Talk:Paraveterinary workers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Ok article but should really include more international options. There are vet nurses/techs in many countries besides the US. UK Veterinary Nursing is mentioned, but there's no redirect from Veterinary Nursing or Veterinary Nurse, and no other options are mentioned at all. The oath is possibly relevant, but only for US graduates. All in all I feel the article needs a thorough edit to include the millions of us living outside the US. I'd like to do it myself but I only know UK and Scandinavian options and I'm not skilled enough at formatting to do it really well. If someone would make the effort it would be helpful for anyone looking at options for education within this subject.KatjaKat 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC) "i want to be a vet all my life" says heather, a student at new caney 6th grade campus


Why is there a block around the section "Job description" hiding most of the text and how do I get rid of it?

A blue box around a section is the result of a blank before text. Remove the blank, and the box goes away. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I have trimmed the external links section heavily, due to its length and the inappropriateness of some of its contents, in line with various policies (WP:EL notably).

The following message is copied from my talk page for transparency:

I have restored the links deleted from "Veterinary Technician". I have read the article "WP:EL" and find that all of the links were in keeping with the guidelines. Where there are links to particular pages within sites it is because these are large sites that are not intuitively navigated. I can find no mention of limiting links to "one per country". Veterinary associations oversee veterinary technician/nursing associations so the relationship is relevant and both should be listed. As to why all of the "Resource" links were deleted you leave me stumped. I have been researching and editing this article for the past two and one-half years and have been careful to avoid advertorial or strictly commercial links and have made an effort to only include relevant links. As a professional veterinary technician for the last twenty-six years I think I have a good idea of what resources are relevant but I would welcome the insight of a fellow professional with similar qualifications. I'm sure your deletions of my time-consuming research were done with the best intentions and I do realize that the list appears long--but I guarantee the relevance of its contents.--Bajutsu (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, happy to discuss. Firstly, you won't find any good or featured articles with external link tails this long. Once a list passes about a dozen links, it becomes hard to use, and this defeats the object. Secondly, having multiple links per country seems overkill - especially when you start looking at territories of canada etc. as the logical outcome is that you should have one for every state of the US, one for each region of Spain etc. and then the list would be longer than the article. This means you need to look at the principle of what is included. Secondly, some of the links were outright commercial spam (like this one), and some were just discussion forums etc. which are not considered appropriate external links. External links are normally just to governing bodies, official publications etc.
All of this leads me on to article structure. At the moment, the article is badly structured, not least of all because of the giant country list within it. I would advocate splitting the article down so that this focuses solely on the worldwide view of what vet techs and nurses do (nurses barely get a mention at the minute, especially in the lead), and then each country with enough information should get its own article. This works well for articles like paramedic, which talks in worldwide terms, but is supported by articles like paramedics in the united states. I would suggest adopting the same structure here, and removing all the country information to separate articles. This creates a much cleaner article, and also negates the need to have most of these external links here at all, as they would then be at the relevant country page.
Hope that all makes sense, and with any luck we can make the split, and then the external links will be manageable and the article will be better. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 06:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


As this is the English language Wikipedia this article reflects the use of the term veterinary technician in anglophonic countries. Amongst anglophonic nations this term is only used in North America (i.e. Canada and the U.S.). South Africa uses the term but in a more limited non-synonymous context. Outside North America the term veterinary nurse is used for our counterparts (i.e. the U.K., Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa).
As you indicated "nurses barely get a mention", especially in the lead. That is because the article is about veterinary technicians, not nurses. If somebody qualified (i.e. a veterinary nurse) wishes to take on the task of writing a separate article titled "Veterinary nurse", that would be welcome. It has been proposed in the past but nobody has stepped up.
The section covering our counterparts in other nations limits itself for the most part to brief contrasts of how the profession differs from what is found in North America.
As for external links I'll have to disagree, a thorough list is much easier and convenient to use than having to scour dozens of mini articles searching for links.
Again these are relevant links. You deleted the AVMA link, the AVMA oversees veterinary medicine (to include technician education) in the U.S. The profession would not exists without the involvement of the AVMA.
You deleted the AAVSB which connects readers to the laws governing technicians in every state and avoids the need for separate listing by states, something I think neither of us would like to see.
You deleted AALAS which is the governing body for technicians working with laboratory animals. An important career path to veterinary technicians that serves medicine as a whole. Unlike paramedics we work on all species of animal except man, it follows that our list of links will be a bit longer.
I concede that Quebec's association can be deleted since Quebec is also a member of Canada's national association. However, Ontario, being the only Canadian province not to hold membership in the national association deserves mention.
You also deleted the AVA which, like the AVMA, oversees veterinary technology in its country.
As a concession I have trimmed the resources section without completely eliminating it as you had done. VASTA needs to stay as it is the source for veterinary anesthetist training with the approval of the ECVAA, the Association of Veterinary Anesthetists, and the IVAPM. While it is a for profit venture it is also the only source for this training. As with paramedics both the NAEMT and the NREMT here in America are for profit ventures but no article on prehospital medicine here would fail their mention. The NREMT provides certification to personnel in 46 out of the 50 states. Just because an organization is for profit does not exclude its mention. After all it's not a link to
As for your reference to a site being a forum you are probably referring to VSPN. Yes, it includes a forum but is much more. It is a centralized repository of professional articles and an educational site. It is probably the premiere educational site for veterinary technicians in North America.
Again after searching I can find not even obsure mention to this seemingly spontaneously-generated rule of having one link per country. Even in your mentioned article "Paramedic", both the NAEMT and NREMT are linked. Both of these are American organizations.
I have deleted the image you attached to the article because the caption is erroneous. There are no veterinary technicians in the U.S. Navy. The only branch of the U.S. military with veterinary personnel is the Army. The only other branch to ever have them was the Air Force but not since 1980. Army personnel may be attached to work with other branches or in the case of the photo may work on a Navy base but not be "in the Navy". Nothing personal but an individual who is professionally familiar with the field would have been more likely to know this as well as being better informed to judge which links are relevant.
I would suggest that if you are determined to have dozens of mini articles rather than having a couple of thorough articles (i.e. veterinary technician and veterinary nurse) with mention to the field in non-anglophonic nations, that you work on all these in your sandbox with their respective links and then launch all simultaneously when they are ready rather than making sweeping deletions to others painstaking research without preserving their work.
Paraveterinary workers would probably work better to serve as a launching platform for more in-depth articles such as Veterinary technician. Once up it may be a better home for the country list. For now Veterinary technician is a stable article title (see your guidelines on moving articles) focusing on veterinary technicians (in the anglophonic sense) and the only home available to the country list.
Regards,--Bajutsu (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, you need to discuss here before reversion. Starting with the article title - the wikipedia policy is for commonality (see wp:commonality), and this is why we have an article on fixed-wing aircraft and not on airplanes or aeroplanes. In this case, even the article says that nurse is the dominant term outside of north america, and even they appear to be campaigning to be called nurses.
Any further detail to this can be in the sub articles. I will make the splits now, and then the links will be best placed in their respective country articles.
Also, your justification for removal of the picture is quite insulting. I have taken the information from the US Navy captioned photo on Commons, my personal knowledge or not is irrelevant. If you want to challenge whether the US Navy knows what it does or not, then take it up with them.
Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


