User talk:Jwri7474/Archive 1

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Bachelor of Dentistry article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Wickethewok 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Bachelor of Dentistry, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wickethewok 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Bachelor of Dentistry

• Please don't post text you copy/pasted from web pages. If you continue, you can be blocked from editing. Wickethewok 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons, by TenPoundHammer, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

MD not a true doctorate

None of the sources you gave stated that the MD degree is not a doctorate. I don't think you will find any sources that say an MD is not a doctorate. The second source says the MD is an undergraduate degree at its institution, but does not use the word doctorate at all. The first source says "first-professional degrees in these fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees" and they "incorporate the term "Doctor," but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D." All this says is that it is not research doctorates and not the same as PhDs. It does not say anything about not being a doctorate. If it weren't a doctorate, the degree wouldn't contain the word "doctor." You may believe that only research doctorates or PhDs are real doctorates, but that is your POV. I'm not sure why you are trying to overly stress this, since I think it is clearly stated, but keep the tone neutral and use reliable sources to back up your edits. --Scott Alter 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct: MD is not a true doctorate

An MD is a second-entry, first-professional degree. It is not a doctorate merely because it has the word, doctor, in it. In fact, eons ago, graduates of medical schools received Bachelors of Medicine, much as many Commonwealth graduates of law still receive Bachelors of Law (although these are now being replaced by JDs (law equivalent to an MD) in some Canadian schools to reflect the second-entry, first-professional nature of the degree). The Bachelor of Medicine was replaced by the MD degree to indicate the second-entry, first-professional nature of this minimum, professional degree in medicine. This is all discussed in Wikipedia’s article on the topic: see here and here.

Before writing this, I polled many of my partner’s physician colleagues, and, almost to a person, they were embarrassed at the suggestion that theirs is a doctorate-level degree. In fact, the post-graduate equivalent in medicine to a doctorate (i.e., PhD) is the achievement of certification in a sub-specialty which usually takes one into ones early thirties (assuming education straight from secondary to post secondary to medicine to specialty residency to sub-specialy fellowship). Examples would be certification by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Canada as a Medical Oncologist, a Neuro Radiologist, a Neuro Surgeon, etc. There are no PhD's in medicine: One obtains a sub-specialty.

Generally, a first-professional degree such as an MD, JD, etc., is an “award that requires completion of a program that meets all of the following criteria: (1) completion of the academic requirements to begin practice in the profession; (2) at least 2 years of college work prior to entering the program; (3) at total of at least 6 academic years of college work to complete the degree, including prior required college work plus the length of the professional program itself.”

First-professional degrees may be awarded in the following 10 fields:

Chiropractic (D.C., D.C.M.)

Dentistry (D.D.S., D.M.D.)

Medicine (M.D.)

Optometry (O.D.)

Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.)

Pharmacy (Pharm.D.)

Podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., Pod.D.)

Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.)

Law (LL.B., J.D.)

Theology (M.Div., M.H.L., B.D., or Ordination)

In the licenced professions (e.g., medicine, law, etc.), licencing requirements almost always entail the obtaining of a second-entry, first-professional degree. This degree, which is sometimes even referred to as a “bachelors,” is necessary for entry into the specific profession and obtaining of a licence therein. — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

References

— SpikeToronto (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Undergraduate Medical Education

I have yet to find an reference that the US MD is not a "real" doctorate. There are many sources that say it is not a research doctorate, but nothing saying it is not a doctorate. What I added to Undergraduate degree contains no inaccurate information. I just expanded it to include information specific to the US. If you want to mention how first professional degrees are handled in other countries, go ahead. I won't revert your text if you constructively add information (as you did to me). In fact, I added references that you proceeded to delete. I do agree that the US MD = MBBS. Despite the equality of education received, the US government still considers the MD and other first professional degrees mentioned here to be graduate degrees. This is what I am referencing in the article. The educations may be exactly the same, but in the US, the professional doctorates are considered to be at the graduate level. Some medical schools may call their programs undergraduate programs, but they are in the minority, as I have indicated in the text by saying "most first professional degrees are considered graduate programs."

Almost all US medical schools require bachelors degrees, and the ones that don't usually require at least 90 credit hours of undergraduate education. Even the University of Tennessee DDS program that you sited requires undergraduate college credits before admission to the program. On some of the US web sites you posted on my talk page, they mention undergraduate medical education. A minority of departments in a minority of US medical schools use this terminology to distinguish the education of people in medical school vs. residency. For the websites you provided me, if you look at the main web pages for the US medical schools (and not just a departmental website offering different courses to med students and residents), they do not explicitly state they are undergrad programs.

The references you gave me about other countries have no effect on this conversation or my additions. The only thing I added is that in the US, first professional degrees that award doctorates are considered graduate programs. As I said previously, feel free to add a section about first professional degrees in additional countries. Since in most of the world first professional degrees are undergraduate degrees, it is necessary to mention the exceptions - like the US. I just reworded things again to mention that the US is an exception. Let's please discuss things further before any more reverts are made. I do not think anything I wrote is inaccurate, and I am not trying to imply that there is a difference in medical education. If anything, it is now more clear as to how it is considered in the US. --Scott Alter 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Scott Alter, the reference you give[3] does not say that first-professional degrees are graduate degrees. In fact, it goes out of its way to say the opposite. Why don't you pay a visit to a school of graduate studies at an institution that has both a medical school and graduate programs in arts and science and get one of the administrative staff to explain to you how it is that first-professional degrees are not graduate degrees. While the reference you give[4] goes some way towards explaining this, I think you are confused as to what a gradaute degrees (i.e., masters) and post-graduate degrees (i.e., true doctorates) are and why. — SpikeToronto (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to find or give you examples, but the reference you said I provided was actually on the article previously. The one I added was this, which says:

"Graduate education is the term used in the United States for studies undertaken after the award of a bachelor's degree. It corresponds to what is called post-graduate or advanced education in some other systems. Education at this level in the United States can be of two types: (1) professional studies that require the student to have already earned an undergraduate degree; or (2) research studies following either a bachelor's degree or a professional degree."

