Talk:Research fellow/Archive 1

Merge proposal
Not really! The section Fellow deal with the broad concept of Fellow (i.e. an equal, someone who belongs to college, an "emeritus lecturer", a professional fellow) Research Fellow is very specific and some parts of the section Fellow should be moved to Research Fellow. Merging the two sections would like merging Teacher and Lecturer. Mootros (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest merging the content of Fellow that deals with all meanings of "research fellow" with this article (Research Fellow) and moving the result to Research fellow (uncapitalized "fellow"), which is currently a redirect to Fellow. --Boson (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Boson your suggestion sounds good! http://www.eths.k12.il.us/manual_of_form_and_style/capitalization.html I've now done the section merger from Fellow into Research Fellow. Could some please shift Research Fellow to Research fellow, remove the redirect and than delete the wrongly capitalised entry. Cheers Mootros (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We certainly do not delete Research Fellow - it is used (albeit wrongly) in several places: Special:WhatLinksHere/Research Fellow. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead and other section
The lead states that RF differs greatly. So it does not makes sense having a section called "concepts". Contributors should add to each country's section specifc facts and refrain from a gerneric statements in a catch all section. Mootros (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Please sign your contributions by placing ~ after your comments. Many thanks!


 * 'comment'
 * In fact it makes a perfect sense to have a concept section explaining what is RF, and then pointing out variations among countries.

~


 * What facts are your revering to? Mootros (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * the fact that for you it doesn't make sense, but for others it makes lot of sense Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What fact (what source?) what are you talking about? 10:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * exactly that is that point, you still don't know what we are talking about, and it is good that you asked.
 * so you said it doesnt make sense, is there any source that your senses are true ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of abbreviation
What is the point of using an abbreviation (PhD), plus a summary of term (doctoral), plus the fully spelled term (doctor of)? Mootros (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * what is the point of putting an abbreviation without shorty explaining it ?! isn't this an encyclopedia ? Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Next why put MD there at all. While most RFs have a PhD, an MD is a professional degreesin many countries and not a research degree. Mootros (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * here is your problem, that you dont want to consider Doctor of Medicine as Both a graduate and Doctoral degree, consequently you are editing based on your desire and not based on facts. Dear,MD is both graduate and Doctoral.Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) Why not leave it as (PhD or MD)? That way both of you are satisfied. If that doesn't work, I suggest you seek a third opinion. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for sharing the discussion. The main reason is that abbreviation are always decievong and confusing. Like MD in some countries doesn't mean a doctor of medicine. Also in some countries, their universities don't offer PhD, they offer degrees equivalent to it. Hence explanation of abbreviation is essential, and I dont think it is a problem to mention what the abbreviation stands for. However, with Motrooos it seems, like a big big problem to explain abbreviations to give space for confusion! thanks again Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're not ok with abbreviations, and mootros is not ok with the long form, I suggest seeking a third opinion. This should be fairly straightforward and I can help set it up for the two of you if you like. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again thanks for your positive interventions. I don't think we need a third opinion as much as we need more understanding. Here is a simple question: is MD abbreviation when added next to PhD is clear enough for everyone to understnad that it means "Doctor of Medicine" ?! I don't think so. If you are living in india or middle east for instance, you will know that MD there means PhD !
 * So the golden rule always, when the context of abbreviation might cause confusion then write the whole term next to it, and further down the article, you can use the abbreviation that was already mentioned. That is the ethics in any peer reviewed Journal by the way. The explain abbreviation even for very common terms in the beginning of the article, to avoid potential confusion.Kushsinghmd (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can convince mootros, then fine. But, if you can't, you'll need to go in for some form of dispute resolution. A WP:3O is the easiest. If you don't do that, the likelihood is that you will get into an edit war and then one or both of you will end up blocked. If you or mootros want to go in for a 3O, and would like help setting it up, let me know. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree on two interrelated points. (i) It is superfluous to use abbreviations and fully spelled out terms in addition to the neat summary term "doctoral". Doctoral has a wiki link, leading the those who do not know what it means to a detailed explanation. This get us around (ii) the issues of international variations, such as doctor of medicine. Doctor of medicine in many places is not be a research degree, but a professional qualification. Mootros (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Doctor of Medicine is both a research and professional degree everywhere. It just takes you two minutes to look in the MEDLINE database, to know how doctors everywhere over th planet are leading medical research. User failed to recognize the major difference between clinical and basic science research.Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * also expalining commonly used abbreviation in the begining of an article is standrad by many peer reviewed and scholarly Journals. If further infroamtion is required about the concep, then yes go search other arciles, in this case will be the doctoral link


 * Are we going to include Doctor of Business Administration and Doctor of Music in this "list" then? Mootros (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * what is the degree title that Doctor of Bussiness adminsteration and Doctor of Music are holding ?! isn't it PhD, which is already included. Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Doctorate Mootros (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didnt find among the list you lately provided Doctor of Bussiness Adminsteration or Doctor of Music which you specifically asked about previously, and Accordingly I responded. SO please eplain your situation. You provided two examples, yet we didnt find them in the list you are providing, doesn that mean that you are used to provide false information, and then when face, you try to revert to something else in a trial for correction ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Search for Doctor_of_Business_Administration Mootros (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * again there is difficulty understanding. User previously said: Are we going to include Doctor of Business Administration and Doctor of Music in this "list" then?, and then I answered him, so he changed gears, rather than admitting his mistake, diverging to another topic, [Doctorate#Professional_doctorates_in_the_United_States]], and when asked how is that related to PHD in BA or music, he said Search for Doctor_of_Business_Administration. That's so disturbed way of thinking, to switch from one point to another unrelated point trying to escape faulty thinking and wrong examples. And it is ironic enough that user invites us to search, when he always failed to do so!!. I guess case closed Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you moderate your tone; you may read this: Etiquette, to get some better ideas of how to collaborate. Mootros (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You provided two examples, and when asked about the appropriateness of using these exmples you failed to provided solid information, however you used an irrelevant list. when asked how both are related, you talked about wikipedia etiquette!!! WOW !! Honestly, I am not going to comment on such attitude and behaviour. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Use of summary term, abbreviation of term, and fully spelled out term in same sentence
The wikified term doctoral degree is sufficient in the lead of this article; it does not need be followed by a random list of abbreviations (e.g. PhD, MD, DBA...) plus another list of fully spelled terms (doctors of..., doctors of..., doctors of...) in one and the same sentence. Mootros (talk)

