Talk:History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States

message: Please explain NPOV tag.  With specific references and citations.  Or it will be deleted. Osteopathic!Freak talk 01:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article is POV, as there are no references, other than a passing reference in Cecil, that this discrimination actually exists.  It appears to me that the point of the article is propaganda, contrary to WP:NOT. Leuko 01:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with the POV tag here. The article doesn't make a case that this "discrimination" exists, or that it's been described in reliable third-party sources. Yes, there's been friction, as the Cecil quote alludes to, but to describe it as unilateral "discrimination" is inherently POV, especially in the absence of independent, reliable sources documenting such supposed discrimination. MastCell Talk 04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The unilateral nature of "discrimination" is a problem. The word comes from the policy of the AMA and AMSA, who oppose the what this article is trying to describe.  Other suggestions for the name? OsteopathicFreak T  ? 04:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the best solution is to merge any relevant content about friction between the two into Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic medicine, or a related article on the relationship between the two. The problem here is that the article provides absolutely no evidence that such discrimination exists. It cites the AMA as saying this type of discrimination is discouraged, but there's no background on whether it was a real problem to begin with. I think the best, most neutral approach is to take cited, sourced material and merge it into an article on the relationship between the two branches. MastCell Talk 04:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid points.  I agree that the article needs more sourced info.  It may even be helpful to have a time line of events, which are numerous.  I am not an expert on the topic, but I am familiar with the most commonly referred to historical events.  I could use assistance, at least with creating a list of events. The page is really still a stub at this point.  I am also not opposed to merging with Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine.  My concern is making that page too controversial.  OsteopathicFreak T  ? 05:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Please make suggestions for a new name for this page.  Or vote for which ones you prefer.  Thanks.  OsteopathicFreak T  ? 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference would be for "Relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States", as the most neutral. In reference to the above thread, I'd actually favor folding this information into the "Comparison" article, or even into the parent article on Osteopathic medicine or History of osteopathic medicine. Guidelines (e.g. WP:POVFORK) encourage treating controversial aspects of a subject in the parent article where feasible, rather than splitting off a "controversy" or "criticism" article to segregate such material. MastCell Talk 19:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article should be folded into the "Comparison" article and deleted. I believe what ought to be compared are the professional advantages/disadvantages (e.g., name recognition) of each degree, etc. Thoughts? Tcamdg 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Another name-change suggestion "Anti-competition in medicine"  ?? OsteopathicFreak T  ? 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a clearly documented history of discrimination, then it would fine to mention that. I just don't think there's enough there to form its own article, and that it violates WP:POVFORK. MastCell Talk 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of information to be added, numerous court cases and rulings.  Won't all this info bog down another page? WP:SPINOUT OsteopathicFreak T  ? 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States" is the most WP:NPOV.  Also, it does seem that this article is a POV-fork - right now there is not all that much that it can't be included in the parent article. Leuko 00:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The neutral portions of this article belong in a parent. If/when this material becomes such a large part of its actual parent page that we need to do a WP:SPINOUT, that would be the appropriate time to re-evaluate. Antelan talk 05:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But what is the parent?  Allopathic medicine?  Osteopathic medicine?  History of medicine?  There's no consensus on where this material belongs.  Most of the article, at this point, is about specifically allopathic organizations.  OsteopathicFreak T  ? 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the neutral and well-sourced material should be placed in allopathic articles (some is education-specific, some is broadly applicable to allopathic medicine). I can do this, if you'd like. Antelan talk 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No thanks.  Let's leave it here while the article is still being written.  15:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, my proposal complies just fine with your requirements as stated above. Antelan talk 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep the information, change the name 

message: Documented discrimination against osteopathic medicine belongs directly in the main osteopathic medicine article, not WP:contentforked into a side article like this. Antelan talk 03:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is 7k, not all of which are usable. There would be no problem with merging the appropriate pieces to their appropriate destinations. Antelan talk 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is still a stub. OsteopathicFreak T  ? 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Every subtopic does not require its own article

message: I still have this lingering issue with POV. Whereas on this article, you point out that osteopathic grads are entering into specialties "previously dominated" by MD grads, you have claimed on other articles that one criticism of allopathic medicine is its lack of focus on primary care. So it's a Good Thing when osteopathic grads get into those non-primary care residencies, but it's a Bad Thing that allopathic grads aren't geared up for primary care. In essence, both osteo and allo are trending in the same direction, but you're slamming allo for doing the same things that causes you to praise osteo. Antelan talk 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not slamming them for anything.  I'm just reporting what others have said.  If I've indicated otherwise, I should change the wording, but keep the info.  In other words, I'm just reporting that some people point to primary care focus (lack of specialty focus) as a weakness of osteo, others point to allo and say the lack of primary care is their weakness.  Not my words, the words of critics.  Common, well-sourced criticisms of both should be included. Gives the reader more information on what the discussion/controversy is about. OsteopathicFreak T  ? 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I just don't see how either of those are really criticisms. Even though some might color them as such, we don't need to. For example, it is a fact that DOs are increasingly entering non-primary-care residencies. It is a fact that MDs have traditionally focused on non-primary care specialties and continue to do so. While I understand that these can be used to criticize both groups, the facts themselves are neutral and we really should try to stick to that. What do you think about that angle? Antelan talk 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think its relevant that these facts are used in the context of criticism.  There is quite a bit of discussion about the state of primary care medicine in the US.  However, I think that's a whole other conversation, and as such deserves only a brief mention here, at most.  I agree with you that the "facts", are far more important, while their placement within a rhetorical context is less so.  OsteopathicFreak T  ? 02:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I think that there is now enough content between History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States, International Practice Rights of U.S.-trained D.O.s, and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine to create an article titled Osteopathic medicine.  It is better to have one article on osteopathic medicine than lots of smaller articles with really long titles.  The new "Osteopathic medicine" article would be a split from Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and merged with History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States and International Practice Rights of U.S.-trained D.O.s.
There are a couple of ways to do this, but here is my plan to keep some of the edit histories without actually creating a new article.  First, I'd start with renaming this article to Osteopathic medicine, since the history of the relationship between allopathic and osteopathic medicine is really the history of U.S. practice rights of DOs.  This topic really has not had much of an effect on allopathic medicine, so I think moving it solely under the osteopathic medicine article is appropriate.  After renaming this article, some content from the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine article could be moved here.  Then, the DO article would be mostly about the degree, while Osteopathic medicine would be about the actual medicine.  Finally, International Practice Rights of U.S.-trained D.O.s would be merged with Osteopathic medicine.  The Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine article should remain as-is, since it equally pertains to osteopathic and allopathic medicine.  --Scott Alter 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%. User:Hopping T  03:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. The rationale seems good to me. If Hopping (i.e., someone with potential COIs different from my potential COIs on this issue) agrees, then I agree. Antelan talk 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving towards specific plans, it would seem that most of the content in the current Doctor of Osteopathic medicine, would be moved into this article, which will be renamed "Osteopathic medicine".  The Doctor of Osteopathic medicine would be rather short, and limited to a discussion of the degree itself. Is this correct? User:Hopping T  23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is how I interpreted it as well. Antelan talk 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably most would be moved (some text from the lead, all of "Osteopathic principles," some "History," "Status of OMM within Osteopathic medicine," "Criticism," and "Maintaining distinctiveness").  I proposed the rather complicated method to try and preserve some edit histories with the articles, but we could just as easily move Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine to Osteopathic medicine and create a new Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.  And after looking at History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States again, this content would be split between the 2 articles (dates of practice rights should probably go with the degree article - since osteopathic medicine did not change, but the entitlement of those with the D.O. degree did).  No matter which way this is done, it will involve a lot of cutting and pasting - and either way will require using  on Osteopathic medicine.  --Scott Alter 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to [[Osteopathic medicine]]