If you look in the left navigation bar of the site (or the Structure of U.S. Education), you'll see the US Dept. of Education breaks education down into primary & secondary education, vocational & technical education, undergraduate higher education and graduate higher education. The first professional degrees are considered graduate higher education. --Scott Alter 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the article on the MD here at Wikipedia, you will see that there is no consensus that supports your point. Your own medical school states that graduate medical education is residency and fellowship programs. As I stated above, graduate medical studies is what occurs after you obtain your MD when you do a speciality residency (e.g., general internal medicine) which may be followed by post-graduate medical studies which occurs when you do a sub-specialty fellowship (e.g., medical oncology). Graduate medical studies (i.e., specialty residency) is esentially equivalent to a research Masters degree (e.g., MA in history; MSc in biology). Post-graduate medical studies (i.e., sub-specialty fellowship) is essentially equivalent to a research doctorate (e.g., PhD in politics; PhD in law; PhD in biology). Scott Alter, you seem to have a personally vested interest in elevating a second-entry, undergraduate degree to the level of graduate work. I would have thought that an MD was special enough in its own right that it would not need further elevation. I would have thought that earning the degree would be reward enough without needing to gild the lilly by erroneously calling it what it is not, a graduate degree. Your graduate work in medicine will not begin until you have completed your undergraduate medical education, obtained your MD, and begun a residency program. You need to pay a visit to the director of undergraduate medical studies at your school and get him/her to clarify this for you.

Oh, and by the way, if you honestly believe your earlier stated phallacy that an MD is a doctorate because it has the word doctor in it, then you must also accept that chiropractors (DC, DCM), veterinarians (DVM), optometrists (OD), dentists (DDS, DMD), pharamcists (PharmD), lawyers (JD), chinese medicine practitioners (CMD), etc., are all “doctorates” because, to quote you, “If it weren’t a doctorate, the degree wouldn’t contain the word ‘doctor.’” So, by using your logic, all are doctorates, despite the fact that some of those degrees are first-entry undergraduate degrees. So, be sure to call your pharmacist “doctor” next time you seem him since, as you say, his degree has “doctor” in it. Doctorate is defined as “a person who has earned one of the highest academic degrees (as a PhD) conferred by a university usually by spending several years in advanced study of a specialized field, by writing an acceptable dissertation, and by passing numerous rigorous examinations.” (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002) Are you beginning to see the error of your ways? — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, since I know you are not going to drop this until you have have had the last word, you can have it now. Anything more I would say would be redundant and repetitious. However, have a care and don’t yourself be merely redundant and repetitious and just restate what you have already said more than once above. I think the two of us have cluttered up this person’s talkpage enough. I’m sure he wishes we would just fade away … — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Simon Hullihen

A tag has been placed on Simon Hullihen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Chromaticity (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oculoplastics

I reverted "but includes procedures also performed by Plastic surgeons, Maxillofacial surgeons, and Otolaryngologists" because it was too general.

I think "In some countries it can include some procedures performed by Plastic surgeons, Maxillofacial surgeons, and Otolaryngologists " would be true (tho you really need a citation to support it). I guess you could also say that it could include procedures performed by other ophthalmic subspecialties, by ophthalmic nurses and general practioners in some countries. --BozMo talk 14:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One has to draw the line somewhere although I only really know about Europe and Africa not North America. I left Oculoplastics as an Ophthalmologic subspecialty because all the big professional bodies with oculoplastics in their name seem to be primarily Ophthalmologists. Also AFAICT Ophthalmologists are the only ones in Europe who perform all OP operations whereas nurses, GPs and ENT surgeons perform some.--BozMo talk 07:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In general could you think through how you handle overlaps between specialties, of which of course there are many, as well as many geographic variations? At present although I understand that you are trying in good faith to ensure that the range of operations done by Otolaryngologists for example is fully represented you are adding only one side of something which should be symmetric. If you add, as you have done, Otolaryngologists to the list of people who do oculoplastics AND add individual oculoplastic procedures to the category of Otolaryngology (making them Otolaryngology procedures) then you logically have to add ophthalmologists to the list of people who do Otolaryngology (which seems an abnormal way of defining things). Isn't it better just to state on the main specialty pages, and perhaps on procedures that there is overlap and variation?--BozMo talk 09:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a generic problem which the Wikiproject medicine people must have had between other overlapping specialties so I suggest we get their input. What actual people do though does not define the specialty, I know plenty of vicars who are nuclear physicists etc and individuals may have a much wider range of skills than their name-plate specialty. I have left a note for someone who should know how to do this. --BozMo talk 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear I am not an ophthalmologist. I am rather an admin on Wikipedia who monitors these articles because they are prone to spam from US private clinics (where who does what means dollars), and who has been watching your edits which are trying to gently shift the POV of the articles. Then I have been looking through the websites of the UK Royal Colleges and European organisations to try to see how generally true your edits are. That's my job here. As I said I don't doubt your good faith, I am just trying to talk it through with you a bit and try and work out where the "neutral" point is and whether we have missed it. --BozMo talk 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bachelor of Laws

I reverted a recent edit that you did in the wikiarticle on the Bachelor of Laws. You had changed the phrase “second entry degree” to “graduate degree”. However, Bachelors of Law — whether they be the LL.B. degree or the J.D. degree — are not graduate degrees. In fact, both Queen’s University and Osgoode Hall Law School at York University specfically refer to the degree as second entry. Calling Bachelors of Law second-entry is most likely because most law schools also offer both gradaute degrees (e.g., LL.M. Masters of Law) and post-graduate degrees (e.g., PhD Law Doctorates (the LL.D. is an honorary degree given out to notable persons by institutions of higher learning and is not a true Law Doctorate)). — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Jwri7474, I made my part of those edits to the article on the LLB as per our discussion. Check here and here. Looking forward to your stuff on Australia! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Graduate Entry

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Graduate Entry, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Graduate Entry is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Graduate Entry, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Graduate Entry

A tag has been placed on Graduate Entry, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — SpikeToronto (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jwri7474, I have added a speedy delete tag to the page you created at Graduate Entry. I believe that you may have created this page to bolster your position on a disagreement that was transpiring on the talk page for Bachelor of Laws. In fact, it appears that you merely cut and pasted parts of the wikiarticle on first professional degrees into a new article template. I could be completely wrong on these two counts and, if so, I apologize.

Nonetheless, its content is not universally applicable and would need to be re-written to reflect different parts of the world and their differing distinctions between second-entry undergraduate degrees (LLB/JD/MD/etc.) and graduate degrees (MA/MBA/MSc/etc.). As it now stands, it consists almost entirely of “see also” links and only enough information to fill a stub. The “see also” links and stub quality are why it qualifies for speedy deletion. Moreover, if it were not deleted, it would become a source of contention that you would have to be defending to persons in the various other parts of the world whose degree-granting institutions do not consider all of the programs you have listed as graduate. Finally, the phrase “graduate entry” appears to be of your own creation. Either a program is first-entry undergraduate, second-entry undergraduate, or graduate. What is “graduate entry” and where is this used? With the exception of the programs that have the word, masters, in them (e.g., Masters of Architecture), virtually all of the programs you listed with the word, doctor, in them are considered either first-entry undergraduate programs (e.g., Doctor of Chiropractic D.C.) or second-entry undergraduate programs (e.g., Juris Doctor JD) in North America. Of course, it almost goes without saying that the programs that have the word, bachelor, in them are undergraduate, whether first-entry or second-entry.

You know, and without in any way trying to sound arrogant or conceited, between my partner and I, we have three first-entry undergraduate degrees (two honours arts bacheors (BAHons); one honours science bachelors (BScHons)), two second-entry undergraduate degrees (one MD; one LLB), three graduate-level degrees (one specialty medical residency (internal medicine); one library and information science masters (MLIS); one business admininstration masters (MBA)), and one post-graduate-level “degree” (one sub-specialty medical fellowship (medical/clinial oncology)), from five different universities. I am not mentioning this to brag. My point is that when two people have been to so many degree-granting insititutions, in so many areas of undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate studies, over a combined 30 years of attendence, they became acquainted with what is and isn’t a graduate degree. What one learns along the way is that first-entry undergraduate bachelors and “doctors of …”, and second-entry undergraduate bachelors and “doctors of …”, are not graduate degrees … at least not in North America.

I will grant you that this instance in Australia that you told me about, while being labelled “graduate”, would be an anomaly in North America. In North America, for a program in law to be considered graduate, it has to end with the student being granted a Masters of Law (LLM), with a Bachelors of Law (LLB) or a Juris Doctor (JD) having been a prerequisite. But, that is my point: The Graduate Entry article is not universally applicable.

I think you would agree that the Graduate Entry article is not necessary (repeating, as it does, material from the first professional degree article), has many factual flaws in it, is not universally applicable, and lacks sufficient content making it eligible for speedy deletion. Finally, don’t you think it is entirely covered by the first professional degree article and is, therefore, additionally redundant? — SpikeToronto (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that these different terms are being used in different countries as each develop and restructure their curriculum in many different professional programs. I do think that we should have some information regarding the terms "second entry degree" and "graduate entry degree" available for those who wish to reference them. I will attempt to cite some references for these, hopefully others will be able to help out. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

When, and if, the article gets speedy deleted, I think if you still want to write such a thing, you should re-create it in more detail with how these things differ from place to place: U.S.; U.K.; Canada; Australia; etc. Or, better yet, see how you can adapt the first professional degree article to cover this. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of "Second entry degree"

First off, I want to preface this inquiry by stating that I do not want to argue, rather to have a civil discussion with you about the rationale for your edits.

I have noticed that you are changing many of the medical degree articles to say that first professional medical degrees offered in the US and Canada are "second entry degrees." I believe you made this change after your discussion with SpikeToronto at Talk:Bachelor of Laws#Second-entry ≠ Graduate-entry. Just to establish some background, I understanding that you are from Australia (and SpikeToronto is from Canada). I am from the US. It seems that you are trying to distinguish the new/redesigned Australian professional degrees from those in the US and Canada. In the US, I have never heard the term "second entry degree" used before. Do you have any sources on its use in the US? From searching Google, "second entry" referring to some Canadian law degrees. The problem we are running in to with all of these degree descriptions (whether graduate entry degree, second entry degree, or otherwise) is that I have not seen any formal definitions of these. Without reliable sources mentioning these terms, should be be using them or defining them on Wikipedia - that would be original research. Also, for example, if a Canadian law school does mention and describe the term in reference to degrees that particular school offers, I do not think we can simply assume the term is used world-wide and extrapolate its usage to US schools.

Additionally, some of the changes you are making to medical schools in the US are not true. You state that most US medical schools only require 2-3 years of university coursework and do not require an undergraduate degree [5]. However, this is not the case. Basically all medical schools require at least 3 years of undergraduate coursework before admission. Acceptance is usually conditional on completion of an undergraduate degree, and this must be obtained before matriculation. Even for medical schools that do not require a completed bachelors degree, I would bet that all of their students have completed a BS or BA degree. Medical schools rarely accept students enrolled in another degree-granting program before the students finish the program they are currently enrolled in (whether the program grants bachelors, masters, or doctorate degrees).

An exception to this at many schools is a combined BS/MD program, where students end up obtaining both degrees. (Of all American MDs, only a small percentage have gone this route.) These programs are usually 7 years in length, and depending on the program, a student is applies either directly from high school or during the first few years of college. The BS degree is usually awarded 3 years into the program. In this case, some medical school courses may be taken before completion of the BS degree, as the medical school courses apply to the completion of the BS degree (in addition to the MD degree). In all cases, the students must have completed their BS degree before they are allowed to progress to their clinical years, and the MD degree would never be awarded to anyone in these programs without completion of their BS degree.

I know that you have found a list of medical schools in Canada, Australia, Israel, and the US that say they offer undergraduate degrees, but that is not my question. I do recognize that some US medical schools use the terminology "undergraduate medical education" and "graduate medical education," to distinguish MD training from residency training. However, I have not found any sources saying the degree offered in undergraduate medical education is at the same level as an undergraduate degree. Similarly, in the US, graduate medical programs do not offerer graduate degrees. I do not think you can use a medical school claiming it offers "undergraduate medical education" as representation that the school offers an undergraduate degree. Additionally, I do not think you can use this as an argument that medical schools do not require a completed undergraduate degree (bachelors) and thus are "second entry degrees."

In the US, most medical schools simply state that they offer first professional degrees. I do not think we should be applying terminology used in other countries or other fields to describe the degree in detail. Why not just use the same terminology that the medical schools use? Rather than arguing over whether they are first entry or second entry and undergraduate or graduate, just state the facts: 1) all US medical schools require at least 3 years of undergraduate coursework before admission and 2) almost all US medical schools require completion of an undergraduate degree before matriculation. Please write your comments here (on your talk page) so we can maintain a continuity of conversation (and in case others chime in). --Scott Alter 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scottalter,

I have spent time in both the US and Australian systems and so I do feel as though I have a basic grasp of how both medical systems work. I do agree with you in that.. “in reality” most all (90%) US medical school matriculates have already obtained a Bachelors degree (as most medical schools prefer this), and that those who do get accepted with 90 semester hours of “pre-med” is the exception rather than the rule. However, there is absolutely no law from any US state board of medicine that says that having both a prior undergraduate arts/science degree as well as a medical degree is a requirement for obtaining a medical license, neither is it legally a requirement by most, (if not all) US medical schools for admissions purposes. This goes for all US-MD programs, not only the 6-year BA/MD programs (for example:Wisconsin University MD program "considers applications from people without previous bachelors degrees"). You “may” only find a small handful of US medical schools that state that being in the possession of a previous bachelor is an absolute requirement for admission. That is something I wanted to make clear. So legally speaking yes.. you can obtain a US Doctor of Medicine degree as your first degree. (same goes for US dental degrees, etc) (btw: I know personally some people who have done this)

Also, please consider that every country in the world (other than the US) considers a medical (and dental, etc) degrees to be undergraduate (regardless whether they call it an doctor or bachelor, MBBS/MD, BDS/DDS, etc) because it is an entry-level degree. This applies even in Canada who's medical degrees are also called an MD and are even accredited by the same licensing body as all US MD schools(ie. the LCME); as well as even in some schools who state that the possession of a previous bachelors degree is an absolute requirement for admission. Also, the US state boards of medicine state that other medical degrees (Canadian, Australian, etc) are all 100% equivalent to that of MDs earned in the US. All of these facts (using simple logic) it would follow that the term undergraduate could also be used when referring to American undergraduate medical education (US-MD programs). Any lawyer would easily be able state this in contract law. :)

Yes, most of the references to the term “second entry degree” were from Canadian universities from which the term was commonly used; but “their definition” of the term is also fitting to US medical programs as well; more so even than the term “graduate entry degree” which the Australian universities coined because they actually do stipulate that being in possession of a previous bachelors is an absolute legal requirement for admission. I’m not trying to be divisive; I’m simply trying to share some information regarding these educational terms that are now in common use around the world. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While the terms "graduate entry degree" and "second entry degree" may be common throughout most of the world, they are not in use in the US. Even if the Canadian definition of the terms seems to fit the US model, I still do not think this is appropriate to use. This is my main concern - applying terms used outside of the US to the US education system. I have yet to see an authoritative definition of any of these terms. Some Canadian schools claim to grant "second entry degrees" and some Australian (and other commonwealth) schools claim to grant "graduate entry degree," but I haven't seem an internationally (or even nationally) recognized definition of the terms. Because the majority of Canadian law schools self-describe themselves as granting "second entry degrees," I would think it is okay to describe Canadian law degrees as second entry. Similarly, since the majority of Australian schools use the term "graduate entry degree," it would be okay to describe these schools as such. However, since these terms are not used in the US, and there is no real definition of US medical education entry requirements (besides being a first professional degree and requiring a minimum of 3 years of undergraduate courses), I think these terms should be withheld when describing education in the US.

I am not disputing anything you are saying. We could debate some of the percentages you gave, but there is no point. Just for the record, from my own experience, I would say that 100% of US medical schools require at least 3 years of prior undergraduate education to be considered for admission. Most US medical schools require bachelors degrees prior to matriculation. >99.9% of students matriculating at US medical schools have a bachelors degree. These claims exclude the combination BA/MD programs. Whether your experiences are different, it doesn't matter. I am not trying to include specific percentages. What I think is appropriate to include in US-related articles are phrases like "the absolute minimum requirement for US medical school entry is 3 years of prior undergraduate education," "most medical schools require bachelors degrees before matriculation," and "almost all medical students have obtained a previous bachelors degree." With these statements, there is no need to use the terms not used in the US.