Discussion

 * User failed to respond appropraiately to his own discussion above, and now started a new one. However still same repition and redundancy of the dsame points. Since I already responded to all these points above, while user wasn't able to rebuttle, but instead preferred to repeat himself over and over again, So once again I would refer him to the my same responses (above) to either respond appropraitelly so we can give him some attention, or he can keep repeeating same points, for which we are not going to listen, it is your choice, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is nothing wrong with explaining abbreviations, this is common practice in explanatory texts such as encyclopedias. On the other hand we do not need a full list of all possible abbreviations and their meanings in this article, because that's not the topic of "Research fellow" and that's what the doctorate wikilink is about. The mentioning of examples of doctoral in the lead should be left as in this edit. The phrase "i.e MD (Doctor of Medicine) or PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), or equivalent work" clearly is meant to be exemplary for some of the most common doctorates. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Doctor of Medicine is not a common research degree; in many countries it is not a research degree but a professional degree. Doctorate So MD is not a good example I would say. Mootros (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see a definite problem reading and understanding my comments !!, I have already responded to this point at least 3 times, and user keeps bringing this same point over and over again. Since you are forcing me to do so, here is my response once again, may be you lost track in all these repitionions and redundancy you are commiting to wikipedia:
 * I have already said to user before and he completely failed to respond:
 * "Doctor of Medicine is both a research and professional degree everywhere. It just takes you two minutes to look in the MEDLINE database, to know how doctors everywhere over th planet are leading medical research. User failed to recognize the major difference between clinical and basic science research."Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that the abbreviations would suffice, if they had the internal links to the relevant articles. Robotpandazombie  ( talk ) 20:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont agree, the value of providing internal link is to learn more about a topic, and not to search for th meaning of an abbreviation. Articles in any respectful peer reviewed journal should elaborate on the abbreviations used first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you insist to use the fully spelled out term, there is no need to use an abbreviation, as it is not repeated in the text. Mootros (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * puting the abbreviation in the begining of the article not only mandated by using the term down the article, but also used for the redears own knowledge.Kushsinghmd (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Manuel of Style clearly states here abbreviations are used to clarify further usage. In RF there is no further usage; this article is about RF not about MD or PhD. In Wikipedia most editors follow the MOS. If you think this need to be changed please start a discussion at the relevant MOS page. Mootros (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * MOS clearly states to use abbreviation on the first occurence, and did not manadate the precense of further usage to justify putting abbreviation in the begining of an artcile.  Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To make it clear, I coincide the idea you introduced that doctoral should be explained by one or two fully spelled out terms. I will continue to object to any unnecessary use of an abbreviation in conjunction with a fully spell out term. Mootros (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * what do you mean unnecssary usage of abbreviation?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Abbreviations are used to make a sentence shorter, you put it in to make it longer. Mootros (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So I can't understand how this contribution is useful to the discusion. So you want to keep it shhorter or longer on what basis ? Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Wikified term is sufficient. Examples just spoil the flow of the sentence.  Most people interested in this article will know what it means.  Those who do not can use the link.  Yaris678 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If your statement was true, that examples spoil the flow of sentence, then why the use of " examples" is a common practice, and I can give you many examples here in wikipedia, and in scholary articles and a lot of textbooks as well ?!
 * How did you make such assertion that most people interested in this article, already know what are the common examples of dcotorates held by RF ?! have you tested the knowledge of the reader or how did you come to such assertion?
 * thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Yaris678: I'm just adding this here, although I've already made the same points in a section below. The examples are not necessary, because there is a link that has those same examples right in the lead.  The list of examples is relevant to the definition of a doctorate not this article.  Scholarly articles and textbooks are irrelevant, as they follow a different style and format from an encyclopedia, especially a "wikified" encyclopedia.  Perhaps if I thought some consensus could be reached on which examples to include and how to format them, and if the examples didn't overwhelm the rest of the sentence, then possibly they could go here.  Since the pages of discussion seem to indicate that consensus cannot be reached, and since the lead is at least as clear if not more clear without the examples, they should not be included at this time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter or not if you agree with another user or not, as it was already said to me before, that WP is not democratic systems depending on voting.
 * Also if you consider scholarly articles and textbooks as irrlevant to you, I already mentioned that I can bring many WP articles that mentioned examples in their leads. Therefore your rules is not valid.
 * Even more, in many other articles, there is a trend of talking briefly about another WP article briefly within the context of the former one, yet for people who need more explanaiton there is a hyperlink!. If as you claim that hyperlinks are to be enough, why then summarizing important points ?!
 * to make my talk more practicle, here are two examples:
 * 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry
 * in the lead of the article Poetry, and discussions of it, have a long history. Early attempts to define poetry, such as Aristotle's Poetics, focused on the uses of speech in rhetoric, drama, song, and comedy.[1] Later attempts concentrated on features such as repetition, verse form and rhyme, and emphasized the aesthetics which distinguish poetry from prose.[2]
 * 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
 * Although primarily used as a store of value, gold has many modern industrial uses including dentistry and electronics.
 * even more in the same articles, it talked breiefly about production of gold, yet providing a hyperlink to other Main articles: Gold prospecting, Gold mining, and Gold extraction.
 * and I can keep going - just from WP- providing so many examples than this page can really accomodate
 * Therefore, on investigating the current status to claimed statements, these claims are just absurd, and are not applied in reality.


 * And I can also say: Since the pages of discussion seem to indicate that consensus cannot be reached, and since the lead is at not clear without the examples, they should Be included at this time. 
 * thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean that as a "vote." I wasn't sure how to phrase my position succinctly.  I guess I could have said Comment: Keep the lead as currently written (with no examples).  As for your final point, you are currently the only person I've seen (here or on the RFC page) claiming that the lead, as currently written, is unclear.  Obviously, it's difficult for me to place myself into the hypothetical position of a reader coming to the page looking for information about research fellows while knowing nothing about what a doctorate is.  But my belief (yes, this is my opinion, but I thought the point of an RfC is to gather opinions, to create a consensus about how the article should be written) is that the information is organized best as it is now--on the Doctoral Program page.  Since you're the one who keeps asking for evidence, do you have any evidence or argumentation about what is unclear about the way it is written now, particularly given the hyperlink? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No i am not the only one here. If you go accurately over the discussion you find others. But even, if I am the only one, it all depeneds on verifiability. I verified my claims over and over, however still I can't see any backup for the opposing claim. Therefore, we should include examples in the lead. Have you checked the above wikipedia examples I provided ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * beside the above already mentioned two examples, I would like to add this examples, where a wikified term was used, however examples were added right after it !
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
 * whilst simultaneously using his position as head of the English Church to pursue religious policies which generated the antipathy of reformed groups such as the Puritans. Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Therefore Is there still any valid objection for not using examples in the lead ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still have a valid objection, and my objection was shared by others. I still oppose the inclusion of the examples. They are unnecessary, and including them leads to several other problems.  You do not have consensus to add those, and you can't pretend like there is consensus because you've decided all objetions are invalid.  An RfC was opened, and this page received comments from several outside editors that the examples were unnecessary.  Now, I don't know Wikipedia dispute resolution well enough to know what happens next, but I'm fairly certain the next step is not a declaration by fiat by one side that all objecting concerns are invalid and your version stands.  As a side note, you never attended to my concern that if you include examples for types of doctoral programs, you should also include examples of what a university is and what similar types of non-university research sites are.  Why do you get to decide that one specific term needs examples but others don't?  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * so let me address each of your points
 * "Yes, I still have a valid objection, and my objection was shared by others."
 * this was already answered as follows
 * 1: WP is not a democartic voting system. therefore beng shared by others is irrelevant
 * 2: and my opnion hass also been shared by others as well !!
 * 3: hope you understadn what is VALID objection, not repeated already addressed objection


 * "They are unnecessary,"
 * what makes them unnecessary ?! already showed that using examples is a commmon practice!


 * "including them leads to several other problems."
 * WOW you said several. OK, since WP depends on verifiability, so I would assume good faith that you are honest. So please verify this claim and  list down just ten out of these several other problems that you mentioned


 * "You do not have consensus to add those, and you can't pretend like there is consensus because you've decided all objetions are invalid."
 * 1. using same principal I can easily say: "You do not have consensus to remove those
 * 2. Since rules of W is to assume good faith, then Please apologize about the second line. You can't say I am pretending!, that's rude and unacceptable according to WP


 * "An RfC was opened, and this page received comments from several outside editors that the examples were unnecessary."
 * and since I am representing one of the opinions, and since I have already added alot to the content on this page, therefore I have the right too as an editor to address such invalid claims since none of such claims "that examples are unnecessary" were verifiable. And Again let me repeat, since it seems that I am having a diffciulty out there to send my message: WP IS NOT A DEMOCRTATIC VOTING SYSTEM. therefore bIeng shared by others is irrelevant. Otherwise I would say, my opinion has already been agreed on by other parties!.


 * "Now, I don't know Wikipedia dispute resolution well enough to know what happens next, but I'm fairly certain the next step is not a declaration by fiat by one side that all objecting concerns are invalid and your version stands."
 * It is good that you said that you dont know, because it is clear that you didn't differentiate between summarizing, and putting a decision. Sir, You and others added objection, and all of them were address. Please check of the page, You will find after each one, I already have responded to. However NONE was able to defend his claims against my objections (please reread carefully), therefore I was summarizing what happened, to see if it is really the situation or not. However, Again you objected, but unfortuantely you added nothing to the content. All what you presented is that you are unhappy with examples all the reasons that were provided were subjective, which makes same inherently weak. And that is why I said  VALID.


 *  "As a side note, you never attended to my concern that if you include examples for types of doctoral programs, you should also include examples of what a university is and what similar types of non-university research sites are."
 * First I havent seen this concern, however this concern is irrelevant to me, and so unimportant to discuss since we already are having another issue to discuss here. And I always prefer to focus on one point.


