Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States/Archive 1

message: * The tone and prose of the introductory portions of this article has been slightly modified, with the addition of new material and reorganization of some links (16 March 2006)
The tone and prose of this article are pretty bad. Somebody with more knowledge of this subject should have a look at it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Critique

message: *I just read the article "The Paradox of Osteopathy" in the NEJM.  Since it wasn't critical of osteopathy, I moved it to the other list.  The article just described the similarity of allopathic and osteopathic medicine, touched on the California merger, and discussed the increase of numbers of osteopathic schools.  The "paradox" in the article is the similarity yet separateness of osteopathic medicine. 
*The "quackwatch" article is a little silly, but I suppose it is hard to come up with legitimate critical articles.  For the sake of neutrality it is important to show both sides of the argument, but I wonder if we could find something a little more substantial (and supported) than this dubious quackwatch stuff.Donaldal 07:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody keeps moving the Paradox of Ostopathy into a "critical" category.  I read the article...it was erroniously included as criticism.  The article is supportive, and points out the paradox of osteopathic medicine's similarity to yet separateness from allopathic medicine.Donaldal 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move

message: Osteopathic medicine is a branch of medicine that encompasses all clinical specialties from family practice to neurosurgery. If not in the top level medicine category, where? It doesn't just belong in alternative. Please discuss.--DocJohnny 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is not completely conventional. But it is a subtype of medicine that includes primarily conventional medicine with some elements of alternative. Most D.O.'s practice mostly conventional medicine. As such, I don't think it belongs in the alternative subcategory at least as it is practiced here in the states. --DocJohnny 01:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It almost deserves its own category, because it draws from conventional and alternative medicine, but then it would have to have its own version of every medical article...But my belief is that there is only mainstream medicine, and then there's alternative medicine, which encompasses everything else. --CDN99 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. But alternative medicine is a category under medicine. And I don't see osteopathic medicine really belonging just under alternative medicine. This is why I think it belongs in the medicine category. --DocJohnny 01:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: So far I have created the Criticism section and have been the only editor to add content to it. As no one else has been adding content, I would like to remove the stub template. I have added all of the substantive (IMO) complaints in Dr. Barrett's article "Dubious Aspects of Osteopathy" in what I hope is an even NPOV manner. I have thus now removed the stub template. If anyone disagrees, I think directly adding to the section is a better choice. --JohnDO|Speak your mind 11:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...I think it looks fine now. Donaldal 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stub template 

message: "Osteopathic medical schools have been criticized for being less focused on research than allopathic schools. Critics also have pointed towards one study showing slightly lower GPA and MCAT scores among enrollees when compared to allopathic schools."
Shouldn't the phrase "allopathic medicine" be used only in opposition to homeopathy (which is not the topic of this article)? In this article, "allopathic medicine" actually means "medicine which does not include osteopathic practices". Apokrif 12:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to "allopathic" medicine 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osteopathic_medicine&curid=199884&diff=43053404&oldid=43049185:
 Consequently, D.O.'s were once viewed by many as those who "couldn't get into a real medical school." This has changed over the years and are currently viewed with comparable prestige as M.D.'s.
Is there a source for this statement? (notice that the old version said "by many", while the last version implies that everybody gives the same consideration to MDs and DOs) Apokrif 11:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apokrif is quite right.  This line should go.  This kind of insecurity is exactly the kind of thing we need to chop out of this article.  Donaldal 04:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prestige 

message: I've made some major revisions to the article and tried to separate its content from the osteopathy article and focused on the relationship between standard allopathic medicine in the USA and osteopathic medicine. This seems to be the most confusing point to understand for most people. As such, I think that the topic deserves to remain separate from the main osteopathy article. --Oskie94 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the recent additions surely this article now deserves to be part of the :Template:Medicine ? --apers0n 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major revisions

message: Why no criticism section? Mathiastck 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No criticism section? 

message: Replaced old photograph with new one. Would appreciate assistance in locating copyright status. Also added osteopathc logo of stylized caduceus.--Oskie94 05:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another uncopyrighted image has been removed - which photographer took these photos? --apers0n 09:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I've removed the :Template:Alternative medical systems as Osteopathic medicine is not listed here as a medical system. In Glossary of alternative medicine, Osteopathy is listed, but the article on Osteopathic medicine shows these are different. --apers0n 07:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I have now wikilinked the disambiguation page to emphasize the alternative medicine nature of osteopathy, as practiced by non-USA practitioners. We also know that old fashioned and quackish osteopaths (like Mercola) in the USA fit in that category, but I'm not sure how to handle that issue here. I guess we just need to make sure the wikilinks on relevant articles go to the right article. BTW, are there other osteopathy-relevant articles to place in the osteopathy category I started? -- Fyslee 08:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative medical systems template 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Any interest in starting a project, or at least a group for creating and editing articles related to Osteopathic medicine?  Here's the :Category:Osteopathic medicine.  Please add to it, so we can at least know what pages we should be working on.  OsteopathicFreak T  ? 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osteopathic medicine project?? 

message: This article should be "disambiguated" from non-U.S. osteopaths (those who are authorized to practice manipulation only, no drugs or surgery, etc.). Also of note, "DO" in India apparently means "Diploma of Ophthalmology."Tcamdg 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: It seems that one of the parties took a Wikibreak. It is most unfortunate to not have received any communication in this regard. This mediation cannot continue without the parties therefore has been suspended. Daoken 11:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation suspended 

message: Would you please contact me regarding what happened with the mediation you requested from me ? Daoken 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contact 

message: Would you give a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackwatch ? I am interested in your opinion Daoken 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackwatch