Talk:Doctor (title)/Archive 1

message: I have reverted a recent anon edit which switches this to a disambig page.  Possibly this is a good idea, but I think not, or at least not as it was done.  E.g. holders of the so-called first professional degrees do not hold doctorates - the proposal that this is dealt with at doctorate seems strange.  Where will he have the list of those who are called doctor by convention, not by holding a doctorate, if not here?  Let's not have an edit war, let's discuss here.  Paul Beardsell 03:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to disambiguation, pros and cons 

message: I checked Yale, Harvard and NYU.  Each of their medical schools offers M.D. degree and a Ph.D. degree and the Ph.D. is identified by each as a higher degree than the M.D.  If a "doctorate" is defined as the highest degree available in a discipline then it seems, therefore, that the holders of the M.D. only do not hold doctorate degrees.  Paul Beardsell 00:13, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am at a comparable place and your claim seems strange. Can you tell me how you "checked" (website?) and in what sense you understood the PhD is "higher"? For most people they are parallel doctorates, earned after the bachelor's degree. Most earn one or the other but not both. Undeniably, having both carries real "cachet" at a university center, but the two degrees can be earned in either order, or in a combined MD/PhD program. I have a suspicion that more people earn an MD after a PhD than the other way around, but I might be mistaken. I can't remember ever hearing a claim that a PhD was "higher" in any sense. Both degrees qualify one for a tenure track university appointment toward full professor status. I know more PhDs who work in the labs of MDs than vice versa; I've heard more PhDs gripe with envy about MDs than vice versa. Most MDs do not do research as part of the requirements for earning the MD, but most who subspecialize and stay in academic careers publish research easily equivalent to a PhD thesis during a 3 year fellowship-- but don't expect another degree to be granted because they already have a top level degree. Please note I am not arguing in some way that an MD is higher or better than a PhD, or denying that those few who are MD/PhD consider themselves truly elite. In a practical sense, the MD carries more career flexibility and higher pay in an academic setting and no one I know would swap their MD for a PhD, so I am puzzled as to what sense you claim one is a "higher degree." I simply can't ever remember hearing anyone assert that an MD is not a doctorate. I think you may be teaching us some ways in which academic culture is different elsewhere (I don't think I know where you are), but your claim seems strange to an academic MD in the US.  After you raised the issue, I've tried to make sure that my description in the article explicitly limits itself to North America, but it seems to me that you have repeatedly tried to assert an undue universalization of whichever culture you are familiar with. I'm not intending to offend you, and I'm not going to play with the text here anymore, but would argue that the practices of each country or culture simply deserves mention as such.  Alteripse 02:21, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: gedday Paul! I can't say I feel strongly (or overly knowledgable) about this as my medical degree is an MBBS (which clearly isn't a doctorate!) .... however I have always understood that the yanks call their MD degrees doctorates. I'm not sure about your statement a "doctorate" is defined as the highest degree available - it doesn't ring true to me - do you have a source? this is not to take away the distinction between a PhD and a yankee MD - i just thought they were both "doctorates". I could be wrong though, but I'd be inclined to trust alteripse who has not said as much, but I suspect holds an MD. I think we all should be a bit careful about stating what protocols are in other countries as the variations are considerable! Perhaps the best way forward is simply to explain the features of each type of doctorate. anyway that's m2cw. best wishes Erich 01:42, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: All US physicians (medical doctors) trained in the US have either an MD or a DO, which are considered doctorates here.Alteripse 03:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: just to clarify for Paul, the key words from Alteripse are trained in the US. my earlier mumbling related to doctors who qualify in another country (eg SA, UK etc) and then sit the US exams to have their medical qualification recognised... these foolish folk end up practicing medicine in the US but do not neccessarily have MDs. clear a mud? Erich 04:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: you mean you trust what you read in Wikipedia?? haven't you read the disclaimers!! ;-) Erich 04:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Do all USA medical doctors hold doctorate degrees?

message: No mention of doctoring the evidence, or to doctor a photo.. -- Joolz 18:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They would be included in a dictionary, but not in an article like this, surely. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that there would have been somewhere to link to about doctoring photos, although I couldn't find one (other than photoshopping) -- Joolz 00:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctoring

message: An anonymous academic just rewrote the whole article apparently to make the point that only people with european nonmedical academic doctorates deserve to be called doctor. This is now a minority usage despite this person's wish to turn back the language clock. This article was carefully negotiated over several months to include a wide range of perspectives, including this one and the anonmymous changes improved neither the accuracy nor usefulness of the article. alteripse 16:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent reversion