 * "Why do you get to decide that one specific term needs examples but others don't? "
 * Again, Since WP depends on virfialbitly, please verify your claim. To make it clear I never addressed such a point, therefore I never decided that other term need or does not need examples. Please either apologize that you put a false claim here, or provide me with my statment that I claimed so. You can't state that I asserted something that I didn't, and think you will go with it.
 * Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, you're right that I was wrong to use the word "pretend;" my apologies. I should accept that you do believe that the article is better with the examples.  Let me try to address each of your points, and I apologize if I don't hit all of them.


 * Apologies accepted. Just hope for more accuracy and respect afterwards, without repetitions for similar behavior, Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"1: WP is not a democartic voting system. therefore beng shared by others is irrelevant   2: and my opnion hass also been shared by others as well !!    3: hope you understadn what is VALID objection, not repeated already addressed objection"
 * I agree with points 1 and 2--you are not alone in this, and, as you point out, it's not a voting system. However editing does require consensus.  At this point, you do not have consensus, as there are several editors who do not agree that the examples are necessary.  So we need to keep working towards consensus/compromise.  That's what I meant when I said that you can't just declare that there were no valid objections.  I felt like you were trying to say that the process was finished because you had decided our objections were invalid.  I understand that you believe the objections to be invalid in good faith, but we do not yet have consensus that all objections have been met.

'''That's the key for the problems I have been encountring here over and over, statements being made depending on subjective feeling rather on objective evidence. '''Kushsinghmd (talk)

''what makes [the examples] unnecessary ?! already showed that using examples is a commmon practice!''
 * You showed that they are included on some pages, in some situations. You have not shown that they are universally necessary.  In this very lead, there are many terms for which you do not give examples.  If you really do believe examples are the key, then consider, chosen off of the top of my head, the following leads: Political Party does not give examples of parties themselves, or of ideologies, or of goals.  Couch does not contain examples of the types textiles used to make them.  Whaling does not list examples of countries that do whaling.  Yes, many, many leads contain examples, and many many do not.  I would believe that, in each article, a consensus was reached (explicitly or implicitly) about whether or not to include examples, based on what was necessary for that article.  I, and others, hold that for this article, using examples does not improve the article, especially since the exact term you want to use examples for is wikified and thus can be easily understood with a single click.


 * Agreeing that many leads contain examples, is enough to eleminate other statements made here and falsify other statement that examples affect the integrity of an article being concise, spoiling the flow of the article. Since it didn't affect the flow of other articles therefore, but it rather helped reader understand. Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"so please verify this claim and list down just ten out of these several other problems that you mentioned."
 * Several means two or three, not more than ten. The three most pressing problems I can think of are which examples to choose, which order to put them in, and whether or not to spell those examples out.  Yes, I know that you (all) have been debating those very points elsewhere on the page; however, consensus was not reached on those issues, which I believe even lead to a temporary page protection.  If we agree to include examples, we're going to have to go back to that debate.


 * Actually if you went over the discussion carefully, You would have noticed that those other problems were almost solved. The speeled out version should be included according to WP manual style guide. And the order will go alphabetically. So were there really several other problems, or you meant problem that already been solved ?!

"It is good that you said that you dont know, because it is clear that you didn't differentiate between summarizing, and putting a decision. Sir, You and others added objection, and all of them were address. Please check of the page, You will find after each one, I already have responded to. However NONE was able to defend his claims against my objections (please reread carefully), therefore I was summarizing what happened, to see if it is really the situation or not. However, Again you objected, but unfortuantely you added nothing to the content. All what you presented is that you are unhappy with examples all the reasons that were provided were subjective, which makes same inherently weak. And that is why I said VALID."


 * I do not believe that you validly met my objections. I do not consider the examples necessary.  In order for an example to be necessary, it must be needed to help the typical reader understand.  I believe that people researching what a research fellow is will know what a doctoral degree is; and I believe that if they don't, they would be better off getting that info from the Doctorate page.  You have not yet, as far as I have seen, given any evidence that they are necessary, just that you think they are better, and that some (but not all) leads have examples in some situations.  In any event, the whole idea of reaching consensus is that it does not end when one person says "All objections have been met, I/we are still correct, the other side's points are wrong, therefore, we have consensus."  In fact, we are still at a stalemate.


 * Again, Sir, all what you providing is just subjective claims. I can easily say the opposite  I do not believe that you validly met my objections. I Do consider the examples important.  In order for an example to be necessary, it must be needed to help the typical reader understand.  I believe that people researching what a research fellow is will NOT know what a doctoral degree is; and I believe that if they do, they would be better let others know.  You have not yet, as far as I have seen, given any evidence that they are unnecessary, just that you think they are worse, and that some (but not all) leads don't have examples in some situations. 
 * Therefore, just your narrative subjective comments, didn't really add much!

"First I havent seen this concern, however this concern is irrelevant to me, and so unimportant to discuss since we already are having another issue to discuss here. And I always prefer to focus on one point."
 * My point is that you seem to believe, as far as I can tell, that examples are necessary for the type of degrees, but not for what a university or research institution is. I honestly don't understand why you think the one needs examples but the other does not, because I would argue that they are at about an equal level of knowledge (not identical, but not equivalent).  That is, I can't imagine a person who is aware of what a university is but not what a doctoral degree is.
 * If you can't imagine of such person, this is again SUBJECTIVE. And if you really approve subjective claims, I can easily state that there are many who don't know what would doctorate degree encompass! Further more, I didn't argue using other examples, I don't know why do I have to repeat myself and state again: That Now I am focsuing on one topic: use of the examples next to doctorates. If you want to argue other points, I hope to make sure you are in the right sections, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Again, Since WP depends on virfialbitly, please verify your claim. To make it clear I never addressed such a point, therefore I never decided that other term need or does not need examples. Please either apologize that you put a false claim here, or provide me with my statment that I claimed so. You can't state that I asserted something that I didn't, and think you will go with it."
 * Sorry, you didn't explicitly state that, but that's the point I just raised above.


 * Again Apologies are accepted this time, However I am calling for more honesty next time, and not to repeat such behaviour please, Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) So rather than going tit for tat even further and getting bogged down in details, maybe you could help me. We've been trading many words on many different points, but I'm afraid that I may have lost track of the most basic issue. Could you try to state, as simply and clearly as possible, why you believe those examples are necessary for the lead? I still don't understand why they are necessary. I don't need examples (because there are both examples for and against), but would like to hear you say just why we need examples for one and only one term in the lead. Maybe if I hear it again from you distinctly we can find a way to compromise. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I already added this section before your comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Research_fellow#Using_Examples

I understand that you may missed it unitentionally. And I objectively presented a case about the importance of having examples
 * Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick note here to say that I'm continuing this discussion at the bottom of the current Talk page (in Section 18, Using Examples), because I think that's where you have already written your clearest explanation of your points. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Appropriateness of MD as example of degree of Research Fellow
[Discussion separated; see above] [...] The phrase "i.e MD (Doctor of Medicine) or PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), or equivalent work" clearly is meant to be exemplary for some of the most common doctorates. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Doctor of Medicine is not a common research degree; in many countries it is not a research degree but a professional degree. Doctorate So MD is not a good example I would say. Mootros (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment What Countries exactly are you talking about here sir ?! I hope you don't mean a third world country that's already not participating in research and consequently they don't have positions similar to RF Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From Doctor of Medicine: "Following the awarding of the MD, physicians who wish to practice in the United States are required to complete at least one internship year (PGY-1) and pass the USMLE Step 3. In order to receive Board Eligible or Board Accredited status in a specialty of medicine such as general surgery or internal medicine, then undergo additional specialized training in the form of a residency. Those who wish to further specialize in areas such as cardiology or interventional radiology then complete a fellowship." See also Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center's roster of current research fellows for infectious diseases. All of them are M.D.


 * This makes it look like the qualification of MD is indeed sufficient for entering a research fellowship in the U.S. and that no additional title is required for a fellowship. That aside, there are in fact many other countries where the Doctor of Medicine is a full academic title, so that alone justifies its inclusion in the lead for the Research fellow article. De728631 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nobody has said that an MD is not sufficient for becoming a RF; I say it is not a degree that is most commonly held by RFs. You are mistaking a Fellowship_(medicine) as part of a medical training, which is distinct from an appointment as RF, who who does not embark on a higher career as a practitioner of something, but as a researcher of something. These intricate details make it hard to put some specific degree in the intro; that's the whole reason why I say doctoral degree (level) is a sufficient description. Mootros (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: That's inconsistency. Since you already admitted here that MD is totally sufficent degree to become and RF, then how come you are asking to delete as a common example ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I will also add what I have already said to user before and he completely failed to respond:
 * "Doctor of Medicine is both a research and professional degree everywhere. It just takes you two minutes to look in the MEDLINE database, to know how doctors everywhere over th planet are leading medical research. User failed to recognize the major difference between clinical and basic science research."Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Good example here: Medical_school MD is a first degree in Thailand (six years duration). So far I know there is know specfic research element to it, but a broad practical element, including emergency surgery. Mootros (talk)


 * That article doesn't say anything at all about research, only about how to become an MD in Thailand. Anyhow, it doesn't matter at all for this article which specific country allows which title for entering a research fellowship, it is sufficient if examples of common titles in some countries are given in the lead. And this does include the Doctor of Medicine in a lot of countries. I would really advise you to accept this solution, but if you feel that it is needed you may ask the Mediation Committee for assistance. I for one have stated my opinion on the matter and won't comment any further on it. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: How is thailand as an example ? example for what sir ?! and what brought up the issue f Emergency medicine here ?!! this contribution is totally confusing !! Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A good example where people after six years MD training have almost no research methodology training, but instead an extremely broad training, including compulsory training how to perform certain types of surgery, even they  qualify as medical practitioners.  I'll try to find some sources in English, if you want; hope it's not going to shock you again. Mootros (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Are we not trying to give an example of a degree that has a sufficient component of research training, because RF is a research position, not a training. The Thai case is a good (though extreme) example (I'll look for some sources in English). An MD usually does not have the research component to the extent a PhD would have, because it focuses on the solution of practical problems. As you said it should be a common example; it is questionable in my opinion to what extent a Fellow --who is undertaken medical training-- is a research fellow. These are normally refereed to as fellows; see the link you provided. If there really needs to be an example it should only be PhD. Furthermore, there is no need for both an abbreviation and the fully spelled out term, because the abbreviation is not used again in the text. Lets wait until the 30 days are over before moving further. Mootros (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you showed some understanding of how the medical system works, then you should have known that during years of residency, Postgraduate training, and also during fellowship years, most training programs, dedicates a period of time ranges from few months to years embarking on a research study. An example is here http://people.ucalgary.ca/~psyctree/resident.htm. And I would like to provide this clear example to you about medical research fellowships: http://med.stanford.edu/anesthesia/education/residentresearch.html . And to end this discussion, here is an announcment about research fellowship it requires either MD or Phd degree or equivalent work: http://www.hhwf.org/HTMLSrc/ResearchFellowships.html