I do not claim to know the legalities of medical (or legal) practice, but I'll believe that there is no legal requirement for a bachelors degree to practice medicine (or law) in the US. These articles about medical education are not about the country's legal requirements to obtain a degree - they are about how the schools work and admissions requirements. Legally, to obtain a medical license in the US, you need an MD or DO (or foreign equivalent), and to have successfully completed an internship year. I have never said that a foreign medical degree is not equivalent to the US MD in order to practice medicine in the US. Any requirements for licensure to practice medicine should not be relevant to the type of degree offered by a medical school or requirements to admission to medical school.

And unfortunately (or fortunately), the simple logic you used to deduce that US medical education is at the undergraduate level is not allowed on Wikipedia. It is considered original research, specifically synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I can't find the link now, but I vaguely remember something like this: if you have a source that says A+B=C and another source that says C+D=E, you can't say that A+B+D=E unless you find a source specifically saying such.

So how about refraining from all of these terms in articles or sections of articles about US medical education. When there is some comparison to be made (such as in medical education and medical school), why not just spell out the differences? Then, you are not forcing readers to go to separate articles about "graduate entry degrees" and "second entry degrees" to figure out the differences in education in different countries. If you want to use these terms in articles about country-specific education, where schools self-describe as offering these degrees, then go ahead and do so. --Scott Alter 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe a good compromise would be the following: 1. "the absolute minimum requirement for entry into an American medical school is 90 semester hours of prior university level undergraduate education." 2. "All US medical schools prefer applicants who have obtained a previous bachelors degree prior to matriculation, however it is not an absolute requirement" I feel these are true and accurate statements. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Middlemore

Hi - I just reverted your revert. Then added it back in myself, because after checking a bit more closely, I found that the reference DOES (somewhat down the line) state that maxillofacial surgery is one of theiir specialties. So my apologies for that. However, can I please ask you to provide edit summaries? A simple "reference does state that Middlemore does maxillofacial surgery" would have been enough - otherwise we are just acting like ships passing in the dark, and Wikipedia can certainly be more than that. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will provide edit summary next time. Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cosmetic surgery

I'm not removing this article because I think cosmetic surgery is identical with plastic surgery. The problem is, this whole article is a word-for-word copy of some web page advertising http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/ -- is this not a copy? The article is unencyclopedic, and shouldn't be here. What do you think?

dann (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point. However, it would be incorrect to link cosmetic surgery exclusively with plastic surgery. I feel it would be more appropriate to clean up the article rather than simply redirecting the term to a "related" but non-synonymous article. I will attempt to clean it up a bit. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Additions to Cosmetic surgery

• http://spam.accs.org.au
• http://spam.cosmeticsurgery.org
• http://spam.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org
• http://spam.canadianacademy.org
• http://spam.eacs-international.com

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu12: I completely agree with you. However, these links are none of these (ie. not used for advertising or promotion or personal web sites or links to web sites with which I'm affiliated or and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product). I've already stated this. These are the not-for-profit professional representation of this specialty. Because these links do not fall in any of the categories of wiki's "inappropriate external links", I feel they should remain on the website. There are similar web links on other wiki pages for not-for-profit professional representative bodies of that profession discussed within the wiki article. Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. Please explain why the article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of PRS). Jwri7474 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand. What seems to be the mater? Can you give some links? -- Cat ^chi? 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. Please explain why the article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of PRS). Jwri7474 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand. What seems to be the mater? Can you give some links? -- Cat ^chi? 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of the current representative bodies for "cosmetic surgery":

• Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Board of Cosmetic Surgery
• Canadian Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• European Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• Is facial cosmetic surgery for you?

http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/fellowship_route.php training requirements for US board certification in cosmetic surgery]

Even without fellowship training in cosmetics, many specialties teach cosmetics as part of their standard residency training program (example Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial surgery Board certification exams have a substantial component devoted to cosmetics 15-30%)

There are many medical/surgical specialties that utilise cosmetic surgical techniques and procedures and are equally licensed to provide such procedures, not only the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery". Redirecting the entire article to the Plastic surgery article suggests a certain POV that only Plastic surgeons can provide cosmetic procedures to the public and this is not true. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are telling me all this. Which article/edit are we talking about that is in dispute? The details of the topic in question is your expertise so I will take your word for it. -- Cat ^chi? 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted the information on your talk page because you commented on my page, so I thought you were interested in helping with the situation. Sorry, if there was any confusion. The article I'm speaking about is the "Cosmetic surgery" article which now has been redirected to "Plastic surgery".Jwri7474 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help, so Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery are different fields? -- Cat ^chi? 11:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Plastic and reconstructive surgery is a surgical specialty. Cosmetic surgery procedures are performed by many specialties (one of which being plastic surgery).. others being OMFS, ENT, Opth, General surg, Urology, etc. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O

I removed your argument from the Third opinion page per Wikipedia:3O#How_to_list_a_dispute. Here is the text so you do not have to dig in the archive to recover it. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 11:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

POV disagreement:

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. The "cosmetic surgery" article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of plastics).

Here are some examples of the current representative bodies for "cosmetic surgery":

• Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Board of Cosmetic Surgery
• Canadian Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• European Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• Is facial cosmetic surgery for you?

http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/fellowship_route.php training requirements for US board certification in cosmetic surgery]

Even without fellowship training in cosmetics, many specialties are actually required to each cosmetics as part of their standard residency training program (example Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial surgery Board certification exams have a substantial component devoted to cosmetics 15-30%)

There are many medical/surgical specialties that utilise cosmetic surgical techniques and procedures and are equally licensed to provide such procedures, not only the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery". Redirecting the entire article to the Plastic surgery article suggests a certain POV that only Plastic surgeons can provide cosmetic procedures to the public and this is not true. Cosmetic surgery procedures are performed by many specialties (one of which being plastic surgery).. others being OMFS, ENT, Opth, General surg, Urology, etc. Please help. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cosmetic surgery

Hi Jwri7474, this is in no way official. From your post to MedCab you seem to want to have a separate article for Cosmetic surgery. From what I see no-one is stopping you from making this article. If this is correct then you are free to read up on how to do this and then do it. Its only if a fellow editor disagrees and then you both discuss the situation in terms of WP:RS (reliable sources) and WP:Policy and can come to no consenus that mediation is possible or usable.

