Talk:Doctor (title)/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 2004 and January 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Doctor (title)/Archive02. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Wingsandsword 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm NOT a Doctor! An open letter on the misuse of the title "Doctor."

One day, back in the summer of 1998, a piece of mail arrived in my apartment mailbox. My eyes scanned the envelope, got as far as "Dr." and I said to myself, "This isn't for me, this is for some doctor." I read the rest of the line and found that it was, in fact, for me. I was a newly-minted PhD and the mail was for Dr. Cynthia M. Piccolo.

Imagine you're on an airplane.

"Help! Is there a doctor in the house?!"

"Why yes, I'm a doctor."

"Thank heavens! My wife is ill!"

"Well, actually, I'm a doctor of mathematics, but looking at her, I can estimate that she has a 90% chance of dying before the plane lands if you don't find her a medical doctor at once."

Thus the subject of my rant: I may have a PhD – from an excellent, accredited school – and I did spend 12 years completing the BA-MA-PhD process, but I'm not a "Dr." And neither are any of you other PhDs, EdDs, or other "D's" – except MDs, or their foreign titular equivalents – with few exceptions.

The following people are doctors.

Veterinarians absolutely are doctors. After all, while there are veterinary specialists out there – like the orthopod who repaired my dog's fractured leg – most vets have to provide medical and surgical care of any furred, feathered, shelled, skinned, or scaled creature presented to them. Now that's a doctor!

Dentists are doctors. Most perform surgery. And furthermore, just think about having to reach into the mouth of someone that hasn't brushed his/her teeth in an age, is unfamiliar with the concept of floss, smokes, and enjoys foods such as garlic, curry, and ripe cheese. They simply deserve to use the title.

Podiatrists and chiropodists are doctors for reasons similar to why dentists are doctors – but only if they also perform surgery.

The following people are not doctors.

Psychologists are not doctors – they fall under the PhD category. Furthermore, the public gets too confused over the issue of psychiatrist versus psychologist.

Chiropractors are not doctors – they're more "physical therapists+."

Similarly, PharmDs are not doctors – they're more "pharmacists+."

Optometrists are not doctors. Optometrists do for the eyes what audiologists do for the ears. If audiologists aren't doctors (and they aren't), then optometrists aren't doctors. Simple logic and fair play.

Homeopaths are not doctors. Homeopathy is a load of hooey.

Naturopaths are not doctors. Any field in which one has the option of obtaining a diploma by distance education cannot possibly produce "doctors."

And don't get me started on people who get "PhDs" from non-accredited schools, or worse, diploma mills, and presume to call themselves "doctors." Or those who presume to use honorary degrees to call themselves "doctors." (And as an aside – why do schools not give these honorees an award, or take them out to dinner, or donate money to their cause, rather than give them a fake degree?)

Really, it's all in the title. Let's come up with another name – maybe people could call us all "Phil" or "Ed" instead? In the meantime, remember: You're Jane Doe, PhD, or Joe Schmoe, EdD, or whatever. Be proud of your education (in the case of real schools) and accomplishments, but don't claim to be a "doctor."

Of course, this is all just my (educated) opinion.

Sincerely,

Cynthia M. Piccolo, BA, MA, PhD, BEd

This needs to be merged with physician. --Jia ng 02:55, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. Holders of PhDs are not physicians. Paul Beardsell 23:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It was already done weeks ago. Refer to the page history. --Jiang


 * That was a very quick response and contains a hint of criticism but would it not have been nice if the person who did that fix said so here? Paul Beardsell 23:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)  Or that you, who monitors the page so closely, acknowledged the change when it happened?  Paul Beardsell 23:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have re-written this article keeping all the information which is correct and which should not appear elsewhere and adding other info re dentists and vets. The &quot;interchangeably&quot; point was not clear or was not understood by me so that has been lost. The &quot;significant contribution&quot; point has been culled because that is true for all those holding a doctorate - not just for medical doctors (which was the implication) - the point should be made in doctorate. Paul Beardsell 23:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "Doctor" as a salutation (in line with Mister) is used for anyone with a doctorate (eg John Doe, PhD can be referred to as "Dr. Doe"). But doctor (noun form) refers to physicians -- "I am a doctor" means the same as "I am a physician". People with PhDs do not usually say "I am a doctor" to avoid the confusion. People with the DDS call themselves dentists, not doctors. The style of address and the job position needs to be distinguished.--Jiang 23:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I think you can further improve the article thus. Paul Beardsell 00:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) I was redirected to Doctor from Dr. It is this abbreviation which dentists and vets use in SA and Australia. Paul Beardsell 00:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * But isn't "Dr" an abbreviation for "Doctor"? Dr. Doe is short for Doctor Doe (Doctor of Philosophy still contains the word "Doctor"? I have a feeling this article will be a perpetual stub. Merge? --Jiang