 * I guess now that case is closed Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note the way Ph.D. is listed first, before M.D in this US specific example Mootros (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what ?! "or" in language does not necessirly mean order, I think that is very basic!
 * anyways: MDs like PhDs, both are eligible to become research fellows Not like you hav been falsely claiming and have been calling to delete it wrongly from the examples section !Kushsinghmd (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you may understand that we are trying to reach a compromise. You may also have noticed that I have shifted my position about the MD as a possible example, upon the previous conversation. I will not move on the issue to place MD first, because it is misleading. Faculties of medicine are only one of many faculties in most universities; members of all the other faculties have mostly PhDs and not MDs. Even within faculties of medicine there is a good mixture of PhDs and MDs. This article is not about RF in medical sciences. Mootros (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please clearly state what you are asking for now ?! it seems that since your objections failed, so you are trying to be Not clear to avoid clear discussion.
 * Also are you tryin to exclude medical sciences from this topic ?! then what sciences specifically is this topic dealing with ? please let me know if you heard about a research fellow in Bussiness adminsteration or RF of music; the examples you previously mentioned. thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting not to put doctor of medicine first, but doctor of philosophy, because most RFs have a PhD -> because medical sciences is only one area within a University. Most people have a PhD in something, but not a PhD in medicine. Hence Phd is more prominent and should be in the order of precedent the first (most prominent) example followed by MD, because in contrast to PhDs across the University there are less MDs. You are right doctor of medicine is useful to list, because of the historical development that there is not PhD in medicine.


 * 1. Please reference you speech, and show some statisitics about number of research fellows and their qulaificaions and degrees.


 * 2. Does order here should be ascending, descending or random ?! why do you consider order as a represent of prominency ?

Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Re, PhD in Business Admin. Here is a good example of a (senior) RF post  where the candidate would be mostly like to have a PhD in Business Admin or in Management studies. Some applicants might even have a DBA, but it tends to be the exception because they got their doctorate in order to "go out" to be executives or business leaders, and not researchers. The difference between these two degrees is that the later often focuses on the solution of more practical problems. In terms of becoming an RF it does not make a difference, because an RF in this sense (unlike in medicine in the US)  is not a training programme, but a job. I hope this makes sense. Mootros (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope that you are reading stuff after you google it and before you put it here. Sir, in the example you mentioned the first selection criteria is "Doctorate in the physical, mathematical, engineering, computer, or analytic social sciences from a major research university." and not PhD in business admintsteration. Further more it is a RF position in networking. So wouldyou please justify how is this an appropriate reponse to my question. Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess what analytic social sciences is. Try to think outside the box of North America. Do you not see the point? It is almost irrelevant in the UK what the PhD is in. Most institutions don't even give a PhD in something, but have PhD attained at a specific faculty. Mootros (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I already know what analytic social sciences . But enough for you to know it is neither related to Doctor of Music or Doctor of Bussiness adminsteration Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have specific points relevant to UK, I think you already know that there is a specific section devoted for UK in our RF article that you can add to it specific issues. ThanksKushsinghmd (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is UK specific, but common to many European countries and commonwealth countries. Business administration, not an analytical social science? What? Where is the Music mentioned in the job ad? Mootros (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is specific to UK and commonwealth, then you can add it to the UK section and write that is is specific to this region.
 * This http://www.qass.org.uk/ should help you understand analytical social science
 * Music wasnt mentioned in the job ad. But it was mentioned by you earlier as an example of Doctorate. yet I asked you for an example of RF in music. But it looks that it is hard for you to provide reliable sources for statements you are making
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Commonwealth = UK? European countries = UK? Mootros (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * you are confused again!!. where did I ever that they are the same. i said use the UK section and mention that this system is applied in whatever countries relatd to. Let me know if you are still confused Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias -- Conflict of interest
I am arguing to put PhD first in a list of two examples to elaborate on the term doctoral, because most RFs have a PhD. A user called Kushsinghmd --I guess-- wants to put MD first because this user's username ends with MD. I consider this would be a form of bias in form of a conflict of interest. Mootros (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Please reference you speech, and show some statisitics about number of research fellows and their qulaificaions and degrees.


 * 2. Does order here should be ascending, descending or random ?! what do you consider order as a represent of prominency


 * 3. No my name is not representative of anything. Should we consider your name representative of anything?
 * it is clear that the bias is on your side, since you have been delginetly trying to undermine the MD degree as not doctoral, not graduate, not having reasearch work, and not qualifying to RF. And you have been trying to compare it with Doctor of Music. And also you tried to avoid speeling out the whole speeling in a trial to hide what it really represnts. SO yes I agree there is a bias in this whole dispute, but it is from your side. Thanks

Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Do you have any statistics to support the opposite? The very logic that a faculty of medicine is only one of many faculties might give you an indication. Have a quick look here www.jobs.ac.uk and search for Research Fellows almost all of the require a PhD.


 * You are the one who made the statement. And according to that statement you are making a dispute. So it is your role to provide a reference before making statement like this, then claiming that I am biased !!!!


 * Also I hope that you understand the difference between take a quick look, and between statistics. Sir, you made a claim, and also convicted me of bias, So Please would you put down your proofs on the table. please show us some sreliable information.
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. Yes, in English if you list examples you normally tend to start with the most common example.