message: No good reasons were given for removing my changes, and both they and I have been falsely described. I am not an academic. Nor do I believe that "only people with european nonmedical academic doctorates deserve to be called doctor".
The only kind of doctorate is an academic one. Doctorates may be in medicine or any other subject. This is clear from the article, which the reverter appears not to have read properly.
As for 'European', there is absolutely no Eurocentrism in the article. The US (a country with about 5% of the world's population) is exceptional in that bachelor's-level degrees in medicine are on paper called 'doctorates'. I left mention of this exception in the article. I believe, however, that it requires some explanation for those who might not be familiar with its exceptionality. Note that 'Europe' does not mean 'everywhere outside the US'.
So that's three lazy errors already in the reverter's blurb: calling me an academic; saying that I think those who don't hold European doctorates shouldn't be called doctors; saying that I think those who hold medical doctorates shouldn't be called doctors. I don't think these things, and I didn't say them.
Fourth, I left a lot of it as it was.
As for 'perspectives', I have no 'perspective' to offer. I was trying to keep to the facts. It is true that there is a history to this article. This includes for example the mention by one discussant that 'doctor' is used as a noun to denote those with PhDs as well as to denote those who hold bachelor's-level degrees in medicine. That fact was not mentioned in the article itself before my changes.
(It might also be mentioned that the use of 'PhD' to describe a person, as in 'John is a PhD' is not encountered in the UK - at least, not in my experience. You would say 'John has got a PhD).
My version can doubtless be improved, but this will best be done by those who have read it and considered the merits of the particular changes.
People read encyclopedias to learn new facts. Whilst I am not saying that this one should be prescriptive, this does not mean that ignorant beliefs should not be countered. For example, I have met people in the UK who think that medics are 'doctors of medicine' and that people with doctorates are 'doctors' of some other subject, as if the qualifications were on the same level. That they aren't, is a fact, not an opinion. (The exceptional case of the US MD should of course be covered too, and is).
158-152-12-77 
Addendum
I see from the reverter's page that he or she is a medic. This would not otherwise be relevant, were it not for the fact that he or she has called me an academic, and wrongly so. Where he or she is coming from may perhaps be explicable in terms of his or her reference to 'negotiation'. I am not trying to negotiate anything, and do not think negotiation between interest groups is called for with regard to this article. Nor do I think that the discussion so far has involved any great amount of 'negotiation'. Rather, the facts should be presented in such a way as to maximise usefulness to those who might consult this entry. Criticisms of contributions, except where the contributions are obviously vandalistic or anti-social, should be constructive and specific.
If 'Alteripse' responds by re-reverting, I will not re-undo, because I have better things to do with my time than engage in such a conflict. But it will be unfortunate if such a re-reversion is allowed to stand, without proper discussion of the merits or demerits of the specific changes that the reverter doesn't like.
158-152-12-77 
Welcome to wikipedia. Learning to use the talk page is a good first step. You will find that anonymous contributors are appreciated when they correct minor errors in articles (e.g., spelling, links, etc) and when they contribute new facts to articles. Rewriting the major part of a contentious article will usually get you reverted with annoyance, especially when several of us have interactively tried to make sure all points of view and facts were represented. You think we all said, "wow, he really got it right" when you rewrote it? If you have an urge to become a valued contributor, (1) log in with a name and join the community; (2) don't simply replace other people's work without justifying the changes; (3) find a new article to write rather than redo one with an extensive multiauthor history. If this is the subject you are passionate about, how about listing the things in the current version you thought needed changing and why, or how about writing an article on doctorates? I don't like your version of this one for several reasons, including mistakes, style, balance, and geographic POV but you have yet to give us the courtesy of explaining just why your version is superior. alteripse 03:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reversion undone

message: Not quite.  An optometrist can treat and diagnose diseases of the eye and adnexa(area around the eye).  I don't care if you call us doctor or not, but I would wager someone on the verge of losing vision would be happy to do so.  Yes, like an audiologist testing ears then prescribing a hearing aid an optometrist tests acuity then prescribes glasses. That is where the similarity ends.  Audiologists do not treat diseases of the ear, they do not prescribe antibiotics.  A central corneal ulcer due to contact lens overwear is nothing like a patient overwearing a hearing aid.  There are countless other examples, and again, it doesn't matter to me if I'm refered to as a doctor or not.  My professional values, and value as a person are not measured by my title.  I am happy that I have the education to provide quality eye care for my patients, and they appreciate my care.  Nothing against audiologists, but we are not the same thing! 64.136.250.186 22:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would call an opthamologist a doctor, but probably not an optometrist.  Especially the ones that work at Wal-mart. 23:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optometrist akin to audiologist 

message: The section on "legal doctors" is full of mistakes and not wikified. Velho 01:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal doctors 

message: As it stands now I think that this article is unweildy. I suggest revisiting the idea of making this a disambiguation page. An example (modified from above):
———————
*For doctor of medicine see physician.
*For doctor as it applies to the holder of a high academic degree in any field. See doctorate.
*For doctor as a title of respect see doctor (title).
 
————————
Info from The Doctor (disambiguation) could also be included. Dv82matt 02:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created Doctor (disambiguation) and merged it with The Doctor disambiguation. 'The Doctor' now redirects to it. If no one objects I intend to shortly move this article to Doctor (title) and make this page redirect to the disambig page. So are there any objections? Dv82matt 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move completed.Dv82matt 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page? 

message: Somebody kindly take the time to update this article. Nobody has any right whatsoever to dictate what academic degrees warrant the use of title doctor, and which do not, and Wikipedia should reflect this. Furthermore, this is not a sandbox in which everyone can post their own official views. One of the leading members of the FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society) still contends that Psychiatry is not Medicine, and should not be called so. That's his issue; you won't find it on our psychiatry article because psychiatry is medicine, always has been and shall remain that way forevermore. If it does change, however, we'll edit it as appropriate. My point? Psychologists and Mathematicians are doctors. They just aren't the doctors you see on E.R. Our article should both reflect the veracity of the situation (Dr. Phil, Dr. Stephen Hawking, etc.) as well as grant these people their due respect. They have earned a doctorate; they are doctors. Period. I, for example, personally, don't consider the surgical procedures undertaken by chiropodists as 'surgery' per se, but, that's me. You won't find it on a wikipedia article because wikipedia is not about my opinions but about reality, and in reality, their duties fall under the so-called heading of surgery.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.77.200.129 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments. Also don't delete comments by other users. The page is getting long but it's better to archive old comments rather than delete them. Thanks. Dv82matt 22:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Needed