How can your personal knowledge or lack thereof be irrelevant to an article where you wish to make the decisions as to what is relevant to the topic. As far a Commons is concerned, the photo's location on Commons does not mean that the Navy authored the caption.

--Bajutsu (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Paraveternary workers: North America in keeping with Owain.davies example of Paramedic: United States. As written the article only treats North American paraveterinarys.

--Bajutsu (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of co-operation would be appreciated here. Your move was not constructive, as it is a global article and created double redirects. If you let me create some of the structure, then we can see where we are, and we will have a suitable set of articles. Your actions at the moment come across as petulant, but it may be inexperience, so i will assume good faith. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Paraveterinary workers in North AmericaTalk:Paraveterinary workers – With two editors making moves simultaneously, this talk page became separated from its article. This talk page belongs at Talk:Paraveterinary workers, rather than this daughter article. If they could please be recombined OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why they don't deserve the title of Nurses[edit]

Nurses are autonomous professionals who may work along side doctors or independently. Paraveternary workers (PVW for short) are required to under the supervision of a vet. They have take no official position on anything animal related such farming practices or cruelty laws and report to vets rather than other PVWs unlike nurses who answer only to senior nurses.

PVWs are subservient to the vets and therefore do as they're told, whether it's in the animals interest or not. Nurses are not required to follow doctors that aren't in the patient's interest, in fact they're legally required not to.

Nurses can and often do testify against doctors in lawsuits, disciplinary proceeding, and public consultations. I've never heard of a PVW testifying against a vet, ever.

PWVs will adondon an animal patient to save themselves or if ordered to by their vet employers. A nurse is never to abandon a patient. Doing so would likely mean license suspension.

Therefore, they ought stay titled as they are. The title of Nurses clearly isn't necessary or accurate.

OK, that may be your opinion, but it doesn't actually help the article any. Wikipedia does not express an opinion, only reports those facts (and occasionally opinion) expressed in reputable third party sources. Notwithstanding that, I think you may be misguided by a sinlge country view, whereas the article clearly shows that in some countries they can work autonomously. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed "United States veterinary technician's oath"[edit]

There is no such thing as a United States veterinary technician's oath. I'm sure Midland College's vet tech program seeks to advertise the dedication and professionalism they seek to instill in their students. However, I question the value this box adds to the article, as there is in fact a nationwide Code of Ethics for veterinary technicians - but no oath. If we could put an infobox about the Code of Ethics, that would be useful. As it stands, this is misleading and borderline advertising. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright so rather than deleting the infobox outright, so I've been looking at the Code of Ethics, there are a couple different ones I've found. Each college has their own which tend to be variants of the one here [1]. I don't think we should be using a single college's code and label it the "United States Veterinary Technician Code of Ethics," as just like the oath there is no such thing. The closest thing to a national organization, the AVMA, has a "Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics", the most recent version is found here [2]. I'm going to try to replace the content in the infobox with the Principles at the AVMA. <>Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ack, I ended up going with the Purdue/NAVTA Code of Ethics because the AVMA code referred only to veterinarians, not techs. I think the NAVTA Code is not only more recognizable for vet techs, but the NAVTA is more applicable to this article in general. I might not have formatted the source in the box correctly, and we might specify that this is an American code, perhaps by specifying NAVTA in the infobox title? But I'm content with it for now, and will take a break. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)