My response re abbr was acknowledging your point. Vets don't call themseleves doctors but it is still Dr Doe on the name plate. Paul Beardsell 03:13, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

American vs British English
Please quote your source for "D'r". No source? Then I will revert. Paul Beardsell 01:40, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Eric Partridge: Usage and Abusage, A Guide to Good English, Third Edition, 1999, Penguin Books
 * Kindly look up the term Dr.

You are spliting hairs on some of the British / American differences. I know that US could be United States of Brazil but if US is not allowed why have you not insisted on Republic of South Africa? South Africa could be held to encompass a dozen countries. Not by me! But all that aside the "D'r" abbr. of doctor I have never seen and I am a bit of a (British) pedant myself. So lets lose that. Going through the whole of Wikipedia inserting full stops on abbreviations is a real pain in the butt! Especially when there isn't even any accepted rule - they are just conventions. See abbreviation. I suggest that a much better strategy would be to change all occurences of "abbreviated" to "abbreviated" and to leave the text clean. What say you? Paul Beardsell 04:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * South Africa is not the same as Southern Africa (so too is there Western Europe, Northern North America and so forth); besides, how am I to know what it refers to in this instance? To refer to the USA as the US, however, is simply bad taste and centres round that specific country as though it is and always will be the only federation with such a name. I can't see any harm in having the full name spelt out ...


 * As for full stops with abbreviations, I merely wanted to include "D'r", which is &#8211; I am told &#8211; never used in American English, hence the separate British variant. I think to have 'abbreviated' linked to the article, however, would be a marvellous thing to do, and is a lovely idea in itself. There is just this nagging question on how to go about changing all occurrences to this. Sinuhe 13:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, but can we not agree that "D'r" is very uncommon usage, to say the least! And, as such belongs not here but on an uncommon abbreviations page? Paul Beardsell 14:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps so. It certainly isn't as common as Dr is. Someone has deleted it by now anyway.

And why haven't you changed UK to Great Britain using the same argument? Paul Beardsell 15:34, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * United Kingdom is not the same as Great Britain &#8211; it also includes Northern Ireland. Also, it is the official short name of the country, I believe. The full name, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", seems a bit long to use; but if you think it needs change, feel free to make it. Sinuhe 19:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good point. But I am not suggesting the change. I am simply pointing out that if "US" is objected to on the basis that it might not be the first or last or even the only current federation with "united states" in its name, then we have the same problem with "UK". If "UK" is official then "US" is at least de facto. Paul Beardsell 00:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Change to disambiguation, pros and cons
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)

I thought the disambiguation page idea was excellent, all bar a few poorly-constructed phrases. Below is a mildly edited version of it as a draft. Re-edit the draft at will! Tannin 10:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * For doctor of medicine or physician see physician.
 * The title doctor is also applied to the holdr of a high academic degree in any field. See doctorate.
 * For the use of doctor as a title of respect when the person being addressed has no doctoral degree, see doctorate.

''This is a disambiguation page; that is, one that just points to other pages that might otherwise have the same name. If you followed a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link to point to the appropriate specific page.''

As long as a false impression is not created and info is not lost I won't oppose any reorg BUT ...: Where has the Portuguese info gone? What about my assertion the so-called "first professional" (I still do not know where that phrase comes from and no one will say) do not have a "doctorate" and therefore doctorate is the wrong place for the table of which professions use the title doctor. Paul Beardsell 13:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

