Talk:Doctor of Medicine/Archive 1

Is
Is M.D. related to Ph.D.? --Abdull 10:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, M.D. is related to Ph.D. in the sense that:

a) Both are prestigious. b) Both are graduate degree programs. c) Both require an undergraduate degree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rowah (talk • contribs).
 * Caveat: That response is only relevant to the US and Canada. --Limegreen 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Doctor of Medicine called MD not DM?

 * It's an abbreviation of Medicinæ Doctor, the Latin degree name. -James Howard (talk/web) 16:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the opening from "Medicine Doctor" to "Doctor of Medicine" since I have never, ever heard anyone say M.D. means "Medicine Doctor." It is M.D. due to its Latin name, but its English name is Doctor of Medicine.Ctoensing (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Person who obtained Doctor of Medicine degree from Oxford University are referred to as DM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_the_University_of_Oxford#Doctorates Marquis

History of MD degree
Can anyone fill me in? I am interested in knowing the history of the MD degree. When and where were the first ones awarded? Lindenb 23:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Douglas Guthrie, medical men were first called "Doctor" at the Medical School of Salerno. He states in "A History of Medicine," (London: Thomas Nelson 1945, p. 107) that the Emperor Frederick II decreed in 1221 that no one should practice medicine until he had been publicly examined and approved by the masters of Salerno. The course lasted 5 years, and to start one had to be 21 years old and show proof of legitimacy and of three years study of logic. The course was followed by a year of supervised practice. After the laureation ceremony the practitoners could call themselves "magister" or "doctor." Guthrie's authority for this account is L Thorndike's "History of Magic and Experimental Science" (New York 1934 - 41, Vol. 2 of 6) NRPanikker 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As no one has objected, I am moving this into the main article. NRPanikker 16:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The UK medical education should adapt the bologna process as the Australian one did. It means that the medical curriculum should be at masters' level due to the ETCS (European Credit Transfer System)which normally it takes at least 240 ETCS credit not just only 120- 180 ETCS as normal bachelors'degree. The university are trying to loby their students by giving multiple degree at the same time of graduation such BSc/MBBS (bachelor of Sciences/ Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) so on and so far. However, it seems nonsense and useless to do so. It is suppposed to follow the criteria of Bologna process and to give MD (Doctor of Medicine) degree to their graduates as most of European countries does. Logically, degree in medicine is condered strongly to be a professional degree which means that the degree identify their job as an practicum in the field. The UK system (MBBS or MBChB= bachelors' degree)tried to illuminate their graduates by giving courtesy title of "Dr." to them in to make not to feel inferior than other (Seem to be more criticized by many other academic scholar). To get a PhD in medicine does mean that those people are very outstanding in the field because it is just a philosophy not a real professional one, It is the specialist training or specialist registrar who will give them this achievement. If the adapttion is done, it is not so complicated to covert the name of their current MD degree (higher or first doctorate) to a Doctor of Medical Sciences (DMedSc or MedScD) in order to distinguish the professional and research doctorate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.65.118 (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

MD-DM
In India,In addition to MD(speiality) degree, there is DM(superspeciality) Degree Offered after completing MD degree.But I couldn't find any mention of it in Wikipedia. If MD( Doctor Of Medicine) is a doctorate Degree, Then whats the level of DM.

I was thinking... whether exactly HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO get your MD? anyone no?

The confusion is because in India medical education is at the undergraduate level, while in the US/Canada it is at the graduate level. The MD in the US/Canada is conferred upon a person who has completed twelve years of primary education (or in India the Bachelors degree), followed by a 4 year undergraduate degree (in US/Canada known as Bachelors degree, not the same degree as in India) followed by 4 years of graduate medical education (MD degree). After the MD the physician must undergo a 3-7 year residency program (time varies with specialty) and has the option in some specialties in taking an additional 1-3 years of fellowship training. So all doctors in the US/Canada essentially have what you would call a DM or higher. Hope that helped with the confusion some, if not feel free to ask further on my talk page. Gtadoc 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So all medics in the USA and Canada are certified superspecialists? NRPanikker (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. MD & DO interns and residents in the United States are physicians, but not yet specialists. To get a license, after residency an MD/DO must become "board certified" in a specialty, including primary care specialties like family medicine.  "Subspecialists" generally means anyone how goes onto to a fellowship after being board certified in a specialty, earning certification in a subspecialist field, i.e. infectious disease, colorectal surgery, or child psychiatry, which are subspecialities of internal medicine, general surgery and psychiatry respectively.  This is my understanding, others may have a more precise version.  But there is no degree conferred in any of this beyond the initial MD or DO. Bryan Hopping  T  01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually some programs in US/Canada still offer clinical Masters degrees in medical specialties, these are of course higher degrees than the MD degree. Examples:,,Jwri7474 (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is a slam on Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine
Though it is important to distinguish between an M.D. and D.O., slamming one or the other is not the way to accomplish such a task.Garrettww 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A doctor of osteopathic medicine, is still a medical doctor unless the former surgeon general of the united states army is not allowed to practice medicine (a D.O)
 * Someone with a D.O. degree is not a medical doctor, they are an osteopathic doctor. They both practice medicine, but only M.D.s are technically "medical doctors." That does not mean anything in terms of scope of practice since both professions have unlimited scope. The difference at this point is pretty arbitrary and I wish we could just eliminate the D.O. degree and merge the professions.Ctoensing (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you don't mean that MDs are Allopaths and DOs are Osteopaths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron mcd (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, D.O.s are no longer known as osteopaths. Bryan Hopping  T  13:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopping is correct, DOs are not the same thing as osteopaths. They are known as Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine or as osteopathic physicians. Additionally, M.D. stands for Doctor of Medicine, not Medical doctor. Both DOs and MDs are medical physicians. Calling DOs osteopaths and MDs allopaths is incorrect for both. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

D.O. is a medical doctor since medical doctor=physician. Medical doctor is a profession, not a degree. M.D. is also a medical doctor and it stands for Doctor of Medicine.

article is off topic. needs citations and editing.
This is supposed to be an article that gives information about the degree designation "M.D". It is not a editorial about the superiority of the MD degree over the DO degree. Please replace opinions about the DO degree with facts about the MD degree.

Tarcher11 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)tony

Please proofread, spell-check your work.
"It is also the most difficult medical degree to obtain with an average college gpa of over 3.6 to enter M.D. school." ---This is non sequitur. Also, is there a reference you can give to show that medical school is "more difficult to obtain" than, say, a DVM?

"Medical Doctors are trained in every aspect of medicine from Anesthesiology to Neurosurgery and this specialization is completed during a residency program which lasts from 3 to 7 years after medical school depending on the speciality."---Awkward. You might say something like, "they have the *option* to specialize in any branch of medicine and surgery. . ."

"M.D.'s are not the only medical degree that is licensed to practice medicine in the United States. Other doctoral degrees such as D.O., D.N.P., N.D.,and D.P.M. can often perform similar functions depending on state regulations (please see these terms for further information)." ---DEGREES don't practice medicine. ---What distinguishes M.D.'s (and D.O.'s) is the "unrestricted" practice of medicine and surgery. You may want to rephrase the last part to say something like "other degrees offer the ability to practice only limited or specific types of medicine."Tarcher11 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only the DO, MD, and perhaps PA practice medicine. Degrees like DNP are advanced nursing degrees, and they have no formal training in medicine (there is a difference). PA can practice medicine with supervision. DNP or NP can practice advanced nursing, generally also with some sort of supervision. Gtadoc 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence structure - run-on sentence - ambiguous content
"Medical Doctors are trained in every aspect of medicine from Anesthesiology to Neurosurgery and this specialization is completed during a residency program which lasts from 3 to 7 years after medical school depending on the speciality." This makes it sound like all medical doctors are trained in all medical specialties. First, state the common education that all medical doctors receive, then elaborate on the various specialties. Also try to avoid run-on sentences. Garrettww 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep on topic
This is not an article about how Ph.D.'s are superior to MD's or an article requiring extensive information about the DO degree. Those have their own articles.