If you are unsure about how to proceed just type {{helpme}} here on your talk page along with a brief description of the help you want and a fellow editor will come along to assist. (They may take a day or so.)

Good Luck. SmithBlue (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Thank you SmithBlue for your assistance. I am actually unable to create/edit a seperate article for "cosmetic surgery" because it has been blocked from editing already. -> Cosmetic surgery Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - what you point to just above is termed a "re-direct" and also it is protected thereby preventing editing of the "Cosmetic surgery" redirection page. You can see the protection log at [09:39, 23 March 2008 Redvers (Talk | contribs) protected Cosmetic surgery ‎ (Copyvio keeps reappearing here

Do you have consensus with your fellow editors for the creation of article "Cosmetic surgery"? If not adress that - Wikipedia works with consensus, without it Wikipedia turns into a giant sh bun-fight. I would strongly recomend getting consensus before you put the article on Wikipedia - if necessary we can both learn more about the WP dispute resolution process by entering into it.

After you get consensus then you'll need to get the "page protection" removed [Requests for page protection] says "If you are requesting unprotection, it is usually a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here." so contacting Redvers and presenting evidence of consensus seems to be the way to go then.

After getting the page protection removed it is simply a matter of creating an article "Cosmetic surgery" See [Changing a redirect] and follow the instructions. SmithBlue (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic Professional Degrees

Hi Jwri7474,

It seems like you have a background/knowledge and interest with respect to professional degrees and I'm in the midst of putting together a revamped section in Chiropractic with respect to Education, Licensing and Regulation. If you have time, your input would be appreciated and perhaps you can contribute as well? Very best, CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know what aspects you'd like help with and I'd more than happy to help. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I had lost track of this page! Specifically, I'd like to make sure that the various degrees given to chiropractors globally (DC/DCM, BChiro, MChiro, BAppSc) have reliable sources attached to them and to know specifically if, any, are the academic requirements prior to entering chiropractic school. I know of North American details inside out; but not so much for Europe and Australia. Also, any reliable source of sub-specialties that occur in these reasons would also be a much appreciated boost. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial surgeons

A tag has been placed on American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial surgeons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminal Professional Degree

I added to the discussion while you were editing the article. I am going to re-introduce some content, since I have identified citations. I'm not intending to wiki-spar. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! Just thought you might be interested in this. Happy editing! --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 00:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Hello,

You should be aware that edit-warring as an editing technique is discouraged and prohibited.

In fact, you have violated one of our rules by reverting more than three times on the same article ([6]).

You will be blocked if you revert again, after this warning. — Werdna • talk 11:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Naturopathic medical school and primary care

I see you have provided wikipedia with valuable information and have logged many hours making the academic portions of this site more accurate. Thank you.
Could you please clarify your reasoning for changing the definition of ND's as PCP's and physicians to doctors and naturopaths and the inability of recognizing the schools as medical schools? The allopathic community does not hold exclusive rights to any of these terms and we, as licensed ND's, do indeed provide primary care (it is really "primarily" what we do), work as physicians in our legal scope, and train in medical schools. Please provide your references or other philosophical reasonings. these edits without comments seem to come from a non-NPOV stance. --travisthurston+ 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary (naturoathic) care, yes. "Primary care provider" is a term that is usually also accepted. But "Primary care physician" infers that the provider has completed MD/DO and a residency in Family medicine/General practice.

Each US state has a board of Medicine which regulates the practice of "medicine" and the usage of the terms "Dr.", "Physician", and "Surgeon", etc. Most states consider it illegal to use any of these terms or to put out to the public that you have completed "medical school" (which always infers MD/DO), unless you have not only completed and MD/DO degree, but also hold an active valid medical license provided by the state board of medicine. (i.e. even someone who has an MD degree, but doesn't hold an active licience wouldn't be allowed to use these titles under state law). [7], [8]Jwri7474 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In Oregon, graduates of naturopathic medical schools are primary care physicians; Oregon law states so clearly, right here: http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_seng&link_item_id=1648 Although there are jurisdictions in which naturopathic physicians are not licensed, just the fact that there are states in which they are licensed primary care physicians is what distinguishes the degree; only graduates of the North American naturopathic medical schools are eligible to become primary care physicians in Oregon and other states and provinces. I'm including this text in the talk page of the "Doctor of Naturoapthic Medicine" article, where I removed the comment that NDs are not primary care physicians--I hope and presume that you agree with my edit, please post on the talk page of the article if you disagree, so any interested editor can participate in the conversation and we can reach a good consensus! Thanks, Lamaybe (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine

I'm not really bothered by this, but since you've removed quite a bit from the Naturopathic medicine article, could you leave a note explaining why on the talk page. Cheers, Verbal chat 06:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted you as you haven't explained your removal of material on the talk page. Please do. Thanks. Verbal chat 12:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Medical degree