 * May be that is your way of using English. But is their relibale sources ?!
 * aslo where is the prove that PhD is the most common example ?!
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 3. Please kindly consider my name.
 * consider your name in what ?!
 * you took two letter of my name trying to make a case. WOW !! is this how you make a case ?!Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion has moved on; nobody is to undermine the MD degree. There is just the fact if you look at www.jobs.ac.uk that MD is not as common as a PhD, because this two year degree (MD) focuses more on the solving practical problems, whereas a PhD (3-4 years) has a strong research methodology component. Mootros (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, you again repeating yourself over and over!!! So let me quote this again for you "Also I hope that you understand the difference between take a quick look, and between statistics. Sir, you made a claim, and convicted med of bias, then put your proofs on the table. Would you please show us some sreliable information."
 * And yes discussion moved on, but you have already showed your strong position fighting MD being put in all several ways. hence you requistion now is itself a BIAS. and not me. Hope that this is clear enough.
 * And you are saying MD is a 2 years degree. Please show me one prgoram over the Planet that offers MD in 2 years.
 * And again you are repeating this false information that MD lack "research methodology component" in their curriculum. Since I have already answered this repeatedly over and over in this discussion page, and everytime I answer you always fail to repsond but you Just repat yourself, So I am really sorry but You forcing me to say: Please, ENOUGH IGNORANCE . (full stop)
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Check this out: University of Leeds, MD 3 years part-time, University of St-Andrews 2 years full time, University of Nottingham "sometimes shorter then PhD, University of Sheffield 2 years full-time, University of Manchester 2 years full-time. Nobody said lack of "research methodology component" in MD, I said focus on practical problems in MD programme. Mootros (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

    


 * in fact I am shcoked by the references you are using. You showed complete lack of understanding of what we are talking about, yet you confirmed the importance of spelling out MD. it is clear from the many exmaples you provided, that you have complete confusion about what MD we are talking about, and how it is used differently in other countries. Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good! That's the whole reason why we not going to put MD in the intro, because all these six example universities conferee to the successful student after their two year course a Doctor of Medicine. Mootros (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No dear, in fact the MD degree you mentioned here is equivalent to PhD. But in these universities that you mentioned they don't have a PhD degree in Medicine, it is Just MD. Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How are you going to put into writing which Doctor of Medicine (MD) you mean? The one from a European University, the Thai one, the UK one, a Commonwealth Doctor of Medicine (MD)? The Doctor of Medicine (MD) for real doctors? Mootros (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So again You missed the point. To become an RF you have to have MD or PhD. if you are in North America then the American MD is enough to make you a RF. If you are in UK, then the UK MD will get you in. it is simple. But you dont have to get a PhD to become an RF if you are having an MD in either cases.
 * so it to put it the other way, if you just want to keep PhD and exclude MD as a requirment for RF, that is false assertion. 19:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. Most RF have a PhD, because the likelihood to be based in a medical faculty is considerably lower. Those who are not based at a faculty of medicine will normally not have an MD. Mootros (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Where ?! prove it !! why to you usually intend to ignore the whole discussion point to repeat you false assertion ?! Didn I fully respond to all these claims and you failed to repsond appropraitely ?!!!! Please refer to point number 1 in this section, and please stop this kind of vicious cycles , I would urge you to respect he time of others and their discussion as part of the ettiquette you previously mentioned 20:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have agreed to included MD in the list, because of its historical development, but it should not be on first place: first which in English normally indicated most common. That's all. Mootros (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Didnt I discuss the issue of order above, and you failed to respond. I dont understand where is the problem exactly. is it understandig ? or visual ? or do you get lost in discussion ? Please refer to point number 2, ans please stop getting into vicious cycles. 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is my proof "the likelihood to be based in a medical faculty is considerably lower, because a university is made up of many faculties (i.e. more than two)." You can read more about this here University! Ipso facto the likelihood  to have an MD is considerably lower.  What is your evidence? Mootros (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So this maeans you failed to provide reliable statistics to back up your claim, So please either take it back or provide a reference. Your approache of counting faculties is a complete failure and totally biased, cause by this you assumed that number of RF positions offered by each faculty is the same. Also you assumed that numbers of graduate student are the same. And your forget to take into counts RF positions offered by labs, Research institutions, and research fellowships offered by profesional organizations and societies. Therefore: your approach is a complete Bias Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I provided a reasonable logical proof. Where is you evidence? Mootros (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets say the average university has five faculties. In order for a medial faculty to outweigh all other four faculties, it needs to "produce" almost as three times as many MDs as each faculty on average produces PhDs. I'd say that is a dubious claim you are making. As for non-university based research, there are many government agencies, charitable orgs, pharmaceutical companies, IT companies, and what not, where there are no mostly MDs in RF positions. Check out the s give you some idea . 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I already told you that your logical proof is no longer valid cause it is biased unless you controlled the variables I meantioned.
 * second You provided examples, and they are related in physics, OK so what ?! I know that PhD are eligible for RF. I am not disputing that. But As I already told you previously and it seems that it was difficult for you to undestand, unless you provide solid statisitics, then all your trials providing few examples are invalid. You can't make such claim that there more RF holding PhD than there are RF holding MD with just few examples and googling job.uk !!!, That's absurd. unless you are able to back it up, then I would consider you joking, and nor higher than delusions. Hope you will able to make it this time and provide some reliable statistics.
 * You gave examples of five faculties, so what ?! still you didnt answer the question how mny RF positions are filled with PhD compared to those RF positions filled with MD ?! if it is difficult for you to answer, then please don't make such assertions as you did.
 * 23:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read what I said, four times as many PhDs as MDs. Mootros (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No I did read what you have said several time that why I have been questioning it. Didnt you read what I have been writing to you all day ?! Please provide reliable references to back up your claim. And i already pointed out the flaws in your way of thinking, but it seem that you always miss what I say. I am wondering why is that ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel we are not getting anywhere you should take this to an abitration commitee or the likes. I thought we have made some progress today. Mootros (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly with your approach repeating alrady addressed poitns over and over, with your several trials to get us into vicious circles, in addition to your major lack of basic knowledge about medical system either in US or even in UK, and just depending on copying information that you google, makes me very desperate. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Check this out: http://www.durham.hsrd.research.va.gov/fellowmd.asp if needs explanation please let me know, I would be happy explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about the position Research Fellow not about some form of sponsorship called fellowship as a part of a training programme. Nobody doubts that MDs do research and work as RF. I highly doubt that most RFs across the board have MDs. Mootros (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does not look like any RFs with MDs are here outside academia Mootros (talk)