At the term "first professional" is defined to include lawyers, pharmacists and theologians none of whom, I believe, are not called "doctor" (unless a doctorate is held) anywhere in the English speaking world. Paul Beardsell 13:50, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest a table: Countries on one axis, professions on the other, with X's showing who is "allowed" the title "Doctor". And before the table, links to Doctorate and Physician. No loss of info. Paul Beardsell 13:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Add a reference to Surgeon too. Hugh2414 14:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

disambiguation
Making doctor into a da page was a stupid idea, especially since doctor (title) is only linked to by the da. That just defeats the purpose... This page discusses the different meanings. There's no need to move. --Jiang 04:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello Jiang! thank your for you honesty. It is hardly surprising that only one page points to doctor (title) since i've only just made it. You will note that most of the pages currently pointing to doctor should really point to medical doctor. In perfect world somebody with a more obsessive nature than me would redirect all the pages pointing to the DA page appropriately. As someone else above said a da page is an excellent idea. People use doctor in two separate ways both warrant encyclopaedic examination, but not on the same page. People want either info on the dudes with white coats and stethoscopes or they want information on the use of the title. The issue is complicated by the fact that - outside of North America - physician does not equate to medical doctor. A DA page clarifies this for both readers and contributors. best wishes e 04:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * But the whole point of Doctor (title) was to discuss how the term is used. The article is not solely on its title. The da page does a poor job of clarifying. Medical doctor is not solely "BE" because the term is used commonly in AE too.


 * If the pages linking there are excessive, we can simply make a da notice at the top, like at China. There's no need to make a separate page. --Jiang 11:40, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Jiang:
 * Doctor (title) may still discuss how the term is used
 * "The da page does a poor job of clarifying." - perfectly clear to me but feel free to clarify
 * "Medical doctor is not solely "BE" because the term is used commonly in AE too" - I was actually refering to the use of physician
 * re the China analogy, please re-read (or read for the first time): "As someone else above said a da page is an excellent idea. People use doctor in two separate ways both warrant encyclopaedic examination, but not on the same page. People want either info on the dudes with white coats and stethoscopes or they want information on the use of the title."
 * sorry to really hammer this, but as far as I can tell you are the only holder of your view.
 * Best wishes e 23:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

--Jiang 00:20, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) There's no need for a separate page if it fits on the regular page
 * 2) Positions are meant to come with titles. Doctor (title) discusses the uses of the term and under what particular situations it means different things. doctor just lists them out w/o explaining. It's only clear to you because you made the page
 * 3) That's what the format you used implies. That's why making a da is a bad idea.
 * 4) someone else did not suggest to move the content to another page and then make a da. Some suggested to make a da page, period. if they want info on physicians they link will be readily available on top. I don't see your objection to this.
 * 5) that's irrelevant. As far as I can tell you are the only holder of your view.

Also, it is customary for those who make disambiguation pages to click on "what links here" to fix all the links. If you're not prepared to do that, then please dont make a disambiguation page. --Jiang 00:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

are you always this argumentative about topics that you have limited experience in? You are either not reading or understanding what i am saying and I am starting to find this conversation rather tedious. Why don't you drop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine and explain yourself? cheers e 00:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You've failed to make the case on why a separate page is necessary. As a result, I will have no other option but to rever your move. And please cut the ad hominem attacks. This is about common usage, not medical terminology. --Jiang 00:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Jiang, I'm sorry I feel obliged to flag this page as disputed. i'm not going to argue with you. I have explained myself clearly above and you have not understood. In response you have taken hasty unilateral action. Several agree with having a doctor as a da page and noone has stated support for your position. As I have already stated my case I will not repeat it. e 01:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

To make a disambiguation, it is not necessary to make a disambiguation page. Please RTFM. Is my disambiguation at the top not enough? or should be redirect this page to physician? You have not explained what is inaccurate about the current setup, or why it is inappropriate to disambiguate things this way. You have only said that you dont want to discuss this. When people refuse to discuss, I move. --Jiang 01:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I said i refuse to "argue", i have already "discussed." I also invited you to a forum where this disagreement could be reviewed by others. I would have appreciated you letting that discussion run through before unilaterally reverting my edits. Several agree with having a doctor as a da page and noone has stated support for your position. e 01:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Please invite those poeple here, not the other way around. This has more to do with common usage than clinical medicine. It only so happens that the subject of the article deals with the clinical medicine, but this is coincidental. --Jiang 03:14, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Basis for disupute
This page is innaccurate as it states that doctor has an "Alternative meaning: medical doctor." For 99% of uses doctor actually referrs to a medical doctor, (aka "physician" in America). Therefore the alternative meaning, in the common language, is as actually as discussed on this page. However all holders of the title have worked hard to earn it and deserve recognition. Therefore rather than redirecting doctor to medical doctor and putting a link to "Alternative meaning: doctor (title)." I made doctor a disambiguation page with links to both uses.

Jiang has taken it upon himself to unilaterally revert my edits although several agree with having a doctor as a da page and noone has (yet) stated support for his position.e 01:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * If for 99% of the time "doctor" refers to "medical doctor", then a redirect is the most approrpiate thing to do. It is not our job to reward people who have worked hard. If they are almost never called something, then we can just about ignore whatever label that is. However, I dont think this is really the case.


 * It is important to differentiate the salutation from the occupation. Do they not use the salutation at all in Britain? Or do they restrict it to people who are in the medical profession? Is Doctor Jones by assumed to be a medical doctor or can he hold a Phd? It is not the word "Doctor" that has an alternative meaning that is synonymous with physician, but that the content of the page has an alternative meaning. If this article is to discuss only the salutation, then the occupation is an alternative meaning and the da notice is fine as is. IF it is to discuss both, then it is in itself a disambiguating page, just like how a ton of pages link to Britain when the intended link is United Kingdom. In either case, moving content to another page is unnecessary.


 * While da pages are proper when we have two conflicing meanings that both must be disambiguated (like at Georgia, the State and country), this is hardly the case. medical doctor redirects to physician, so therefore, the salutation and occupation are not fighting for the same space and we can allow the salutation some room. But if it is really necessary to treat them equally, then it is best to fix all the links that point here before making this into a da page. Using this da/article combo is done not uncommonly when there are many links headed to a page and fixing them would be too much work.--Jiang 03:14, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine 

how many doctor pages do we need??
Ok well i've just been told by a Californian first year college student that disambiguating doctor is a "stupid idea"... so be before i upset anymore freshman (or more likely upset the same one again), does anybody else see the need for M.D. in addition to the doctorate page and the two pages now linked to from doctor? (Dr) e 06:49, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation is fine. One thing, though.  In the United States, I think those that go to osteopathic schools get a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) degree and practice medicine without an M.D. degree.  If so, Doctor of Medicine should be rephrased a bit (not all physicians in the United States have an M.D.).  Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ksheka 17:37, May 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are correct; at least in the U.S., doctors of osteopathic medicine receive a D.O. degree, not an M.D. I've updated Doctor of Medicine accordingly. --Diberri | Talk 20:35, May 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I added Doctor of the Church, which is neither an MD nor a Ph.D. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:52, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, since the page seems to have a role I've just added a huge pointer off to physician and medicine. does that look alright or should it be toned down? e 00:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

conflict at the doctor page
Please take discussions to their relevant talk pages rather than in country clubs. I don't know how creating more doctor pages has to do with me being a college freshman or more importantly, where a discussion of the different uses of the word "doctor" belongs. Sorry to break this to you but I am not a freshman. You can call me Dr. Jiang 00:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)~

That's nice Dr Jiang, you may wish to update your user page accordingly. Since you seem to know so much about the way doctor is used outside of America would you mind telling us how much time you have spent in British English speaking countries? thanks (I do understand your disparaging comment about this country club, but it does serve the useful role of centralising discussions that span multiple pages).e 01:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * America is always right. There is no need to resist assimilation of your culture. Accept the inevitable! We must purge all instances of inferior word usages from this encyclopedia.