 * You need to sign talkpage posts.
 * The paragraph explaining the distinction between MD/DO and PhD is relevant; by removing it, you've even deleted the links to the professional degree article.

-- DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Slasher M.D.
This article has been repeatedly struck by a "deletionist" medical student who demands references for every statement. Most people would understand that things like degree regulations are to be found in the Calendar/Prospectus/Programme (etc) of the university concerned, but Leuko wants everything to be spelled out in full. NRPanikker 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

D.O. / M.D.
So this is obliviously a contentious issue. But we can't just ignore it. It is significant and relevant to this article that there is a degree in the U.S. considered equivalent to the M.D. by the AMA, AMSA, and the U.S. government. This is a major fact about the M. D. degree, and moreover it is not known by a great number of people. Can we all look at this with a cool head. It needs to be at least mentioned in an article about M.D.s. One that discusses "Doogie Houser" and "House." Certainly the M.D./D.O. issue is at least as relevant. OsteopathicFreak 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Added NPOV tag. Section removed multiple times containing well source, relevant information from mainstream groups. Information needless removed repeatedly. Osteopathic !Freak  talk  01:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that an NPOV tag is appropriate. There should be some brief reference to D.O., even if it is just adding it to a See Also section. A globalise tag would probably make more sense, as the primary benefit will be for non-US readers. You might, however, wish to consider whether having such a partisan username detracts from your contribution. Additionally, you should definitely fix the typo in your signature. --Limegreen 03:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just taking issue with the U.S section. So I'm not sure how to globalize would help.  "Partisan" user name? I wasn't aware I was in a party.  :)  Allopathic and osteopathic are equal in my mind.  I'm surprised to find out there are so many around here have a hard time admitting that, or even saying that some people think that.  I really don't get it.  How can anyone say that mentioning that there is a degree that equivalent to the MD is irrelevant to an article about the MD?  Why is it some loathsome to event present this perfectly benign  piece of information?      Osteopathic  Freak  T ? 04:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, well until I stumbled over this article, I had not heard of osteopathic medicine, the D.O., or any argument between them. Therefore, it is worth making an article where people outside the US have some idea of what is going on here. I think most people get the idea that an MD is equivalent to MBChB, but this is a whole extra thing. And if you re-read the tenor of your last post, I think partisan is pretty apt. Especially because I effectively agree that there should be more mention of osteopathy in the article.--Limegreen 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick. Sorry for any hostility.  :)  It's frustrating that User:Leuko and others are so opposed to simply including this information. Like yourself in regards to the DO, I've never heard of the MBChB.   And I think that most people, even in the US, have never heard of the D.O./M.D., to the point that many don't even know that their own doctor is a D.O.  People assume that all doctors are MDs.  For some reason, it's rarely discussed.  And discussion of it is even discouraged by some, as in this article.   Osteopathic  Freak  T ? 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the section and removed the NPOV tag; it now includes the needed info and I think is pretty neutral. Also removed a link that wasn't appopriate for that section but probably more appropriate for a DO page. If there is any issue with how it is now feel free to start another discussion. Gtadoc 17:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed.  Osteopathic  Freak  T ? 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The current seems very reasonable.--Limegreen 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too :) Gtadoc 04:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the recent change by NRPanikker, mostly because by calling homeopathy a rival school implies that its a school of medicine as apposed to a controversial quasimedical field. Gtadoc 17:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt my wording could be improved. Up to 16th July 2007 the opening paragraph asserted that MDs were commonly referred to as allopathic physicians: I don't think that usage is common anywhere. In the US allopathic seems to have come to be a term used to distinguish non-osteopathic medical colleges, but in the rest of the world it is used in the earlier sense of non-homoeopathic. "Allopathy" is something of a straw man invented by Samuel Hahnemann: to call conventional medics allopathic seems similar to calling Protestants heretics or to label the Greek Orthodox as schismatic. But there is no need to replicate the homoeopathy/allopathy controversy on this page. Calling homeopathy controversial is redundant, since practically everything on Wikipedia is contested. NRPanikker 06:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right; I suppose its just amoung doctors and medical students/schools that allopathic is commonly used to distinguish from osteopathic. What would be a good way then to phrase it so readers know that homeopathy (by inference) is not another school of medicine? Gtadoc 07:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why even mention the history of the term allopathic? It has its whole own page devoted to this history? In the US, no one use the term allopathic to distinguish an MD from a homeopath. Whereas it is used daily to distinguish a allopathic from an osteopathic physician? Let that explanation rest on the allopathic medicine page, where it throughly discussed. Touro Osteopathic  Freak  T  17:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that we are back to claiming that holders of the M.D. are "commonly referred to as allopathic physicians." The reference given, an editorial by Norman Gevitz in an osteopathic journal, says nothing about this: instead it pleads for more specifically osteopathic training in the D.O. course. This hardly seems relevant. NRPanikker 03:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"M.D.s commonly referred to as Allopathic physicians" is NPOV

