Talk:Journal of Osteopathic Medicine

Discipline
"American Osteopathic Medicine" is not a "discipline". In addition, the journal's own website does at no point mention that it only covers osteopathic medicine in the US. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not really accurate. It's true it does not explicitly say it but it is implied rather obviously on the webpage in the about section. It is a peer-reviewed journal that looks at osteopathic medicine research, research articles, both original and review on medical education and medical disciplines and is not limited in scope to "osteopathy" which is not the discipline of osteopathic physicians in the United States. Osteopathic medicine is different from osteopathy which is what non-physicians who are trained internationally practice. Osteopathic physicians are licensed in the full scope of medicine and the Osteopathic medicine in the United States page is the most suitable page discussing the profession and its discipline, not the osteopathy page. That is simply the wrong page for this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also did not say that it exclusively covers Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Quite to the contrary, the JAOA says it targets other people as well. However, this is the primary focus of the journal and American osteopathic medicine is a discipline different from osteopathy in its scope and execution. What are you basing your assertion that American osteopathic medicine is not a "discipline" on exactly? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that "osteopathic medicine" is not a discipline, I'm saying that "American osteopathic medicine" is not a discipline. Science is international, we don't have "French biology", "British geology", or "German mathematics" as separate disciplines. If we talk about "German mathematics", then what we mean is things pertaining to "the discipline of mathematics in Germany". If "osteopathic medicine" is larger than "osteopathy", then we need an article on "osteopathic medicine". "American osteopathic medicine", if it should exist at all, should only discuss how osteopathic medicine is practiced/researched/etc in the US. As far as I can see, JAOA is an international journal (i.e., despite the "American" in the title, it publishes research on its topic regardless of where it was carried out and regardless of whether the authors are American or not). Our article should therefore not suggest that it limits itself to aspects of the discipline pertaining to a limited geographical area only. Hope this doesn't sound too muddled. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not where we are disagreeing. I agree that there's no such thing as French Biology or British Geology and the like. However, osteopathic medicine as practiced by osteopathic physicians is not equivalent to osteopathy. Osteopathy is the focus on OMM but that comprises only a small portion of what osteopathic physicians use in their full scope of medicine. They also do surgery, use pharmacological interventions, the way that MD physicians do as well. I would not be opposed to the creation of an osteopathic medicine page since it is in fact different from osteopathy but I can tell you now that the community will most likely end up merging it with the osteopathic medicine in the US page. At least that's what I think will end up happening to it. JAOA is a journal targeted at an international audience but the fact remains that its scope exceeds that of osteopathy and is really osteopathic medicine including the respective disciplines beyond OMM that I mentioned and I'm sure much more (and it does explicitly say on the webpage that it does more than OMM). A journal can be targeted at an international audience but be about the discipline as practiced in a certain country, I don't see why the two would be mutually exclusive. Headbomb is the one who thought that renaming Osteopathic Medicine to American Osteopathic Medicine would make the distinction clearer, I was fine with Osteopathic Medicine and linking it to the US article but linking it to the osteopathy article is where I disagree since the journal's scope is clearly in excess of that discipline. If an osteopathic medicine page is needed, that's another story but that's still what the journal is about, not osteopathy. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sjeez, what a mess... I thought that perhaps redirecting "osteopathic medicine" to the US article would be a solution (and then link the discipline to this redirect), but from its history I see that you tried that and that you were reverted. Well, I give up. All in all, I think that your original solution is then the least bad among all available options and will restore that one... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. The editor reverted that because the osteopathy article says that osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are used interchangeably but does not say explicitly that this is an incorrect comparison and that they are different. It does imply that by saying osteopaths and osteopathic physicians differ in their scope in the lead but it's still not quite clear enough for everyone yet. I'm glad we were able to come to a mutually agreeable solution here. I do agree with your overall point that a page may be needed to describe the discipline of osteopathic medicine only and its scope apart from the actual profession itself. Whether an article like that will ever happen, I'm not sure. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation in article title
Is there any reason why the article's title should begin with the abbreviation? Since the journal is called the "The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association," it seems that should also be the title of this page. Perhaps a redirect from JAOA would be appropriate. Any thoughts/objections? Rytyho usa (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)