 * That said, how much time I've spent in filth holes does not necessarily reflect the degree of knowledge i have about inferior variations of the American language. Furthermore, I don't see great disparities between true English and the English spoken in England when using the term "medical doctor". Anything that needs to be explained should be been at doctor. Please go over and comment on what I did if you haven't already. --Jiang 01:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * :-(   Well I'm not having much success resolving this with Jiang, and he's reverting my edits unilaterally. So, I've marked the page as disputed until some help arrives to assist us. see Talk:doctor for further info. Erich 03:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I tried to understand the heat here. I can't figure out the argument. It doesn't seem to be over facts as I haven't seen any core facts disputed. Is the dispute over whether (1) to have a single page explain the different usages in different societies with a link to physician, vs (2) a disambiguation page that does nothing but explain usage and redirect to physician and separate articles on other usages? I read the gaseous plan and it seems reasonable and I read Jiang's plan and it seems reasonable but not enough different to warrant his heat and his reverts. What am I missing here? I can't even tell if he is American or antiAmerican or what relevance that has. This topic doesn't have to be like alt med. Does he just want an invitation to join the "country club"? (he should be warned it's pretty boring here most of the time).Alteripse 03:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you've got the positions. I converted the doctor page to be like this, and moved the existing doctor page to doctor (title) as that is what it discussed. Jiang unilaterally reverted it after telling me it was 'stupid'. It is very trivial, and if i hadn't just finished two weeks of night duty in a row I may have been a bit calmer about it. I think his above outburst was actually a joke but I'm not sure. I personally like a consensus, so the thing that really has me cheesed is his arrogant unilateralism, more than this being a point to die for. I guess an alternative would be to make doctor redirect to physician and put a disambiguation note to doctor (title) but I personally couldn't defend that and it is untidy. I thought making doctor a disambig page was fair to everybody and wouldn't offend. (The relevance of America is just that, as you know, in America, the term for a medical doctor is physician. In British English (UK, Aus, NZ, South Africa, India, etc) the term is doctor and physician means internist. I'm not sure he gets the significance of that outside of his Berkley campus. The reason I goaded him on his travel was because of an ignorant change (which I reverted) he made to the physician page. ) Anyway my patience with the kid is exhausted, so I'll go with whatever the consensus is! Erich 06:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Please note that in America, doctor and physician are synonymous. In some social levels, doctor is many times more common than physician. I just bolded "doctor" at [physician]. I don;t see how that was "ignorant". The point is to avoid linkting to da pages.


 * errr... the change in question was this one. you may like to reflect on why i found that ignorant. best wishes Erich 07:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * They use "doctor" and not "medical doctor"? --Jiang


 * mmmmm, and how do you think I feel about you telling the world what I am and what I am called in countries I gather you have not been to? :-) Erich 00:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Your occupation and feelings are irrelevant. Comment on the content of the article please. Wikipedia is not a couseling center. --Jiang


 * In the suggestion to redirect to [physician], you seemed to have ignored those holding doctorates entitled to the salutation "doctor." Do people outside of the US not call each other that? --Jiang 06:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * ummm, well that is actually the reason why I stated I personally couldn't defend that :-) Erich 00:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That's mainly regarding your comment above that "For 99% of uses doctor actually referrs to a medical doctor." I disagree. Holders of PhD's arent called doctors, but are commonly addressed as such. --Jiang

Rewritten article
Erich, Jiang, please check for accuracy and to be sure I have represented your viewpoint. Those knowledgeable about usages elsewhere than N Am please add appropriate info. Erich, I'll let you decide whether we can remove the disputed sticker and move on with our lives. If you guys both like it, tell the Nobel Peace Prize committee; if you still don't like it, I dont want to hear about it. You're welcome. Alteripse 02:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you did an excellent job. Does this mean [Doctor (disambiguation)] can get deleted? --Jiang 03:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * yes. do you want to nominate him for the Prize or shall I? Erich 03:12, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * be my guest... --Jiang

I like the article as it now stands and I am sorry if my recent small but important edit opens things up again. The important point is this: A medical degree is not a doctorate necessarily. The term "doctor" almost instinctively means medical practioner to us it is easy to make the mistake. Most practicing medical "doctors" hold no more than one or two bachelor degrees. A doctorate degree is the highest academic qualification and, yes, some medical doctors hold these. BUT A MINORITY. Paul Beardsell 19:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with your edits, but with your statement above (unless you mean it differently than I understand it). In North America the vast majority of physicians with M.D. or D.O. have as many or more years of academic training than most PhDs and EdDs, etc, and an MD certainly IS a doctorate in every sense of the word and considerably harder to come by. Sorry if I am misunderstanding your point, or maybe it's simply true in the UK but not the US. Alteripse 20:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As Alteripse stated, that's not the case in the US. They don't let you practice medicine with two bachelors.