 * Here are some examples of M.D.s being referred to as allopathic physicians and/or graduates of allopathic schools:


 * Letter from the president of the organization that accredits all medical schools granting the degree of M.D. in the United States, the American Association of Medical Colleges:

Other examples, from several well-known U.S. medical associations & publications establishing that M.D.'s are commonly referred to as allopathic physicians. In every case, the POV of this usage is not contentious. Osteopathic medicine      
 * American Medical Student Association:

     
 * American Medical Association:

    
 * New England Journal of Medicine:

    
 * US Department of Health and Human Services:

  
 * Center for Disease Control (CDC):

 
 * Johns Hopkins:


 * Harvard Medical School:

 
 * UCSF:


 * Cleveland Clinic:

 
 * Columbia Med:


 * Yale Med:

  
 * World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used)

 
 * Others:
 * Touro Osteopathic  Freak  T  04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How does it read minus that last sentence? It seems that none of the 3 people on talk want it in there; and while it seems neutral enough to me in the interest of maintaining the worldwide viewpoint perhaps it should just be left out as it means different things to those of us in medicine in the US, those in UK/Europe, and the general public, and as mentioned already has its own page. Gtadoc 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I prefer that the sentence be left in. Referring to holders of the MD degree as allopathic physicians is quite common, as indicated by the references above. Leuko 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed. info needs to stay. Touro Osteopathic  Freak  T  19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so please address the issue that it is common to you, and to me, but not likely common in the rest of the english speaking world. And Osteo, I misread your earlier statement, you said "why discuss the history" not "why discuss the term", also, please try to remember []. Gtadoc 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I really want to get into what is obviously a heated topic for some people, but I'm not convinced that this term 'allopathic' is common (or even in use at all) outside the US, so if it is to be included in the article then this point should be noted. To me (and I do apologise if I've got the wrong impression), this all sounds like a debate over whether osteopaths and homeopaths should be regarded as on the same level as 'conventional' physicians, and while I'm sure that's a valid and interesting discussion, I'm not sure if an article about the academic degree of Doctor of Medicine (which is what I understand this to be) is the correct place to hold that discussion. -- Nicholas Jackson 08:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Having ploughed through OsteopathicFreak's 39 references, I note that most of them relate either to US medical education (for both physicians and osteopaths) or else to alternative medicine: only a few of the US articles mention "allopathic" physicians on their own. Perhaps there would be a case for saying that MDs are "commonly referred to as allopathic physicians" in the section relating to the USA, rather than in the introductory paragraph. However, I still doubt that this is a common usage. In over thirty years, during which I have perused numerous American journals, I do not recall encountering the word "allopathic" outside the context of alternative medicine: it was almost always in connection with homoeopathy. I have only once heard anyone use the word allopathic, and that too was in the context of multiple systems of medicine. NRPanikker 02:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed that MDs are only referred to as allopathic in the US, as NPPanikker duly noted. This is because in US, there are two fully licensed physicians, allopathic and osteopathic. Elsewhere, osteopathic and allopathic mean something different. The US specific reference to MDs as allopathic  should be recognized, perhaps by incorporating info into section specific to US MDs.  Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  T  03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Title
As the M.D. stands for Medicinae Doctor, why is the title of this article "Doctor of Medicine"? Shouldn't it be "Medicinae Doctor", with a later explanation in the article for the typical English form? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.184.105 (talk • contribs).
 * Agreed. Touro Osteopathic  Freak  T  22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the article is about the degree called Doctor of Medicine. It just happens that the abbreviation has typically stayed with the historic name, in the same way the abbreviations for Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery (MBChB), Master of Surgery (ChM), and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) retain their older abbreviations. Therefore, there is no case for a name change.--Limegreen 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The title of the article is in fact "Doctor of Medicine" not "M.D."Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  T  19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
I doubt the veracity of the sentence in the intro claiming that "holders of an M.D. in the United States are often referred to as allopathic physicians". Yes, it is sourced. However, the source is an essay written in an osteopathic journal that, itself, simply asserts the same without offering evidence. Furthermore, if you run a Google labs search for allopathic (thus returning the number of searches made from within the United States), Google indicates that it cannot provide a graph because the term is so rarely used. Even words like apotheosis have enough searches by Americans to show results. I'm not buying this sentence, and I'd like to see a better source to back it if someone actually feels that it should be kept. Ante lan  talk  22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is relevant enough to belong in the intro. Osteopathic physicians and premeds may care, but that's about it. If there is some research out there or good secondary source that shows that MDs are often, or even infrequently, called "allopathic physicians", I'd like to see it. I've never once heard a patient use the phrase. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It is a little known fact, verifiable, sourced, and noteworthy.<sup style="color:purple;">Touro Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm removing it. Your response didn't address my point, and it's just serving a POV. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources & Examples:

More:
 * M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians. U.S Department of Labor
 * Allopathic schools of medicine grant a doctor of medicine (MD) degree. American Medical Assoc
 * Allopathic Physician (MD) University of Illinois
 * The projected supply of allopathic physicians, 1997 to 2020. After a period of rapid growth, the MD population in the US is entering a period of relative stability. National Library of Medicine, American Medical Association
 * Allopathic Physicians Licensed in Maine Maine Dept of Health and Human Services
 * To apply for licensure as an Allopathic Physician (MD) in the state of Nevada State of Nevada,  Board of Medical Examiners.
 * A licensed allopathic physician (MD) practices allopathic medicine University of New Hampshire
 * Thomas G. Breslin, M.D. Allopathic Physician Representative Rhode Island Dept of Health
 * The most common is the M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) degree, offered by the nation's 125 allopathic medical schools . . . prescribing drugs and performing surgery, used by allopathic physicians (M.D.'s). Xavier University, Louisiana
 * How are the osteopathic physician (D.O.) and allopathic physician (M.D.) different? Wittenburg University
 * M.D.'s are also known as allopathic physicians. Dictionary of Occupational Titles (D.O.T.), Fourth Edition, Revised 1991, a U.S. Department of Labor publication
 * University of Missouri, St. Louis
 * Allopathic Physicians (MDs): Approximately half of Florida M.D. licenses expire every January 31st. Florida Medical Assoc
 * A medical doctor (allopathic physician) (M.D.) and a doctor of osteopathic medicine( D.O.) generally have the same educational background and length of study. North Arkansas Regional Medical Center
 * Time to Accept Allopathic Physicians Into AOA-Approved Residencies? J Am Osteo Assoc PMID 16717364
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

