Talk:Doctor

message: *While cleaning up the disambiguation page Doctor (disambiguation) I noted that virtually all links to Doctor intend to point to Physician.  After cleaning up those links to directly point there, I have pointed this page to Physician and added a link to the disambiguation at the top of that page.  Kershner 18:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doctor]] 

message: Ayman al-Zawahiri is a real medical doctor, the name is not an alias, he was a professor in Mansoura_University faculty of medicine before he travels to afghanistan and becomes such a well known terrorist, many of his family members are medical professors as well and are very respected people he
/re in Mansoura, Egypt.
84.36.12.154 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayman al-Zawahiri 

message: What about this crazy guy who wrote gardening books, or did he really? He may not have existed.
What an enigma.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samepassword (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Docotr D G Hessayon

message: Is this Colin Bassington (b. 1930) an advertising link? If positive,  I suggest removal by the editor who added it. Ida Shaw (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Colin Bassington

message: This article is constantly under attack from IP vandals. Please semi-protect it for the next......15 years. ;-) There really is no reason not to do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go to WP:RFPP to request for page protection. BejinhanTalk  04:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please semi-protect 

message: I explained this to the IP but in regards to this, my view is that the articles discuss the issue very generally and predate the licenses.  Physician for example does have a huge section on its prior background.  It gives too much weight to a particular specific idea of those kinds of fields and not the general historical context.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrees for the healthcare section 

message: We need to establish objective and indisputable inclusion criteria and then make that plain in the (non-existent) lede. (Yes, even a disambiguation page can have a short lede that explains the purpose of the page.) Whether someone is "called", "referred to" or "considered" a doctor is a matter of opinion and irrelevant here. 
The objective criteria is what RS say, and that is established by their doctoral graduate degree. If they've got a legitimate (accredited) doctorate, they are legally allowed to be called a "doctor", even if that might not normally be the case in daily life, and even if they are required (like DCs and DPTs) to "also" specify their profession when calling themselves "doctor".
An accredited doctorate (graduate degree) should be the objective inclusion criteria here. It is not our job to settle disputes about who should be allowed to call themselves "doctor", or whether the term "doctor" should only apply to health care personnel.
NOTE: I felt the need to start this RfC because of the discussion in a previous section. It was reverting to subjective opinions (only medical doctors...) being used as inclusion criteria, and so was getting nowhere. I hope this RfC will settle the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Way it is now is good, except for the weird docter note at top. That should be it's own page. Don't need a lede, that would just be word noise slowing the user down from finding the article they actually want.Nobody Ent 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded Docter into a disambiguation page and removed the hatnote. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Sounds interesting. Give it a try. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of professions why don't we simply have a section for "fictional doctors" and "certified doctors" (I include PhD's in this term), we could also have a seperate category for honorary doctors (those who are awarded the title as a recognition of their contributions). Fictional Doctors would be those (like Dr. Zhivago or Dolittle) whose ceritifcation can't (or need not) be verified. Honorary doctor's are those who have been awarded the title and this can be independantly verified. I guess self claimed Doctor's or dubious claims can all be bunched under fictional doctr's (unless they choose to provide verifiable evidence). Wikishagnik (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not for partial title matches like Dr. Zhivago and Dolittle. List of fictional doctors and List of physicians are separate list articles, and List of honorary doctors could be too, but they're not disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For a DAB, I agree including any list of people (real or fictional) who are not referred to as only "Doctor"  is superfluous, though links to such lists where they exist might be OK. I also find it odd that the two real categories (medical/professional and academic) aren't together - surely a more sensible arrangement would be real people first, then fictional. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surely. The real people with the given name "Doctor" are partial title matches. They go after the actually ambiguous entries. The real people who are known as only "Doctor" (some or all of the nickname holders?) could be relocated before the characters, although I still suspect that readers searching on "Doctor" alone are more likely to be seeking one of the characters than one of the nickname holders. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I was thinking more about the general terms rather than individuals - so medical, professional, academic doctors first, followed by individuals identified solely by "Doctor" - and I'd concur, on reflection, that the fictional characters are more likely targets than the real people among individuals known only as "Doctor" - and then links to lists of people for whom "Doctor" would be only a partial title match. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good - separate fictional, honorary, academic and professional. Soosim (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Objective inclusion criteria = accredited doctoral graduate degree 

message: OK, I have a suggestion. Why don't we have a separate "Professions" section, for those who use "doctor" as a professional, rather than academic, title? I think this is particularly useful since physician degrees in many parts of the world other than the US are actually not postgraduate doctorates. This way we could satisfy both sides of the argument - both the very narrow interpretation (such as that held by myself), and the very broad (such as that held by the OP). I just feel that there needs to be a distinction between those who use "doctor" as a professional or academic title as, though the word is the same, it means a different thing. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 08:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting. Give it a try. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of professions why don't we simply have a section for "fictional doctors" and "certified doctors" (I include PhD's in this term), we could also have a seperate category for honorary doctors (those who are awarded the title as a recognition of their contributions). Fictional Doctors would be those (like Dr. Zhivago or Dolittle) whose ceritifcation can't (or need not) be verified. Honorary doctor's are those who have been awarded the title and this can be independantly verified. I guess self claimed Doctor's or dubious claims can all be bunched under fictional doctr's (unless they choose to provide verifiable evidence). Wikishagnik (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not for partial title matches like Dr. Zhivago and Dolittle. List of fictional doctors and List of physicians are separate list articles, and List of honorary doctors could be too, but they're not disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For a DAB, I agree including any list of people (real or fictional) who are not referred to as only "Doctor"  is superfluous, though links to such lists where they exist might be OK. I also find it odd that the two real categories (medical/professional and academic) aren't together - surely a more sensible arrangement would be real people first, then fictional. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surely. The real people with the given name "Doctor" are partial title matches. They go after the actually ambiguous entries. The real people who are known as only "Doctor" (some or all of the nickname holders?) could be relocated before the characters, although I still suspect that readers searching on "Doctor" alone are more likely to be seeking one of the characters than one of the nickname holders. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I was thinking more about the general terms rather than individuals - so medical, professional, academic doctors first, followed by individuals identified solely by "Doctor" - and I'd concur, on reflection, that the fictional characters are more likely targets than the real people among individuals known only as "Doctor" - and then links to lists of people for whom "Doctor" would be only a partial title match. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good - separate fictional, honorary, academic and professional. Soosim (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: May be appropriate in the "see also" section.
*Support as nom.Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is entirely correct. Even in countries where medicine is an undergraduate degree (such as the UK), physicians are still called "doctor". I don't think any note is required. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you need to do is establish this usage in the respective articles. older ≠ wiser 17:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

