Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Osteopathic medicine in the United States has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Education (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

For-profit Medical Education[edit]

More recently, the topic of for-profit medical education has become an issue.

Is this an issue? Dumaka (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See section Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States#For-profit_medical_education for details and references. Bryan Hopping T 04:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Different from Osteopathy, right?[edit]

It would be good to have a section (however brief) on the relationship and differences between Osteopathic medicine in the United States and Osteopathy. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but beyond the historical connection (which the article discusses) there is (nearly) no relationship between these entities, though there once very much was. What would be even better would be a graphic showing the relationship between chiropratic, osteopathic, osteopathy (canadian, european, american) and mainstream modern medicine? Also, a "history of" article might be in order.Bryan Hopping T 02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction Too Long Tag[edit]

I had tagged this article as having an introduction too long, but this tag was removed. I think it ought to be re-added, because this article clearly goes against the WP guidelines about lead sections, namely that "The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs." While all of the information currently in the intro section seems relevant, and is very well sourced, it should probably go in a "History" section, and the introduction should be a short, concise summary. Jhfortier (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Having received no response for a month, I'm going to go ahead and re-add the "intro too long" tag. Per the WP guidelines on layout and introductory sections, this introduction is too long and should be shortened to include only a summary of what is in the article. Jhfortier (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Professional attitudes and criticism[edit]

"Some DO's do choose to sit for the USMLE in order to obtain competitive MD residency programs achieving an overall pass rate of 69%-73% on Step 1 (compared with a 91% pass rate for MD's)[57]" These statistics are very outdated being from 2004. The latest statistics (2008) should replace those currently being used, and for the record, the DO pass rate is much higher (80%). I have provided the following link to the most recent stats, still using the usmle.org website as a source.

http://www.usmle.org/Scores_Transcripts/performance/2008.html

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.226.118 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is outdated info. It is really school dependent as well especially for the best osteopathic schools - for example, TCOM (Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine) graduates just posted a 94% pass rate for 2010 USMLE1. Latest (2009) USMLE3 scores show a 96% pass rate for DOs vs. 93% for MDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.73.81 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Combining OM in the US and Comparison of DOs & MDs[edit]

I see that there has been much talk the past few years about combining these two pages. I have tried to do so in a coherant way that is also encyclopedic in nature, with hard facts. There was much old urban legend and unsubstatiated opinion that was in these pages or material that was frankly outdated. This has meant going to the original source material, in as much as possible. Many historic document are now being posted online by the state of Missouri, JAOA, JAMA, etc. The AT Still Museum has now scanned many documents, but requires login access (not sure how to handle that stylewise - couldn't find anything in the WIKI MOS on that one.) I would welcome some advice as to how to handle that properly.DrATStill (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Space Bar[edit]

Whoever wrote this article needs to get it fixed.204.140.185.228 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please limit <cquote> use[edit]

<cquote> is overused and incorrectly in this article (see instructions for use at Template:Cquote). This may overemphasize certain points and decrease reading flow. Please use {{quote}} or <blockquote></blockquote> instead. -Temporal User (Talk) 08:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag[edit]

I removed the POV tag at the top of the article. There is no discussion concerning the neutrality of the article, and the only recent discussions concern possibly wrong statistics. The editor who placed the tag did not start a discussion, nor did he explain the tag in the edit summary. If you're going to take the time to tag an article you could at least explain why you're doing it so someone can correct the problem. Primium mobile (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference[edit]

As a reader and autodidact, I came here wanting to learn the difference between an M.D. and a D.O. There's nothing here (or if there is it's deeply hidden) that says "D.O.'s have different letters after their name because _____________." In fact, quite the opposite. It seems the entire article has been written by D.O.'s on a mission to prove they're really no different. So far, the only difference I can tell is that they study the musculoskeletal system for a couple 100 more hours.

If I pay money to go see a D.O., how is my experience as a patient going to be different than if I went to see an M.D.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.146.227.4 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's because osteopathic physicians are now, in nearly all respects, indistinguishable from their M.D. counterparts. I understand your point that this article does not focus on the differences between the two but the article's title is not indicating that it is going to focus solely on the differences between M.D.'s and D.O.'s. That article would be the Comparison of M.D. and D.O. in the United States which is a separate article though that article too focuses on their similarities more so than their differences. Again, that is because M.D.'s and D.O.'s have far more similarities than differences today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talkcontribs) 07:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature DO vs Osteopathic Physician[edit]

I really do not see a clear distinction between the use of DO and osteopathic physician. In fact, the article states at the beginning that osteopathic physicians are known as DOs. DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and yes, while it is also the name of the degree, people refer to Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine as DOs as well as osteopathic physicians and MDs as medical doctors or Doctors of Medicine which are equivalent to the name of the degree. I think that changing the phrase osteopathic physician to DO is a more parallel comparison if we're comparing MDs to DOs and not "allopathic" physicians to "osteopathic physicians" that kind of nomenclature has fallen out of favor. The convention in the article is also to use MD and I think a parallel comparison should be used in the interest of NPOV not to mention that it makes each sentence a bit more concise. Feel free to respond on my talk page if you wish to discuss the matter further. If you still disagree perhaps we should consult wikipedia's editors or third parties, etc and see if they think there is enough of a distinction that osteopathic physician must be used or whether DO is a satisfactory replacement and is synonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Take for example the following sentence: "DOs are licensed to practice the full scope of medicine and surgery in all 50 states, equivalent to their MD counterparts." This sentence comes straight from the wikipedia page called Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and while the first sentence in the article says DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, the degree, it is also clear from the context of this sentence( and many others) that "DOs" is not referring to the degree but to the holder of the degree. So, while I do not disagree with your assessment that DO refers to the professional doctorate degree, I disagree with the statement that DO cannot be used to describe the holder of this professional degree in a similar manner to the way MDs are described and assert that DO is synonymous with osteopathic physician, especially considering common usage. Even the AOA uses it synonymously if you need more concrete evidence of its being used in this way. http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/what-is-a-do/Pages/default.aspxDoctorK88 (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature DO vs Osteopathic Physician[edit]

There is currently a dispute over whether or not DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is a valid substitution for the term osteopathic physician in this article. Only a few editors have participated in this discussion and to ensure that a comprehensive, representative stance is taken on this issue, more opinions are needed. Objections have included potential for confusion in distinguishing the DO degree from DOs (the holders of this degree), the formality of the term and recognition of the term. Counterarguments have included potential confusion between the terms "osteopathic physician" (U.S. trained) and "osteopath" (foreign trained), the use of the term DO as synonymous with osteopathic physician by the profession's central organizations, medical literature, government pages, and other encyclopedias as well as the fact that the term is clearly defined at the article's start and links out to Wikipedia's Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine article. Also, please note that a modification to this proposal has also been offered: to expand DO to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and MD to Doctor of Medicine instead of the proposed change. Please discuss, a wide variety of opinions is needed and welcomed. It is encouraged that whether or not you agree with the proposed change that you make other suggestions for change instead of simply shooting down ideas. Please make your decision based on evidence, logical arguments, and wikipedia's policies. Thank you. DoctorK88 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


I really do not see a clear distinction between the use of DO and osteopathic physician. In fact, the article states at the beginning that osteopathic physicians are known as DOs. DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and yes, while it is also the name of the degree, people refer to Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine as DOs as well as osteopathic physicians and MDs as medical doctors or Doctors of Medicine which are equivalent to the name of the degree. I think that changing the phrase osteopathic physician to DO is a more parallel comparison if we're comparing MDs to DOs and not "allopathic" physicians to "osteopathic physicians" that kind of nomenclature has fallen out of favor. The convention in the article is also to use MD and I think a parallel comparison should be used in the interest of NPOV not to mention that it makes each sentence a bit more concise. Feel free to respond on my talk page if you wish to discuss the matter further. If you still disagree perhaps we should consult wikipedia's editors or third parties, etc and see if they think there is enough of a distinction that osteopathic physician must be used or whether DO is a satisfactory replacement and is synonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added byDoctorK88 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Take for example the following sentence: "DOs are licensed to practice the full scope of medicine and surgery in all 50 states, equivalent to their MD counterparts." This sentence comes straight from the wikipedia page called Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and while the first sentence in the article says DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, the degree, it is also clear from the context of this sentence( and many others) that "DOs" is not referring to the degree but to the holder of the degree. So, while I do not disagree with your assessment that DO refers to the professional doctorate degree, I disagree with the statement that DO cannot be used to describe the holder of this professional degree in a similar manner to the way MDs are described and assert that DO is synonymous with osteopathic physician, especially considering common usage. Even the AOA uses it synonymously if you need more concrete evidence of its being used in this way.http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/what-is-a-do/Pages/default.aspxDoctorK88 (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

AACOMAS uses these terms interchangeably as well. DO is used both as the degree and also to name the holder of the degree (osteopathic physicians or DOs). You should be able to find it on the second or third page on this link: http://www.aacom.org/resources/bookstore/cib/Documents/2012cib/2012cib-p21-23.pdfDoctorK88 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We need a convention for the article. I would favor using the term "osteopathic physician" whenever possible, and using "DO" preferentially to refer to the degree, to avoid confusion. Bryan Hopping T 22:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree. In everyday use and by the profession DO and osteopathic physician are used interchangeably to refer to the holder of a DO degree. I have seen on your own talk page other users expressing the sentiment that they are more familiar with the title DO when compared to that of osteopathic physician and the purpose of wikipedia articles is to inform and be as accessible as possible. Not to mention that DO is a more concise term than that of osteopathic physician and is a more parallel term for comparison to MD than osteopathic physician. Again, I have seen on your talk page that many people have expressed contempt for the terms allopath or allopathic because of the negative connotations associated with it. Although osteopathic physician does not have this stigma/association in the DO community, it is not only cumbersome to say osteopathic physician in every sentence, it is part of the allopathic/osteopathic dichotomy which has fallen out of favor. My last point is that I have seen a great deal of confusion over the differences between osteopathic physicians and osteopaths from foreign nations. Using the term DO would probably eliminate this confusion completely since the titles are different enough. I understand that it is your personal preference to use osteopathic physician in place of DO but the fact remains that DO is an acceptable substitute for the term osteopathic physician, that all of my points are valid, and that it is commonly used, if not more so, than osteopathic physician by professional organizations such as the AOA and AACOMAS. If you still cannot see eye-to-eye with me on this issue then I strongly recommend that we seek the opinion of an administrator or someone of comparable stature to resolve/mediate the issue. Understand, I hold you in the highest respect since I saw that you are a DO yourself and I am currently a medical student at a DO school myself but I must disagree with your personal preference which is not part of NPOV. Granted, I prefer DO over osteopathic physician, but I am okay with the term osteopathic or osteopathic physician in the article but your reverted all of my edits that I changed from osteopathic physician to DO which were based on logical reasons that improved the writing style, the conciseness of many sentences, varied the sentence structure and would greatly reduce confusion among those seeking to learn about DOs and osteopathic medicine (especially how it differs from foreign osteopaths, a group that DOs really do not want to be confused with at all). To allow public perceptions to conflate osteopathic physicians and osteopaths is a disservice to the public and to the osteopathic physician profession. I look forward to your response and hope it is favorable. If it is not, I recommend we seek official mediation by wikipedia to determine if my substitutions of DO for osteopathic physician are valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talkcontribs) 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It will be crystal clear for readers from the context that holders of the degree, DOs are the ones practicing, learning, and training in certain ways. People understand that when it is written that MDs perform surgery, that it is not the degree performing the surgery but the holder of the degree. The same will apply here so that does not really seem like a valid objection.DoctorK88 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, while reverting my edits you made a mistake. You reverted an edit I made that changed how many foreign countries DOs have full practice rights in from 55 back down to 47 which is inaccurate, outdated information. It is over 50 countries now and according to other articles about 55 countries or so that DOs are given full practice rights and many others give partial rights. It would be greatly appreciated if you would correct this error. Thank you.DoctorK88 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
One final note to make-DO does not need an apostrophe after it every time it is used plurally. That should be reserved for possessive usage. If you need evidence that the plural of DO can be DOs I urge you to look at the following links from the AOA:

http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/Pages/default.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/dos-around-the-world/Pages/default.aspx http://www.aacom.org/resources/e-news/ome/2011-03/Pages/LoanRepayment.aspx (This one in particular demonstrates all my points that the plural of DO is DOs and that DO can be used in place of osteopathic physician to describe the holder of the degree and this comes from one of the most prominent professional organizations in the DO field). Again, if we cannot come to an agreement I still suggest dispute resolution though I hope you see my point.

You are most certainly correct that many reputable organizations in medicine use the acronym "DO" to refer to an osteopathic physician, as does this article in many places. The issue is not IF the acronym should be used, but when. Since this is an encyclopedia, we should use the clearest terms possible. Use "DO" when absolutely necessary, but use "osteopathic physician" with greater frequency for clarity and to maintain consistency with the articles title: "Osteopathic medicine in the United States." Bryan Hopping T 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I see your notification about dispute resolution. I think we could work this out here . . . there's much about this issue that we agree upon. Bryan Hopping T 02:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we have a fundamental disagreement about clarity. I maintain that DO is clearer (and other people have expressed this same sentiment to you on your own talk page) because it is distinct enough from the term osteopath that the likelihood of people conflating these terms, as they often do, will be diminished. Again, for clarity DO is a term clearly defined at the start of the article and it is clear from the context of the sentence that DO can also mean the holder of the degree and if you read the sources I provided you, you would see that the meaning of DO is unambiguous given the context of the sentence. Furthermore, I have new references if you like that also shows that it is more than professional DO organizations that use the term this way but academic papers and government pages (the objection of its use as a colloquial term, which is false, prompted my search for scholarly articles that use the phrase in this manner). The confusion argument does not seem legitimate to me if a clear definition of the term is given, which it is, and because of context. It is absolutely a valid substitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talkcontribs) 04:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, your previous arguments did seem to suggest that, contrary to what you said now, you did not think the acronym should be used at all in this way since you said the phrase is only used for the degree which I have proved to be false. DoctorK88 (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopping, this was brought to my attention, it addresses the concern regarding the usage of apostrophes for the plural of DO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS#Abbreviations — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talkcontribs) 05:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Oppose abbreviation for multiple reasons that have been covered in previous discussions (linked below):
    1. A quick glance at the disambiguation page DO shows more than a dozen WP:Notable subjects that use the same abbreviation, making it confusing to some readers.
    2. Multiple medicine-savvy editors from outside the USA have indicated that this abbreviation is unfamiliar to them.
    3. WP:MOS#Abbreviations says "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations: Avoid abbreviations when they might confuse the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal." There's no space restraint here; we can avoid any potential confusion or appearance of informality by spelling it out.
    4. Not everyone with a DO degree is a licensed physician, and the use of the degree confuses the important distinction. For example, "Osteopathic physicians enter primary care fields at a higher rate than their MD-holding counterparts" is correct, but a DO who is not a licensed physician can go to jail if he sets up a primary care practice. "DO holders" don't get to practice medicine; "licensed physicians who happen to hold DOs" do.
    5. Although DO-supporting organizations like the AOA use the degree to refer to the person, no general-purpose encyclopedia uses the abbreviation when they refer to licensed physicians rather than the academic degrees they hold. Wikipedia should look and read like an encyclopedia, not like unencyclopedic sources.
    6. We don't do this with other degrees: We don't say "MBBChs prescribe medications in Egypt" when we mean "Physicians prescribe medications in Egypt". We don't say "MSNs screen children for ear infections" when we mean "Nurse practitioners screen children for ear infections". We should not treat this any differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support abbreviation for multiple reasons that have been covered in previous discussions as shown in the link already provided:
  • Addressing WhatamIdoing's first point, the article clearly defines what DO means in the context of the article at the article's start. Furthermore, osteopathic physician (US trained) is a term that can be confused with osteopath (foreign trained) so that is true for both sides.
  • How are we defining "medicine-savvy editors?" What is more important is the representative view of the wikipedia community as a whole, not this specific portion of it which may be a minority of readers.
  • Again, "unwarranted abbreviations" how are we defining this? This abbreviation, as well as that of MD which is understood to represent Doctors of Medicine, is present throughout many articles of wikipedia. DO is defined at the beginning of this article. Conciseness is one element of good writing. The counteroffer of expanding both M.D. and D.O. to Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, respectively has been offered.
  • It is clear from context in a sentence what DO means. Readers will understand that in a sentence such as this: DOs complete four years of medical school, several years of residency, can perform surgery and prescribe medications, etc. that it is not the degree, a piece of paper, that is performing the action but the holder of the degree. A sentence can be included to make it clear that not all holders of medical degrees are licensed to practice to address this source of confusion, 1-2 sentences should suffice.
  • More than just DO-supporting organizations like the AOA use the degree to refer to the person which WhatamIdoing has conveniently omitted. The term is also present in other formal areas such as articles in peer-reviewed research journals, government pages and his claim that it is not present in other general-purpose encyclopedias is false. Another encyclopedia was shown but WhatamIdoing insisted that source after source had a problem without providing evidence to back up this claim.
  • Actually, we do do this with other degrees. It occurs with M.D. all of the time. Even in this article as well as in others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talkcontribs) 01:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    Everyone knows what your opinion is: you're the person who started the RFC (and the three previous discussions). It's not necessary for you to repeat it here, and being perceived to "argue with" people who aren't involved in editing this article usually backfires (even if you don't mean to be arguing). RFC isn't exactly a back-and-forth debate. It's a request for comments, and your primary job is to sit back and let other people comment. The more text you put in this section, and the more you attempt to rebut comments, the fewer people who will be willing to comment, and the less open they'll be to your position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
And everyone knows your point of view from the linked discussions so it was just as pointless to put your summed up (arguably non-neutral view). Before you intervened in what looked to me like a thinly-disguised attempt to sway other editors to your viewpoint, I was sitting back and letting people comment without interference. I started this Rfc but I did not inject my opinion into it and only summed up the nature of the debate. I presented a balanced statement to keep my summary neutral. Again, please stop with the condescending tone in your comments towards me. Thanks. DoctorK88 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Qualified support I am not in favour of any avoidable abbreviation in a medium like Wikipedia in formal article content. The likes of "WP" in informal talk mode are "OK". Anyway, I am too sceptical of osteopathy to be properly NPOV. However, given that the terms are properly defined and explained and used repeatedly in suitable context in the article, I cannot see that any of the objections carry enough weight to override the preferences of the author. Using the abbreviation outside the article is another matter. It might be worth policing disambiguation pages etc, and pages in which osteopathy is not the primary topic. We are drowning in acronyms anyway. But within this article none of this strikes me as storm-outside-teacup stuff; how come we have time to argue it? JonRichfield (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
With the exception of the skepticism of osteopathy (which is different from osteopathic medicine), I fully agree with JonRichfield's points about the clarity of the definition and sufficient explanation for the use of the abbreviation.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Re the RFC request[edit]

Editors considering a response to the RFC request should first consider whether or not consensus has already been recently reached on this issue in the combined discussions at:

(either of which may have rolled off to their respective archives by the time the RFC closes). A summary may be found in the "Closing comments" in the DRN thread. In any event, the opinions given in those discussions should be considered when evaluating consensus under the currently-pending RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarity[edit]

Dear Hopping, I really do not think saying Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine is an unnecessary title when this is commonly what they are called, frankly, they are called this more often than osteopathic physicians in the real world. It makes perfect sense in the way that individuals who have earned the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree are often called Medical Doctors. I realize that my firsthand knowledge and experience with Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine is only anecdotal evidence but I assure you that many places including academic literature, the AOA, and other encyclopedia entries use the title Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine interchangeably with osteopathic physician. The title I used also draws a starker contrast to the term "osteopath" which, as the article discusses, is frequently a source of confusion for many people trying to distinguish Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine from non-U.S. osteopaths. Additionally, I explained why I replaced osteopathic with D.O.-awarding or DO, the reason is simply: it is a more direct and appropriately parallel comparison to M.D. If you are going to call them MD schools or MD students then you call the other side of the coin DO schools and DO students, etc and we do not use allopathic for the M.D. students or schools since this has pejorative implications associated with its usage. I hope this clarifies why I put that title there. If you still do not agree with this edit, you should explain how exactly your edit "improves clarity." I strongly encourage you to have a discussion with me before reverting my edit(s) since this a courteous thing to do on wikipedia and I wish to assume good faith but to do so you must discuss this with me before reverting my edits as I wish to avoid an edit war.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Since this article was created many years ago, nomenclature has been a contentious topic. At many points, the consensus was to have these questions of nomenclature addressed in the section entitled "nomenclature." Bryan Hopping T 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
We recently had a length RfC process involving many editors on this EXACT topic. This issue has been extensively discussed. SEE:
Before again making new changes to the article on this issue (changing titles to DO in the article), please evaluate the discussion of these articles. Bryan Hopping T 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I did evaluate them and it was never definitively put to rest Hopping and it is discourteous to keep reverting my edits like you did before the completion of this discussion and a solution are reached not to mention communicating that you were moving our literal discussion here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what else I can do. I would refer you to the recent discussions of this topic above. I hope that is helpful to you. Bryan Hopping T 02:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing else to do Hopping. You clearly have no counterargument to mine that the matter is not closed. Until the discussion is closed and consensus is reached on both the old and new disputes, please refrain from reverting.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I am willing and interested in working this out. Why don't we start with a description of the changes you would like to make? Are their specific suggestions you have for edits? Bryan Hopping T 01:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems like it is too late for you to start being constructive now given the ridiculous actions you have taken. The inconsistency between your actions and your words is truly staggering. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


There's always opportunity for a clean, fresh start. I appreciate your passion and your dedication. Let's see if we can work together! Bryan Hopping T 18:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I will work with others on this issue but I refuse to work with you after the puerile stunts you pulled. You really should be ashamed about how you acted.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
If you intend continuing to edit at Wikipedia, would you please become familiar with how the place works. In brief, no more back-and-forth on an article talk page with opinions about another editor. This page is for discussion on improvements to the article only. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree though there is no need to say it with a rude tone-basic part of wikipedia etiquette for someone lecturing us on wikipedia policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_etiquette Anyway, that aside, you are right, I will no longer be having a discussion with Hopping. All I have wanted from the beginning is a full discussion about the issue I have raised and for a conclusion to be drawn by the community before taking action.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity in article intro[edit]

"Though still trained in Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM),[4] the modern derivative of Still's techniques,[5][6] an increasing minority of osteopathic medical physicians continue to use it in actual practice.[7][8]"

Does this mean that current trends have a small and decreasing number of practitioners of Still's techniques, or a small but increasing number of them? Additionally: is the trend (in whichever direction) related to changes in the proportion of practitioners expressing a particular preference, or a matter of absolute numbers driven by expansion/contraction in the total population of practitioners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.247.228 (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)