 * well they actually do let you practice with a MBBS or whatever, but only after you do extra exams. I'm not sure why you'd want to, but the option is there. but overall, I think Paul's edits reflect a UK/RSA view and the section in question is about United States and Canada... so maybe it was better as before. Erich 23:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Also in the US, assistant/associate/full professors are all addressed as "professor", but lecturers are not -- they are only called professor out of ignorance and instead go by the title "doctor" if they have a PhD. --Jiang 20:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Where I am getting this wrong, if at all, is in trying to reconcile that which I read in this article with what I know to be the case in Britain and former commonwealth countries and in many others too: Certainly medical doctors do a whole lot of study but even a top surgeon does not necessarily have a doctorate. It is a real pity that the first 6 characters of doctorate spell doctor and doctor is what we call medical practitioners the vast majority of which do NOT have a doctorate. Except in the US, for all I know. I do know that it was very easy at one stage for a South African medical doctor to go to the USA and re-write a few exams to become recognised as the equivalent of a USA medical doctor. In SA medical doctors typically have two bachelors degrees: A Bachelor of Medicine and a Bachelor of Surgery. Paul Beardsell 19:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The award of a doctorate is for ORIGINAL GROUND BREAKING research or for a lifetime's significant contribution. A doctorate is not awarded for n years of study, no matter how large n is. The USA may vary, but I would be surprised. Paul Beardsell 19:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I think there is an unreasoned link being continuously made here and in doctorate by a few persistent wikipedians between a medical doctor and the holder of a doctorate. A doctorate is the highest degree available in a discipline: Some medical doctors have them but this is less than usual (as in other disciplines) (I cannot speak for the USA). A medical degree is NOT a doctorate, usually or necessarily. Paul Beardsell 19:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Do all USA medical doctors hold doctorate degrees?
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)
 * 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)


 * 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) (PS I got an MBA after the MBBS... you can guess which one was more work and which one carries greater status)

-- In the USA, the MD degree is indeed a doctorate... it is called a first-professional doctorate, while the Ph.D. is a different animal altogether... it's a research doctorate. See: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-professional-studies.html --the United States Department of Education-- for clarification. Now, as for other countries, I do not know if medical degrees are considered doctorates. We need some information from other nations for this bit.

As for the title of "doctor" only being used in "academic settings"-- this is not true at all. Every doctor I know uses the title in everyday life. It's a term of respect. When greeting me, my butcher says "Good morning, Doctor..." to me, not "mister." This is commonplace.

Asta2500

OK, I am wrong it seems in several respects. Thanks for so patiently correcting me. But: Am I correct that not all USA medical doctors have doctorates? Erich, are you in the USA? And, persisting, would you (all) agree that the USA situation is the anomaly? As far as I know (yeah, OK!) this "first professional doctorate" stuff is US-only. Paul Beardsell 03:27, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) Erich is correct; the "foreign bodies" are the exceptions. Alteripse

According to doctorate: "A Doctorate is an academic degree of the highest level". That was my source. I see the first professional is there too. Paul Beardsell 03:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * you mean you trust what you read in Wikipedia?? haven't you read the disclaimers!! ;-) Erich 04:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Erich, :-) Wikipedia really is turning into the source I check first nowadays. At least here one can question what one reads.  Alteripse, I did not mean to annoy (if I did) - if the end result is an article that more properly reflects the situation around the world, rather than the USA situation with footnotes for the exceptions (rather than what the reality is - the USA is the exception), then I hope it is worth it.  For you as well as for me!  Paul Beardsell 15:08, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

here we go again
Facts already clearly stated in the article as of last year:
 * 1) This article is about the use and meaning of the word doctor.
 * 2) The most common use of the noun doctor in the English-speaking world is as a synonym for medical doctor.
 * 3) A doctorate is an advanced academic degree that is usually earned with original research or completion of full and advanced training in one of the traditional learned professions of medicine, law, or divinity.
 * 4) The honorific prefix Dr. can be and often is used by all doctorate holders and does not designate medical doctors exclusively.
 * 5) It is not academically incorrect but is very uncommon in the english-speaking world to use the noun doctor to refer to holders of advanced degrees other than medical doctors, as in, "The English department has 4 doctors in it."
 * 6) The lead definitional sentence in a proper English-language dictionary or encyclopedia should describe the most common meaning first, with others following with explanation (i.e., should be descriptive rather than normative -- please look up normative if you think these are synonymous).
 * 7) All holders of any types of doctorate should refrain from expressing disrespect for other types lest they be thought childish, annoying, and tediously time-wasting by the rest of us.

With all due respect, I reverted because there was no reason to have two contradictory sentences lead this article, nor a sentence describing a less common usage before a more common. The current structure of the article was painstakingly thrashed out last year based on the above premises. If you want to change this article again, please explain here on the talk page which of the above facts you are rejecting and persuade us it is wrong. Thanks. alteripse 12:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, your third point is false ('doctorate' refers equally to all subjects, and has nothing to do with the professions).
 * In fact the use of 'doctor' isn't uncommon when referring to holders of doctorates, just not in the context of your example. Besides, 'Dr' is simply an abbreviation of 'doctor'; while they can be dealt with separately (see below), it sounds disingenuous to talk as though they're completely differnt terms.
 * Please don't patronise other editors by indicating that they might be illiterate &mdash; I do know what 'normative' means.
 * On the other hand, it's difficult to see what normativity has to do with the substance of your sixth point.
 * I don't quite see where disrespect for other holders of doctorates came into the material that you reverted. In any case, it was pointing out that medical doctors, as not holding doctorates, are given the title as a matter of courtesy.  That's a simple fact, and indicates no disrespect to anyone, whether holders of doctorates or not.  I assume that you're a medical doctor; I'm an academic doctor.  I believe that the medical degree in the U.S. is now named to reflect common usage; it isn't anywhere else, so far as I'm aware.  Nevertheless, I have no issue with the use of 'Dr' by physicians (hence the term 'courtesy title'), but I don't understand why it shouldn't be mentioned in the summary.
 * Finally, I don't see where the contradiction was. A careless or dim reader might not have noticed that there were two issues (the use of the noun 'doctor' and the use of the abbreviation 'Dr'), but that was clearly indicated. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) My third point is not false. The degrees earned in the three traditional profession of medicine law and divinity have been called doctorates for centuries. The frequency with which a research thesis is required has varied. You are mistaken in your understanding of this.
 * 2) I have never, never, heard of a PhD referred to as a doctor-- as opposed to being addressed as Dr., of course. Your usage is almost unheard of in North America and according to others from UK, Aus, and So Af above, is a minority usage in virtually all of the Eng speaking world. Again you are mistaken in inserting an academic usage of the noun doctor (as opposed to the title of address) as the principal usage.
 * 3) One of the principal reasons people argue about this is that lots of PhDs think they should be referred to more often as doctor, when popular usage often does not. That is the difference between a normative and prescriptive description of usage. Do you really think it is irrelevant to this discussion?
 * 4) Medical doctors have earned their degrees, typically in North America with at least as much or more effort as it takes to get an average PhD. Please explain what you mean by "courtesy" if not an invidious comparison?
 * 5) The contradiction was the version where one sentence said the most common usage of doctor was medical, and was followed by a sentence implying the same for the academic version without clarification.
 * 6) I was not intending to be patronising, but I was trying to pre-empt an argument based on that misunderstanding.

No one was trying to exclude academics, but to reflect most common usage first. Did you bother to read the extended discussion from last year on this exact topic? So what are you proposing?alteripse 16:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by your defence of the third point. You made a claim about what is usually true of academic doctorates, and when I said that it was false, you argued that what you said was true of some doctorates.  I don't understand how you could have misunderstood the point, but I'm afraid that you did.
 * Whether you have or not, I have, in more than oe University. Moreover, even if it weren't so used, the noun 'doctor' is part of the phrases 'Doctor of Philosophy', 'Doctor of Science', etc. &mdash; thus one of its principal uses is academic.
 * As I notice has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, it's not a question of earning by simple amount of work; I know people who have spent as long as it takes to get a doctorate in getting one or more first degrees and one or more master's degrees; that doesn't give them a doctorate. Indeed, architects often study as long for their qualifications as many D.Phils, especially those in the sciences; that doesn't mean that they have doctorates.  As for the notion of 'courtesy' being invidious... I hadn't realised that American and British English had diverged quite so far.  It is, however, a simple fact that in most of the English-speaking world, physicians are called 'Dr' by courtesy, as they have no doctorates.  In the U.S., I understand, the medical degree is called a doctor's degree, but it is unique in that regard.
 * I did indeed 'bother' to read the discussion, which made some of the points that I've made and which you seem still to reject (though on what grounds isn't clear). As to what I'm proposing &mdash; nothing; I'm simply giving the reasons for including one of the primary meanings of 'doctor' in the summary. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I was reading a reprise of last year's arguments into your text. Sorry. The intro as it stands now is fine with me. It just became obvious to me I need to quit for awhile. alteripse 17:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doctoring
No mention of doctoring the evidence, or to doctor a photo.. -- Joolz 18:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * They would be included in a dictionary, but not in an article like this, surely. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

I agree with meletitis-- your usage of "doctor" is simply a minority colloquial usage of a word. One of several dictionary meanings, not an encyclopedia entry. Can you imagine going through all our articles to add sentences like, "this word is sometimes used to mean ___"? Thanks for understanding. alteripse 01:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

recent reversion
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)

reversion undone
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)