This is in addition to the numerous examples I gave last month. What exactly is the POV issue here?<sup style="color:purple;">Touro Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  13:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As DGG has stated, you may wish to focus on editing osteopathic medicine articles instead of raising controversy on allopathic articles. Claiming that you're not aware of the controversy will neither "cut it" nor make me sympathetic to your POV here. The COI in atempting to systematically propagate an alternative name for "doctor" is obvious. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  16:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've sourced this statement. It is noteworthy.  It is a fact.  There's not a COI issue here, and no POV issue.  Why is there so much opposition to including this basic information about U.S. M.D.?  What is the POV issue here? Can you provide any sources that U.S. - M.D.'s are not called allopathic?  I've listed dozens of credible sources that say they are, and many are from non-osteopathic, non-homeopathic, non-alternative medicine sources.<sup style="color:purple;">Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  20:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What point of view does this statement push "Holders of the M.D. are sometimes called allopathic physicians." What is controversial about that statement? <sup style="color:purple;">Touro Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I advise you to move on and deal with less controversial subjects. And please, start citing sources more carefully. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the controversy? I think the AMA and the U.S. Dept of labor are fairly reliable sources. <sup style="color:purple;">Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The AMA source didn't even address the topic of "allopathic physician". Hence, your sourcing was controversial. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * AMA says "Allopathic schools of medicine grant a doctor of medicine (MD) degree.". Corrected article to reflect that.<sup style="color:purple;">Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are pushing a term considered by many to be pejorative. You have a conflict of interest. I am asking that you stop. Please, stop pushing allopathic all over the place. Please, focus on positive edits that do not involve this term. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are pushing a point of view that it is pejorative. I know you feel that it is, but the AMA, the organization that accredits all M.D. granting schools, calls those schools "allopathic."  You're POV that its pejorative is only supported by highly contentious authors and non-U.S. sources, you haven't produced a single major medical or governmental organization that supports you position. A few editorial rants do not make a notable POV.<sup style="color:purple;">Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. You are cherry picking your sources. The AMA calls itself "American Medical Associaton" not the "American Allopathic Medical Association". Etc. Ad infinitum. You crawl through to find the handful of islands where these institutions use allopathic and ignore the vast ocean where "medical" is the only adjective used. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:COI: "Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment." You continue adding material to "allopathic" articles, despite your clear conflict of interest as an osteopathic medical student. The burden is on you, as someone who wants to add material, to ensure that it is neutral. Again, I do not understand why you feel that you must push the term "allopathic", and I would appreciate an explanation so we may work towards a compromise. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The pages I cited are the AMA's main page on medical education and becoming a physician in the United States. The other is the Dept of Labor's main page on physicians and surgeons in the U.S.  How many U.S. sources are there stating the use of the term allopathic is pejorative?  4? 6?  And they are all single author pieces by authors with a clear POV bias. You are cherry-picking your sources and exaggerating this into a controversy.<sup style="color:purple;">Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat myself: The AMA calls itself "American Medical Associaton" not the "American Allopathic Medical Association". Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument here. But I don't think that particular fact is relevant to this article.  I did duly note this exact fact in the article allopathic.  In this article, what's relevant is what the AMA calls the graduates of the schools it accredits.  According to the AMA, in the United States, M.D. students graduate from allopathic schools of medicine.<sup style="color:purple;">Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You continue to cherry-pick your sources. The AMA says "allopathic schools of medicine" one time. It says "allopathic school of medicine" zero times. You literally found the one example that fits your needs from a site that houses over 30,000 pages. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On this one there can be no doubt you are cherry picking, or being hypercritical at least.
 * Allopathic schools
 * Allopathic medical schools
 * Allopathic medical school school
 * <sup style="color:purple;">Touro Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  00:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I speak precisely, though I understand your frustration. You've pointed to a google search now that shows 16 results for "allopathic schools", but the search for "medical schools" pulls up 2,370 results. I don't think this is helping your case for the mainstreaming of "allopathic". At any rate, I've replied to your list of "allopathic" usages on Adam Cuerden's talk page. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude. This is crazy.  Your statements are all unsourced.  You know you don't have but a small number of sources saying that allopathic is pejorative.  So now you are doing original research trying to prove that "allopathic" is some rarely used term.  There's lots of rarely used terms in any technical field, especially medicine.  Shall we start comparing other terms too?  How bout this combo?  This is nonsense. <sup style="color:purple;">Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a rarely used term. I've already said repeatedly that it's not always used pejoratively. Nevertheless, (1) it has pejorative origins, and (2) it's rarely used, so (3) its usage on Wikipedia should be limited. Why are you pushing so hard on this? Would you like me to find historical artifacts of osteopathy and slather them all over? I wouldn't think so. Likewise, I don't appreciate your ardent advocacy of a term that will never apply to you. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you so opposed to the use of the term at all? Why do you consistently interpret my edits as slathering POV-biased COI's? I give sources, many of them, but that's not good enough.  What is your issue with this term?<sup style="color:purple;">Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T


 * That's a misrepresentation of my position. I'm not "opposed to the use of the term at all" - I've agreed to Adam's compromise. Will you? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  15:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not intending to represent your position.  I am asking a sincere question.  "What is your issue with this term?"  You cite a few sources that say its pejorative, all they are all from authors writing highly critical editorials of alternative medical therapy.  That's not a criticism of you, that's an observation.  In the face of numerous sources, (AMA, AMSA, ACGME, US Govt, etc) that use the term, you still seem strongly opposed to the use of it.  I am trying to understand why. TU Hopp   ing  <sup style="color:purple;">T  15:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A third party has suggested a compromise, and I would like to know if you are willing to accept it. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I responded directly on his page.  I'll copy it here:
 * Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk, with all due respect.  I don't see how I, personally, can compromise on the usage of a word, on Wikipedia, or anywhere else.  We are editors, not writers.  We are citing sources, reliable ones, not making decisions about the English language.  Wikipedia should reflect the usage of the general academic population, not influence it.<sup style="color:purple;">Touro  Osteopathic  Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T  02:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we should proceed to dispute resolution. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  17:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that process. Nor am I sure what the dispute is about.  But if that's the best next step, then I'm happy to participate. TU Hopp   ing  <sup style="color:purple;">T  21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assert a little authority here. I am a holder of an M.D. degree, and a former board member of the American Medical Student Association. The distinction between allopathic and osteopathic is a common one in medical circles, and is in no way considered pejorative any longer. It is a distinction rarely made, because the education and training of allopathic and osteopathic physicians are virtually identical today; the philosophical underpinnings of osteopathy are different, but the ultimate practical outcome is the same. No distinction is made by the leading medical organizations; MDs and DOs are equally members, and both identified as "physicians". In many states, they are even licensed together as "physicians" without distinction. This is why the separation isn't commonly recognized amongst lay people - because it's essentially irrelevant. It really is only relevant when discussing the educational pathway of a particular physician; since this article describes the Doctor of Medicine degree pathway, which is by definition allopathic, I see no reason to remove the word. I do agree that this is a regional distinction, and the article should probably say "In the United States, holders of the M.D. degree are sometimes called..." - though I would remove the word "sometimes." Any physician in the US will immediately understand the word, and I've yet to meet one who objects. As indicated earlier, both the American Medical Association and AMSA recognize and use the term without pejorative connotation, as does the US Department of Labor. IMO, Antelan is beating a dead horse.

As a side note, this talk page is getting a bit bulky. Should some of it be archived? -- DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
My concern here is not great, and I don't have a problem including the pejorative POV. However, my issue is one of appropriate attribution. From WP:POV, "The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true." If the claim can be better attributed, I can better digest its placement in this article. TU Hopp  ing  <sup style="color:purple;">T  16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)