88 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I really do not see a clear distinction between the use of DO and osteopathic physician. In fact, the article states at the beginning that osteopathic physicians are known as DOs. DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and yes, while it is also the name of the degree, people refer to Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine as DOs as well as osteopathic physicians and MDs as medical doctors or Doctors of Medicine which are equivalent to the name of the degree. I think that changing the phrase osteopathic physician to DO is a more parallel comparison if we're comparing MDs to DOs and not "allopathic" physicians to "osteopathic physicians" that kind of nomenclature has fallen out of favor. The convention in the article is also to use MD and I think a parallel comparison should be used in the interest of NPOV not to mention that it makes each sentence a bit more concise. Feel free to respond on my talk page if you wish to discuss the matter further. If you still disagree perhaps we should consult wikipedia's editors or third parties, etc and see if they think there is enough of a distinction that osteopathic physician must be used or whether DO is a satisfactory replacement and is synonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added byDoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Take for example the following sentence: "DOs are licensed to practice the full scope of medicine and surgery in all 50 states, equivalent to their MD counterparts." This sentence comes straight from the wikipedia page called Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and while the first sentence in the article says DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, the degree, it is also clear from the context of this sentence( and many others) that "DOs" is not referring to the degree but to the holder of the degree. So, while I do not disagree with your assessment that DO refers to the professional doctorate degree, I disagree with the statement that DO cannot be used to describe the holder of this professional degree in a similar manner to the way MDs are described and assert that DO is synonymous with osteopathic physician, especially considering common usage. Even the AOA uses it synonymously if you need more concrete evidence of its being used in this way.http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/what-is-a-do/Pages/default.aspxDoctorK88 (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

AACOMAS uses these terms interchangeably as well. DO is used both as the degree and also to name the holder of the degree (osteopathic physicians or DOs). You should be able to find it on the second or third page on this link: http://www.aacom.org/resources/bookstore/cib/Documents/2012cib/2012cib-p21-23.pdfDoctorK88 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We need a convention for the article. I would favor using the term "osteopathic physician" whenever possible, and using "DO" preferentially to refer to the degree, to avoid confusion. Bryan Hopping T 22:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree. In everyday use and by the profession DO and osteopathic physician are used interchangeably to refer to the holder of a DO degree. I have seen on your own talk page other users expressing the sentiment that they are more familiar with the title DO when compared to that of osteopathic physician and the purpose of wikipedia articles is to inform and be as accessible as possible. Not to mention that DO is a more concise term than that of osteopathic physician and is a more parallel term for comparison to MD than osteopathic physician. Again, I have seen on your talk page that many people have expressed contempt for the terms allopath or allopathic because of the negative connotations associated with it. Although osteopathic physician does not have this stigma/association in the DO community, it is not only cumbersome to say osteopathic physician in every sentence, it is part of the allopathic/osteopathic dichotomy which has fallen out of favor. My last point is that I have seen a great deal of confusion over the differences between osteopathic physicians and osteopaths from foreign nations. Using the term DO would probably eliminate this confusion completely since the titles are different enough. I understand that it is your personal preference to use osteopathic physician in place of DO but the fact remains that DO is an acceptable substitute for the term osteopathic physician, that all of my points are valid, and that it is commonly used, if not more so, than osteopathic physician by professional organizations such as the AOA and AACOMAS. If you still cannot see eye-to-eye with me on this issue then I strongly recommend that we seek the opinion of an administrator or someone of comparable stature to resolve/mediate the issue. Understand, I hold you in the highest respect since I saw that you are a DO yourself and I am currently a medical student at a DO school myself but I must disagree with your personal preference which is not part of NPOV. Granted, I prefer DO over osteopathic physician, but I am okay with the term osteopathic or osteopathic physician in the article but your reverted all of my edits that I changed from osteopathic physician to DO which were based on logical reasons that improved the writing style, the conciseness of many sentences, varied the sentence structure and would greatly reduce confusion among those seeking to learn about DOs and osteopathic medicine (especially how it differs from foreign osteopaths, a group that DOs really do not want to be confused with at all). To allow public perceptions to conflate osteopathic physicians and osteopaths is a disservice to the public and to the osteopathic physician profession. I look forward to your response and hope it is favorable. If it is not, I recommend we seek official mediation by wikipedia to determine if my substitutions of DO for osteopathic physician are valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It will be crystal clear for readers from the context that holders of the degree, DOs are the ones practicing, learning, and training in certain ways. People understand that when it is written that MDs perform surgery, that it is not the degree performing the surgery but the holder of the degree. The same will apply here so that does not really seem like a valid objection.DoctorK88 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, while reverting my edits you made a mistake. You reverted an edit I made that changed how many foreign countries DOs have full practice rights in from 55 back down to 47 which is inaccurate, outdated information. It is over 50 countries now and according to other articles about 55 countries or so that DOs are given full practice rights and many others give partial rights. It would be greatly appreciated if you would correct this error. Thank you.DoctorK88 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
One final note to make-DO does not need an apostrophe after it every time it is used plurally. That should be reserved for possessive usage. If you need evidence that the plural of DO can be DOs I urge you to look at the following links from the AOA:

http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/Pages/default.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/dos-around-the-world/Pages/default.aspx http://www.aacom.org/resources/e-news/ome/2011-03/Pages/LoanRepayment.aspx (This one in particular demonstrates all my points that the plural of DO is DOs and that DO can be used in place of osteopathic physician to describe the holder of the degree and this comes from one of the most prominent professional organizations in the DO field). Again, if we cannot come to an agreement I still suggest dispute resolution though I hope you see my point.

You are most certainly correct that many reputable organizations in medicine use the acronym "DO" to refer to an osteopathic physician, as does this article in many places. The issue is not IF the acronym should be used, but when. Since this is an encyclopedia, we should use the clearest terms possible. Use "DO" when absolutely necessary, but use "osteopathic physician" with greater frequency for clarity and to maintain consistency with the articles title: "Osteopathic medicine in the United States." Bryan Hopping T 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I see your notification about dispute resolution. I think we could work this out here . . . there's much about this issue that we agree upon. Bryan Hopping T 02:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we have a fundamental disagreement about clarity. I maintain that DO is clearer (and other people have expressed this same sentiment to you on your own talk page) because it is distinct enough from the term osteopath that the likelihood of people conflating these terms, as they often do, will be diminished. Again, for clarity DO is a term clearly defined at the start of the article and it is clear from the context of the sentence that DO can also mean the holder of the degree and if you read the sources I provided you, you would see that the meaning of DO is unambiguous given the context of the sentence. Furthermore, I have new references if you like that also shows that it is more than professional DO organizations that use the term this way but academic papers and government pages (the objection of its use as a colloquial term, which is false, prompted my search for scholarly articles that use the phrase in this manner). The confusion argument does not seem legitimate to me if a clear definition of the term is given, which it is, and because of context. It is absolutely a valid substitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, your previous arguments did seem to suggest that, contrary to what you said now, you did not think the acronym should be used at all in this way since you said the phrase is only used for the degree which I have proved to be false. DoctorK88 (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopping, this was brought to my attention, it addresses the concern regarding the usage of apostrophes for the plural of DO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS#Abbreviations — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Oppose abbreviation for multiple reasons that have been covered in previous discussions (linked below):
    1. A quick glance at the disambiguation page DO shows more than a dozen WP:Notable subjects that use the same abbreviation, making it confusing to some readers.
    2. Multiple medicine-savvy editors from outside the USA have indicated that this abbreviation is unfamiliar to them.
    3. WP:MOS#Abbreviations says "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations: Avoid abbreviations when they might confuse the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal." There's no space restraint here; we can avoid any potential confusion or appearance of informality by spelling it out.
    4. Not everyone with a DO degree is a licensed physician, and the use of the degree confuses the important distinction. For example, "Osteopathic physicians enter primary care fields at a higher rate than their MD-holding counterparts" is correct, but a DO who is not a licensed physician can go to jail if he sets up a primary care practice. "DO holders" don't get to practice medicine; "licensed physicians who happen to hold DOs" do.
    5. Although DO-supporting organizations like the AOA use the degree to refer to the person, no general-purpose encyclopedia uses the abbreviation when they refer to licensed physicians rather than the academic degrees they hold. Wikipedia should look and read like an encyclopedia, not like unencyclopedic sources.
    6. We don't do this with other degrees: We don't say "MBBChs prescribe medications in Egypt" when we mean "Physicians prescribe medications in Egypt". We don't say "MSNs screen children for ear infections" when we mean "Nurse practitioners screen children for ear infections". We should not treat this any differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support abbreviation for multiple reasons that have been covered in previous discussions as shown in the link already provided:
  • Addressing WhatamIdoing's first point, the article clearly defines what DO means in the context of the article at the article's start. Furthermore, osteopathic physician (US trained) is a term that can be confused with osteopath (foreign trained) so that is true for both sides.
  • How are we defining "medicine-savvy editors?" What is more important is the representative view of the wikipedia community as a whole, not this specific portion of it which may be a minority of readers.
  • Again, "unwarranted abbreviations" how are we defining this? This abbreviation, as well as that of MD which is understood to represent Doctors of Medicine, is present throughout many articles of wikipedia. DO is defined at the beginning of this article. Conciseness is one element of good writing. The counteroffer of expanding both M.D. and D.O. to Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, respectively has been offered.
  • It is clear from context in a sentence what DO means. Readers will understand that in a sentence such as this: DOs complete four years of medical school, several years of residency, can perform surgery and prescribe medications, etc. that it is not the degree, a piece of paper, that is performing the action but the holder of the degree. A sentence can be included to make it clear that not all holders of medical degrees are licensed to practice to address this source of confusion, 1-2 sentences should suffice.
  • More than just DO-supporting organizations like the AOA use the degree to refer to the person which WhatamIdoing has conveniently omitted. The term is also present in other formal areas such as articles in peer-reviewed research journals, government pages and his claim that it is not present in other general-purpose encyclopedias is false. Another encyclopedia was shown but WhatamIdoing insisted that source after source had a problem without providing evidence to back up this claim.
  • Actually, we do do this with other degrees. It occurs with M.D. all of the time. Even in this article as well as in others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    Everyone knows what your opinion is: you're the person who started the RFC (and the three previous discussions). It's not necessary for you to repeat it here, and being perceived to "argue with" people who aren't involved in editing this article usually backfires (even if you don't mean to be arguing). RFC isn't exactly a back-and-forth debate. It's a request for comments, and your primary job is to sit back and let other people comment. The more text you put in this section, and the more you attempt to rebut comments, the fewer people who will be willing to comment, and the less open they'll be to your position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
And everyone knows your point of view from the linked discussions so it was just as pointless to put your summed up (arguably non-neutral view). Before you intervened in what looked to me like a thinly-disguised attempt to sway other editors to your viewpoint, I was sitting back and letting people comment without interference. I started this Rfc but I did not inject my opinion into it and only summed up the nature of the debate. I presented a balanced statement to keep my summary neutral. Again, please stop with the condescending tone in your comments towards me. Thanks. DoctorK88 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Qualified support I am not in favour of any avoidable abbreviation in a medium like Wikipedia in formal article content. The likes of "WP" in informal talk mode are "OK". Anyway, I am too sceptical of osteopathy to be properly NPOV. However, given that the terms are properly defined and explained and used repeatedly in suitable context in the article, I cannot see that any of the objections carry enough weight to override the preferences of the author. Using the abbreviation outside the article is another matter. It might be worth policing disambiguation pages etc, and pages in which osteopathy is not the primary topic. We are drowning in acronyms anyway. But within this article none of this strikes me as storm-outside-teacup stuff; how come we have time to argue it? JonRichfield (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
With the exception of the skepticism of osteopathy (which is different from osteopathic medicine), I fully agree with JonRichfield's points about the clarity of the definition and sufficient explanation for the use of the abbreviation.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Re the RFC request

Editors considering a response to the RFC request should first consider whether or not consensus has already been recently reached on this issue in the combined discussions at:

(either of which may have rolled off to their respective archives by the time the RFC closes). A summary may be found in the "Closing comments" in the DRN thread. In any event, the opinions given in those discussions should be considered when evaluating consensus under the currently-pending RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarity

Dear Hopping, I really do not think saying Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine is an unnecessary title when this is commonly what they are called, frankly, they are called this more often than osteopathic physicians in the real world. It makes perfect sense in the way that individuals who have earned the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree are often called Medical Doctors. I realize that my firsthand knowledge and experience with Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine is only anecdotal evidence but I assure you that many places including academic literature, the AOA, and other encyclopedia entries use the title Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine interchangeably with osteopathic physician. The title I used also draws a starker contrast to the term "osteopath" which, as the article discusses, is frequently a source of confusion for many people trying to distinguish Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine from non-U.S. osteopaths. Additionally, I explained why I replaced osteopathic with D.O.-awarding or DO, the reason is simply: it is a more direct and appropriately parallel comparison to M.D. If you are going to call them MD schools or MD students then you call the other side of the coin DO schools and DO students, etc and we do not use allopathic for the M.D. students or schools since this has pejorative implications associated with its usage. I hope this clarifies why I put that title there. If you still do not agree with this edit, you should explain how exactly your edit "improves clarity." I strongly encourage you to have a discussion with me before reverting my edit(s) since this a courteous thing to do on wikipedia and I wish to assume good faith but to do so you must discuss this with me before reverting my edits as I wish to avoid an edit war.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Since this article was created many years ago, nomenclature has been a contentious topic. At many points, the consensus was to have these questions of nomenclature addressed in the section entitled "nomenclature." Bryan Hopping T 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
We recently had a length RfC process involving many editors on this EXACT topic. This issue has been extensively discussed. SEE:
Before again making new changes to the article on this issue (changing titles to DO in the article), please evaluate the discussion of these articles. Bryan Hopping T 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I did evaluate them and it was never definitively put to rest Hopping and it is discourteous to keep reverting my edits like you did before the completion of this discussion and a solution are reached not to mention communicating that you were moving our literal discussion here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what else I can do. I would refer you to the recent discussions of this topic above. I hope that is helpful to you. Bryan Hopping T 02:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing else to do Hopping. You clearly have no counterargument to mine that the matter is not closed. Until the discussion is closed and consensus is reached on both the old and new disputes, please refrain from reverting.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I am willing and interested in working this out. Why don't we start with a description of the changes you would like to make? Are their specific suggestions you have for edits? Bryan Hopping T 01:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems like it is too late for you to start being constructive now given the ridiculous actions you have taken. The inconsistency between your actions and your words is truly staggering. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


There's always opportunity for a clean, fresh start. I appreciate your passion and your dedication. Let's see if we can work together! Bryan Hopping T 18:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I will work with others on this issue but I refuse to work with you after the puerile stunts you pulled. You really should be ashamed about how you acted.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
If you intend continuing to edit at Wikipedia, would you please become familiar with how the place works. In brief, no more back-and-forth on an article talk page with opinions about another editor. This page is for discussion on improvements to the article only. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree though there is no need to say it with a rude tone-basic part of wikipedia etiquette for someone lecturing us on wikipedia policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_etiquette Anyway, that aside, you are right, I will no longer be having a discussion with Hopping. All I have wanted from the beginning is a full discussion about the issue I have raised and for a conclusion to be drawn by the community before taking action.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity in article intro

"Though still trained in Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM),[4] the modern derivative of Still's techniques,[5][6] an increasing minority of osteopathic medical physicians continue to use it in actual practice.[7][8]"

Does this mean that current trends have a small and decreasing number of practitioners of Still's techniques, or a small but increasing number of them? Additionally: is the trend (in whichever direction) related to changes in the proportion of practitioners expressing a particular preference, or a matter of absolute numbers driven by expansion/contraction in the total population of practitioners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.247.228 (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of title

Someone put a tag on the article suggesting that the title or title's implications are under dispute. I'm interested in addressing those concerns. While this article, like others, continues to develop, I don't think there are any changes to the title that are necessary. Does anyone care to weigh in? Rytyho usa (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'll weigh in. Not needed. I'm removing. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds great - thank you. Rytyho usa (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Shortening of the lead

@MedGME, You recently shortened the length of the lead significantly, citing redundancy as the reason. To an extent, redundancy is expected or normal for a lead section, since it is meant to serve as both an introduction and as a stand-alone summary of the whole article. Have a look at WP:MOSLEAD for more information (including MOS:LEADLENGTH). Based on this, I think much of the lead should be restored (perhaps abbreviated from its prior form). What are your thoughts? Other editors' thoughts? Rytyho usa (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I think summarization was lacking. However, I do agree we may bring back some of it. Let me work on the suggested abbreviation. I will post it later today. I appreciate the feedback. MedGME (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=1137063584"