text: "When you greet your Vet or Dentist" you know they are your vet or dentist. Therefore, it is only logical that someone, searching on Wikipedia, would type in vet or dentist if that's what they were looking for. This is a disambiguation page, and we are free to use our editorial judgement (and common sense) in determining what people were searching for. Biosthmors (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal that physical therapist not be included in the "Personal titles" section

message: * @Gelmini, No please don't add a Professional Doctorates section. Unless there is demonstrable ambiguity, such a list does not belong on the disambiguation page. It might be possible to have some sort of a list article on the subject. You're misunderstanding the usage of personal title here -- the usage is for the term "doctor" not for the entries listed under that heading. The idea is that the term doctor is used as a personal title for physicians and surgeons.
Here is the ambiguity. According to the American Heritage dictionary: 
1. Doctor: a. A person who is licensed to practice medicine and has trained at a school of medicine, chiropractic, optometry, podiatry, dentistry, or veterinary medicine.
According to Dictionary.com: doctor: a person licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian.. 
So we're arbitrarily excluding any professional doctorate other than a physician. When you greet your Vet or Dentist, they are greeted as "Doctor Johnson," and same is true when these professionals greet each other. How can we just decide to include physicians and surgeons in a personal titles section and exclude everyone else, when all of these other professions, by definition, are included under the title? 
Gelmini (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you need to do is establish this usage in the respective articles. older ≠ wiser 17:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "When you greet your Vet or Dentist" you know they are your vet or dentist. Therefore, it is only logical that someone, searching on Wikipedia, would type in vet or dentist if that's what they were looking for. This is a disambiguation page, and we are free to use our editorial judgement (and common sense) in determining what people were searching for. Biosthmors (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I have removed chiroporactors from the 'see also' list at the end of this article in the interests of clarity.  With the limited exception of chiropractors who also happen to have an academic doctorate, it is arguably inappropriate to include them here, and almost certainly likely to create confusion between chiropractors and medical doctors.  Another editor who has an apparent conflict of interest, but I believe wishes to contribute in good faith, reverted this.  I have reintroduced the correction, but do not wish to engage in an edit war.  Input from other editors would be welcome. John Snow II (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you didn't wish to engage in an edit war, not edit warring would have been more appropriate. Since the earlier discussions resulted in the consensus to include Chiropractor in the See also section, I have restored it; after you show a new consensus for its removal, it can be removed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that previous discussions have resulted in consensus to keep 'chiropractic' in the 'see also' section. John Snow has also very selectively removed the word 'chiropractic' from its place of mention at the article Doctor (title). The edit seems to violate WP:NPOV? There is a discussion at the talk page here. Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this seems like a misunderstanding - quite possibly, on my part.  I know of serious concerns arising from confusion between doctors and chiropractors, including from the chiropractor's own regulator in the UK.  As I do not have POV either for or against chiropractic, my own intention is to achieve neutrality.  JHunterJ, I cannot see evidence of the consensus to which you refer - if you're going to make an accusation of edit warring, it would be reasonable to back that up, I'd have thought. John Snow II (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit warring:  + . WP:BRD is not WP:BRRD. Previous consensus: the stable version after the previous kerfuffle. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of chiropractors from the list 

message: "The Doctor" is significantly different enough from "Doctor" and should be split out into it's own disambiguation page .  I'm proposing this to the community to gain consensus on this, and I do not currently have time to do this myself.  If there is community consensus, I would be happy to take care of the split in 2-5 weeks when I have time. —  (e • t • c) 14:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really much see benifit in a split. The current setup is pretty much the standard for any term with/without a definite article (per WP:DPAGE). It also doesn't help much in determining a primary topic. -- User:Edokter  00:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree with Edokter here. And I disagree with the notion that being listed on the same disambiguation page makes any difference to whether two different terms could have separate primary topics. Pick any common noun, capitalize it, and stick a “The” in front of it in a Wikipedia search; “The X” seldom redirects to the page for “x.” I don’t see what makes this case any different from, say, Wire (disambiguation)/The Wire (and see no need to split that DAB page, either). Also, there’s no reason this couldn’t instead be split off to The Doctor (disambiguation), so this matter is no more or less urgent than the redirect. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Any split only complicates navigation, so this would be counterporductive. -- User:Edokter  09:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I glanced over WP:DPAGE before so I didn't notice the article usage piece, but that seems pretty clear in the matter. I'm pretty in favor of not splitting as well now. The terms are too similar. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose splitting out all "The Doctor" terms. 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctors (2000 TV series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: A doctor is someone whom that🧑‍⚕️ has abilities to heal people or who comes with many possibilities A doctor can somewhow be refered to a musician 💃or pratitioner 41.116.132.13 (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thats an intelligent answer 41.116.132.13 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor