Talk:Internal medicine

message: This page is really quite messy. It simply provides some loose change on every specialism, without even going into the diagnostic process
Technically, radiation oncologists are not Internal Medicine subspecialists. In the US, they are distinct from medical oncologists.
DocJohnny 08:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK, clinical oncologists are internists by training. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here in the US, we distinguish between Medical Oncologists, which are IM subspecialists, and radiation oncologists, who are trained in a completely separate track.DocJohnny 06:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The situation in The Netherlands is quite similar to the US one (as it was introduced by Andries Querido). JFW | T@lk 08:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This

message: From what I have read, the UK general medicine docs are more like our family practice docs in that they have training in ob/gyn and pediatrics, is that true?
:Not true, at least not anymore. In the past UK general physicians were examined on paeds, but not anymore. JFW | T@lk 08:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK General medicine 

message: I looked past that error numerous times. Good Grief. --DocJohnny 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice catch on that error 200.75.217.179  

message: I have classified this article as a start. It needs to be sourced. Capitalistroadster 08:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification as start

message: Am I right in thinking that the medical specialty is spelt like that even in British English, where the general word is spelt "speciality"? I'm sure I've seen it used in the UK. 81.153.110.216 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BrEng 

message: Does anybody know who calls IM Docs "Doctor's Doctor"?  I think that this is backwards.  IM Docs consult specialties like radiology and pathology to make their diagnoses and then they (IM) treat the patient.  radiologists and pathologists are called "Doctor's Doctors" because their job is to advise other doctors and not to treat patients.  I think we should delete that section of the article 208.63.240.59 21:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've hit on a major historical point of which the article needs further development - the history of internal medicine as a specialty and the derivation of the term "internal medicine."  As it was conceived, practitioners of "internal medicine" were consultants, having taken rigorous training beyond their undergraduate medical education in histology, gross pathology, and medical chemistry.  General Practitioners, were the 'doctors' to who internists were "doctor's doctors."  The term still applies today, however, to the modern consultants of Internal Medicine, the subspecialists. 132.192.82.245 03:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IM as the "Doctor's Doctor" 

message: Since the references section has no actual references, I've taken it out.  Until and unless someone goes through and starts listing citations in the text, there's really no need for it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Section 

message: The intro mentions "Doctors of Internal Medicine".  This is a made up wikipedia term.  
It is so misleading that I must put a POV label on it.
Let's not make up information or at least put a citation. JerryVanF (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake information?

message: I recently attempted to add Dallas Nephrology Associates to Internal Medicine page only to find it was deleted as 'advertising'.  I believe my link to be more plausible since:
1) This link, http://www.soundphysicians.com/physician-careers/employment-openings.aspx/, which is a 404 page (yet currently linked inside the Internal Medicine page) is listed on the site yet has no value.
2) http://www.henryfordinternalmedicine.com/ , another link on this page, is 100% self-promotional as the landing page depicts.
The link I added was an actual Internal Medicine facility which has nothing for sale. It's a Dallas-based internal medicine facility which is heavily accredited.  Therefore, since it's plausible and not selling anything, it should be added and left unaltered.
98.212.117.91 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are inappropriate links on the article, that is a reason to remove those links, not to add more inappropriate links. - MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you call an actual facility 'inappropriate'? That would make every link in that section 'inappropriate' as this would equivocally construed each facility as 'sale-like'.  If there was some landing page on the site which begged for money, I could see your deletion as merited; however, since the facility is extremely 'internal medicine' concentrated (unlike the other link on that page: http://www.acoi.org/ ) and doesn't 'collect', 'openly sell' or 'attempt to propagate sales', I cannot see your deletion as having much merit at all. 98.212.117.91 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: MrOllie is correct. (Please read the relevant guideline.) I have removed the two links you mentioned above. Rivertorch (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone desiring more information on wikipedia policy regarding advertising, please refer to WP:SPAM.  The external link policy provided above, by Rivertorch, may also be helpful.  Rytyho usa (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Linkage 

message: This would be a step in the right direction for expanding the worldview on this page Tylerdore (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Canada 

message: Some issues in the lead are confusing for naive general readers like me:
#Internist vs Medical intern: It's obvious to medical professionals, but the distinction is important enough to emphasize early in the article, in order to orient general readers. Note that readers seeking to know what an internist is are redirected to this article. The difference is explained very well in a later section, too late for readers trying to select which article to read. The hatnote helps ("For the medical intern, see Internship (medicine)"), but it does not clearly communicate that internist is a completely different designation than medical intern. Perhaps a parenthetical phrase such as "...are called internists (not to be confused with medical intern)..." would be beneficial, even though it breaks the flow.
#Meaning of the internal medicine as a "specialty": It's very well explained progressively throughout the article, but it is quite confusing at first — what's not equally "internal" for most of the other specialties? The lead explains it with "Internists are skilled in ..." but doesn't make clear that this informally defines the specialty. Part of my confusion arises because it is an extremely broad "specialty", and "subspecialties" exist to cover specific organs and systems. The lead says that "Internists often have subspecialty interests...", but this sounds like they have curiosity or emphasis, rather than the intense training, certification, and focus on a subspeciality, such as cardiology.
#"Internists care for hospitalized and ambulatory patients ": does ambulatory mean not hospitalized or does it mean outpatient (not hospitalized overnight)? For general readers, the word means capable of walking, which I presume is not relevant in either case.
#"...may play a major role in teaching and research" is a weak statement that applies to any professional in any field; if they usually play a role please say so. Also, teaching and research do not appear anywhere else in the article. If they are important enough for the lead, shouldn't they be covered in the body?
I'd be grateful to have experts clarify these points for this heavily visited article.
–MadeOfAtoms (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you  for thoroughly answering these. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting lead clarifications:  

message: Overall:
You did a great job covering the breadth of internal medicine. I liked your inclusion of the various medical boards and the delineation of the process of becoming a board-certified physician. I enjoyed reading the history section and ethics section. It is clear that you put a ton of effort into this article. You were able to accomplish most of your workplan and I commend you for that. For future direction, I suggest adding information on the eastern influences of internal medicine, a graphic depicting the timeline of medical school and residency, expanding on the telehealth section, expanding on the EMR section, clarifying jargon from different countries, and in general adding more information to the subsection for completeness. Listed below are specific recommendations for the article: 
1. The initial definition section and the Role of Internal medicine physicians section overlap in contact. I would be more concise to reduce redundancy. 
2. History section:
The information outlines western influences on internal medicine. It would be interesting and beneficial to learn some of the more eastern influences. This would increase a global perspective on the article. Could be a future project!
3. Professional education training section clearly delineated the process in the United States. However, the process in the commonwealth countries could be expanded. Also, it would be nice to see a graphic representation of the training because there is a lot of jargon that can be unfamiliar to the general public. 
4. In the certification section, I would simplify the jargon under the United Kingdom SubHeading. The core and medical training concepts can get confusing.
5. Charting in the EMR is a big component of an internist’s job. Adding information on this topic will make the article more complete.  As827245 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for your review!  You clearly read every section in great detail - I appreciate all of your feedback.  I'm glad you liked the ethics section in particular - I put a lot of thought into that.  I agree there is still work that can be done to improve the article.  I hope that future Wikipedians are able to take your suggestions and incorporate them, even if I do not have time to do all of them!  I'm glad you agree that inclusion of more of the eastern perspective would add value to the article.  I found some information on Internal Medicine in Japan and China that would be a great start. I will try to add a few sentences on charting in the EMR before the class concludes - that's a great suggestion!  It has been a pleasure working on this article.  MedKnightSB (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review- UCF WIKIMED Project November 2022