Hi, please don't change the page at the moment. I've asked for page protection and will likely ask for mediation. If you change it back I'll have to report you to the admins, sorry. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well.. stick to the agreement yourself then. The agreement was to list ALL degrees bachelors, masters, doctorates, etc. Also you are only listing US degrees. This again is against the agreed problem of the article being US centric. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What I have done is a start and only a start. It is a neutral place to begin. List any degree that practices medicine as it was agreed upon in the talkpage debate. Not every degree that has anything whatsoever to do with healthcare is a medical degree. For example: nurses practices nursing, not medicine. Their is a request for page protection out. Don't change the page while that's active. Thank you. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand. We agreed to create a page following Naturstud's definition of "practicing medicine" which means ANY profession that allows its graduates to "treat disease". That is what I have done. Please point out anything on this list that you do not feel falls under Naturstud's all encompassing definition of "practicing medicine". Also, if we are to list "degrees" only and not list professions, then we must keep to an equal world view. This includes listing every degree around the world (bachelors, masters, doctorates, diplomas, etc). You say nurses practice nursing. Well under Naturstud's definition they diagnose and treat very basic medical conditions in community clinics so they are as Naturstud says "practicing medicine". I personally feel that Naturopaths, podiatrists, dentists, etc. similarly practice naturopathic medicine, podiatric medicine, and dental medicine... and that they do not "practice medicine". You either narrow the definition to the legal sense of the word as defined by the state board of medicine as I originally suggested, or we include everything. You cannot pick and choose whatever "you personally feel" is "practicing medicine" and what isn't. (this is the problem everyone is having.. so we either include everything.. or nothing, or back to just the original redirect we began with). Jwri7474 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It was professions that diagnose disease. Please go back and read what was said. You, first of all, wanted a classical description of the term. I can understand that, really I can. That has always been my belief as well. But, times do change, and new professions do come to the "art" of practicing medicine. Some, traditionally do not, like nursing. I suppose the way I see it is that the practice of medicine is an autonomous clinical practitioner who exams, takes a history, makes a diagnosis, prescribes a treatment (which he may carry out, or may delegate to another member of the multi-disciplinary team). It's the combination of autonomy and diagnosis that makes a medical practitioner. I don't really think that it is your intention that all health-care related degrees, diplomas, certificates and others are listed under medical degree, Naturstud has stated that also is not his wish. Come back tomorrow hey? :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please list professions in the current list that you do not feel "diagnose". Jwri7474 (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, these;

Bachelor of Podiatry

Bachelor of Podiatric Medicine

Doctor of Podiatry

Doctor of Podiatric Medicine

Bachelor of Oral Health

Bachelor of Optometry

Doctor of Optometry

Bachelor of Pharmacy

Master of Pharmacy

Doctor of Pharmacy

Bachelor of Physical Therapy

Master of Physical Therapy

Doctor of Physical Therapy

Doctor of Acupuncture

Master of Acupuncture

License of Acupuncture

Bachelor of Dental Hygiene

Registered Dental Hygienist

Registered Nurse

Bachelor of Science in Nursing

Bachelor of Nursing

Master of Nursing

Doctor of Nursing Practice

Doctor of Napropathy

Bachelor of Science in Naturopathy

Bachelor of Health Science in Naturopathy

I'm convertable on a couple perhaps, but I'd say them. I honestly think you believe this as well, I've read your talkpage. I'm going bedtime now, goodnight. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few on this list (if going by the agreed upon definition) that I would then disagree with you on. Please see the discussion page on the article where I recently posted and we can discuss further.  :) Jwri7474 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll also leave you with this message, for which you have been warned before!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Fr33kman^{talk APW} 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That is fine.. However, I take issue with others continuing to edit my posts without discussing their issues in the talk page first. I presume you have warned naturstud as well. Jwri7474 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC) !

I'll review whether of not he needs any warnings, I promise you this! Can we talk for a second? I am more on your side than you think, believe me I am. I too have a very narrow definition of medical degree, but just because that definition may be changing doesn't mean you should stifle progress on the article. I'm asking you to be a bigger person here. You have compromised and allowed that the definition has probably changed with time and I believe that you see the need (or at least the lack of harm) for adding a few new degrees as "medical degrees"; Chinese MD's, Naturopath Doctors, etc... I believe that you are a smart person and that you don't really believe that a physiotherapist has a medical degree, do you? Please consider this as just a friendly bit of advice; let it go and let's more on. I'm sure that there are other things that you want to get to editing! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 17:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't believe that any of those people hold medical degrees other than MD, DO, MBBS, etc. (those listed in the IMED/WHO list of world medical schools). However, I hold firm that if Naturstud is going to attempt to manipulate this to fit his critera as to POV push his degree as equivalent to MDs as to benefit his career... I will go along with it.. as long as he allows me to list other degrees that are equally (in my view not no more a medical degree than naturopathy), however they 100% do fit HIS very own definition. So, if he is going to be the one setting the definition, then he better accept other alternative degrees that also fit his definition. agreed? Jwri7474 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the proposal as it is now. Basically, a degree would only be allowed if it is either officially called a medical degree by agencies or organizations recognized by the government locally for the granting of degrees or for the accrediting of degree granting institutions, or else recognized as such by the public. Please read it, I think we can work with this! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still have difficulty with this one because 1) the public believes whatever they are told (layperson) and if that means that they think it is a "medical degree" because their naturopath told them it is, then that isn't a good source. 2) and more importantly.... I want to be very clear about which government or "accrediting bodies" we are talking about here. That was as you know, my original suggestion is that we go by the IMED directory which lists every "medical school" in the world that is recognized by the WHO for the granting of "medical degrees". Again, the state board of medicine who regulates the "practice of medicine" already has very clear definitions concerning this issue. We should really be going by these. The CNME who calls themselves an "accrediting body" for naturpathic education isn't even a recognized body in most of the United States, only in a small few regions. Even then, they are still considered to be complementary alternative practitioners. Jwri7474 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. What about not patient's or public (unless its like the vast majority of the public [must be verified]) but okay reputable national or international (not local) newspapers, journals, TV, academics (from another profession), laws, official government publications, recognized accrediting bodies, professional bodies recognized as such officially by the government or by other recognized bodies? It's a start? BTW: I do really know and appreciate that you are trying to come to a solution, I really do! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW: we should perhaps put a link on the article talk page to here as we've had quite a bit of 'private' discussion. I'll let you decide that. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the {{coi}} tag from the Talk page. It's not helpful at the moment, and I perceived it as a 'shot' at the other party. We are close to solving this, let's not mess around now, okay? :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do feel that there is a conflict of interest as Naturstud has a personal interest in placing Naturopathy (his profession) at the top of this list so the public will believe he holds a legitimate "medical degree". But fine.  :) Jwri7474 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about this, but just because a person has a conflict of interest in putting his degree on the page; if the degree should be on the page, then it should go on the page? Right? If governments are willing to accredit people as medical doctors, then who are we to tell them they're wrong (at least on a public encyclopedia)? Read the new bit and I think that Naturstad will likely agree with that. I think that you should allow a reference if the CNME calls a degree a medical degree but not if the university or college itself does. The CNME is recognised by some governments in the US, its a fact. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 23:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The government doesn't recognize them as "medical doctors" it recognizes them as "naturopathic doctors". Most if not all US states prohibit the use of the title of "medical doctor" by anyone but licensed MD, MBBS, or DOs. They are very clear about this distinction. But in general what you are trying to say.. I understand. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We're compromising here remember :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I can compromise that they are "naturopathic doctors" who hold a "naturopathic medical degree" which is a "type" of medical degree. (I'm stretching.. ha), but it is not my opinion.. but it is the law in pretty much every US state that you are not allowed to say you are a "medical doctor" without an allopathic license or osteopathic license from the state board of medicine. I would be happy to cite my sources which are state government laws.. as well as give precedents of people being reprimanded for using this title without a license. I will go so far as to say that a "naturopathic medical degree" is a type of "medical degree" in complementary and aalternative medicine (naturopathic medicine) which allows for a limited scope of practice of medicine (limited to naturopathic medicine), but I can't agree to say that they are "registered medical doctors" as that is against the law. (this is not simply my opinion).  :) Again, we just have to be careful to word this correctly. I refuse to contribute to an article that directly contradicts US state law. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree! "Medical doctor" shall mean an MD, DO, or MBBS etc., "Medical degree" shall be what we have agreed on. I think you'll agree that the new page shows this. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The "half-a-barnstar", for cooperation!