Goodness, how rude you are! A quick look at our two personal Wikipedia pages will show that actually I have been contributing here longer than you have. But I won't call you a johnny-come-lately, because I'm interested in facts and discussion rather than willy-waving. Also I am pseudonymous, just as you are - not anonymous. Your comments are content-free. Stop patronising me, you idiot. Mention one single mistake in my version, and then come back here and try to gain some respect. You said there were mistakes - well mention one. Just a single one. Now. Oh and answer all the detailed criticism I made of your previous error-strewn rant. Maybe start with the Euro-centrist accusation. Or anything you like. You've reverted to an article that implies doctorates come in both academic and non-academic types, by the way. Do you spot the error there? Well you may do if you go back and read what I posted. Why on earth are you posting to this discussion page, and interfering with the development of the page, if, as appears, you are not interested in the topic in the slightest?

As I said, I won't bother to re-undo. I can't be bothered to argue with people who have attitude problems such as yours. I'm sure there's nothing that would please you more, you pillock.

158-152-12-77 01:38, 24 August 2005 (BST)

I am rude? I suggested you were a European academic and you act like it was an insult. You have called me an idiot and a pillock. Your errors about American medical degrees are ones usually made by europeans not familiar with differences in medical training around the world. You want your errors pointed out? The US MD is not a bachelor level degree. Nearly all US MDs have BS or BA degrees from 4 years of university (a small minority goes to medical school after 3 years) before going on to 4 years of medical school. The MD is a post-bachelor's degree in every meaningful sense of the word. Second, the title doctor is not a courtesy title in the usual sense of the word and is commonly used in both printed text and spoken language even when usual courtesy titles like Mr or esq. are not. Thank you for not persisting in favoring us with your version. alteripse 02:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. You did not suggest I was a European academic; you stated that I was one, and you were wrong. I did not consider it an insult, just an error, which has been compounded by your dishonesty in describing it.

As for 'rude', you dodge the context in which I called you this. "Welcome to Wikipedia", indeed! I value my time, and won't waste more time on showing an ill-mannered a-hole that it's an ill-mannered a-hole.

Of course I want my errors pointed out. But you haven't pointed any out. The US MD is a bachelor's level degree. That it's taken by those who hold other bachelor's level degrees is utterly irrelevant.

And 'doctor' most certainly is a courtesy title when used for those who do not hold substantive doctorates - as is recognised for example by the OED, which fortunately does not give as much scope as Wikipedia does to swaggering bigoted fools such as yourself. Where 'doctor' is concerned, you appear not to know what 'courtesy title' means - as judged by the fact that you offer its use in "both printed text and spoken language" as evidence that it is not a courtesy title where most medics are concerned. In actual fact, it would not matter if it were used in Morse code or yodelled language, since the physical means of communication is not the issue. What is curious, though, is that where 'Mr' and 'Esq' are concerned, you do seem to know what 'courtesy' title means. The term 'selective amnesia' comes to mind.

As for your last sentence, you present yourself as speaking for more than one person. You speak, of course, only for yourself.

This will be my last response to you here. Doubtless you will want to have the last word. Idiots like you always do.

158-152-12-77 01:08, 25 August 2005 (BST)

Optometrist akin to audiologist
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)Not a real doctor, put putting the "Fun" in fundus.
 * 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)

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

This entry is riddled with errors
I recommend deleting this entire entry and starting over. The whole page is riddled with errors. Perhaps the most ridiculous: that someone must have a PhD before they can get a PsyD. The mock-conversational tone (especially in the "legal doctors" section) does not inspire confidence in the information presented -- much of which is incorrect, anyway.

Disambiguation page?
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)

I strongly agree with the suggestion of a disambiguation page, so long as Doctor leads directly to that disambiguation page. There will still be a lot of problems with the remaining Doctor (title) page. I can only suggest that we separate out US and British/Commonwealth usages. With regard to that, the claim that people with Ph.D.s use Mr/Ms etc outside their academic setting is more true for the USA. In Australia at least the opposite is true, Dr is widely used for PhD holders outside academia cf edit war over Dr John Hewson. Nick 15:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Move completed.Dv82matt 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Update Needed
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. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.77.200.129 (talk &bull; contribs) 06:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC).


 * 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)