You are hereby awarded ...

		The Half Barnstar
		For cooperation and compromise above and beyond in the editing of Medical degree! Good job! :-) Fr33kmantalk APW 00:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha.. thanks!  :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwri7474 (talk • contribs)

You're welcome! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

I'd like you explain the recent edits you made to medical degree. You agreed to a set of guidelines. fr33kman -s- 17:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Marriage Strike

An article that you have been involved in editing, Marriage Strike, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage Strike. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Apoc2400 (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Medical degree - MEDCOM

Hi. Can I ask you not to edit the article or the talk page until the case has been submitted and begun? I feel that this would be most appropriate. Thank you! fr33kman -s- 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jwri7474. You have new messages at Fr33kman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

fr33kman -s- 02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Case submitted

Hi, the case has been submitted for you both. Can you kindly go to the case page and edit the section (Parties' agreement to mediate) and add your agreement to MEDCOM mediation below my sig. Please use the format "#Agree. ~~~~". Please do not edit the rest of the page, except for the section (Additional issues to be mediated) where you can put additional issues to be mediated if you wish: please be brief and neutral if you add issues. I need to caution you that any further edits to the page or further argument on the talk page may cause MEDCOM to reject the case (their rules, not mine). Thanks! fr33kman -s- 19:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW: I've since learned that MEDCOM is not binding, but still should be done prior to any binding processes (eg: ArbCom), As such, I still think that you should go with MEDCOM. fr33kman -s- 19:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Medical degree. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Listed at MEDCAB

I have listed the dispute at WP:MEDCAB as per the MEDCOM mediators suggestion. This is not binding and if you do not wish to take part in MEDCAB, please let the MEDCAB mediator know this when they take the case and they will drop it. As a member of MEDCAB I now need to abstain from partaking in this case. I will be available to the MEDCAB mediator if they require clarification on a point. Thank you both and good luck! fr33kman -s- 00:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to Male abortion

I saw that you are re-inserting the link to Male abortion in the see also sections of many articles. Male abortion is a very barely notable subject. I'm not going to nominate that article for deletion because I think it is possible to have a decent article even on small subjects. However, it should not be inserted into articles on actually important topics. Btw, I will reply to you at [[9]] soon. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Although a small topic, it remains an issue on the topic of abortion and as such I feel is an interesting addition to the "see also" list. Some readers may find this useful way to connect the two topics. Jwri7474 (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

May, but probably not. It is not our job to direct people to obscure opinions. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It may not be as "obscure" as you may think. Just because it is not practiced doesn't mean that the view isn't shared by just as many men as the a similar view shared among women of the world. Most all abortions performed around the world are not done because the mother is endangered. They are mostly done because it is a lifestyle choice made by the woman. Jwri7474 (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is just speculation. There is very little written about the subject. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree that there is very little written about the subject. There is reams written about the subject starting in the 80s and continuing with contemporary references. see the deletion discussion for references fr33kman -s- 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is very little written about the topic, that still should not preclude its presence on wikipedia. As long as its verifiable and used in recognized published works. It should be considered regardless if it is a minority view or not. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Hiya, Jwri. Looking at your talk page, I think that you should consider archiving (or just plain removing) much of the content of your talk page. It kind of sets the tone for any one who visits and frankly, it's not a good tone. Just a thought? :-) fr33kman -s- 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I archive it? Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

re: WHO/IMED list of medical schools

On second thought, I agree. You can remove the part about "in certain jurisdictions", as I'm fairly certain that any country that issues medical licences will require a medical degree from a recognized medical school. Thanks for discussing (I've seen that Wishuponsarah (talk · contribs) hasn't been so inclined.) (EhJJ)^TALK 01:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)