 * Again you missed the point, previously you told me to note the PhD are mentioned first., Did you  notice here that MD are mentioned first.  So your claim is just absurd!
 * also, you previously disputed the fact that MDs are engaged in research, so clearly this proves you wrong.
 * You say you highly doubt, good for you. Unless you provide solid information, then your doubts will stay as such.
 * one more point is that you clearly seem to have confusion about fellowship and sponsorship, cause they share great similarities, but anyway, doesn't matter, since you showed already much confsuin in the whole rest.
 * thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad you point this out yourself they share similarities, but they are not the same; therefore not should not be used as an example. 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * please sign you comment first Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Explaining common abbreviations
I asked the expansion of abbreviation question on the manual of style talk page. The relevant discussion is here. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. That how I made it first. I I didnt spell out PhD, but I spelled out MD. However user Mootros deleted the spelled out version saying it is a bias either all spelled out or all abbreviated. So he forced me to put PhD in a speeled out version. Yet he changed this to keep the abbreviated version claiming that links would be sufficeient. However when faced with guidlines of Peer reviewed Journals in sppeling out abbreviations in the begining of articles, he took back his word. And now he was trying not to put any abbreviations. I am really confused with his positions. He just trying to say no to any change! Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: "MD maybe..." Doctoral degree might itself be sufficient. Mootros (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No doctoral is not sufficient. MD in abbreviated form only is not sufficeint as well. Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal for more discussion
I've just had to protect this for an hour. The discussions above, that I admit I skimmed through, looked like they where making some progress but that seemed to fall by the way. Can I urge all parties to back away a little, and not edit war, as that will just result in further protection or worse still account blocks. Pedro : Chat  22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I thought. I added relevant citations accordingly, but this immediately rejected. Mootros (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm off-line shortly but can I please ask that we don't head back to a revert war - if that happens then editors can use WP:RFPP or at worst WP:ANI but let's all try to avoid that ! Pedro : Chat  22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * user Motroos has shown total disrespect, and very unethical behaviour.He claimed several times falsely that I am vanadlizing the article, warning me on my profile!!. He also switched positions of the degrees delibretaly after he failed to respond to his own discussion and after being exposed of making Hoxus claims, especially when he was asked about a source and he completley showed a total misunderstanding of the topic (as clearly shown in the discussion). He twistwd facts,showed total incosistency, biased methodology and horribly flaw arguments!! Accordingly his recent edits to the topic (specially switching positions) are COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE, and he should be warned against such disruptive behaviours.Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kushsinghmd. I'd ask that you comment on content not contributors. It's fairly clear you're not happy with the article but you need to understand that it is simply not about what you think or Motroos thinks. It's about gaining consensus. I declined the report to WP:AIV to block your account, and frankly don't care at all about this article - which ironically makes me an ideal neutral party. We don't want recrimination or soap-boxing - we need honest debate on how to make the article better without reference to warnings, blocks et.al. I'm just keen to see the article progress without disruption if possible. Pedro : Chat  22:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Pedro: First I have to thank you very much for your prompt and effective intervention. Second, Yes I am dealing with content. I don't know user's real name, however I mentioned his username for identification of the provided content. And I think that my whole comment was directed about the content, and yes the content has been horribly flawed, irrational, off topic sometimes. but anyways: My question Now is clear: Why were the positions of degree switched where it is still under discussion !!!!!!!!!!!! thats absolutely unethical  , and compeletly unacceptable. We can't be disccuing an issue, and then because you fail to complete the discussion and fail to provide a solid argument, so you go take the action you liked that you have been trying to do several times. And to cover such unethical actions, he added few citations in a trial to make it look as if it is a constructive edit. However, If intentions were really adding citations, why then switching positions and changing the orders??????????. Yet claiming Vandalism on my side, yea right !! Again Thanks pedro, for you positive actions. Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(copied in from talkpage: Where next? Research Fellow) Hi, Thanks for intervening. I noticed you protected the article. What happens next? What would be the best do with when user persists that no changes (i.e. addition of 9 citations) are possible, during an RfC? Mootros (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented on talk, appealing for calm (optimistically!). It's a one hour protection. I don't want to see anyone blocked over this. The RFC may give a good outcome, and I urge you to stick with it if possible. I think the position is clear that now the page has had to be fully locked down, further edit wars will result in account blocks. As an aside I'd ask you not to use WP:AIV for stuff like this as it's simply to complex for that board - use WP:ANI if the edit war re-occurs but hopefully a middle ground can be struck. Pedro : Chat  22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive approach. We had discussion input from the MOS notice board (on some issues of the disagreement), but unfortunately this has not help to resolve the issue. Neither has the introduction of references. I will stay back for the moment; hope we don't have to take this RfC further. Mootros (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just forgot to add the reason first time when I undid the vanadalizing edits. Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he is the one who started reverting all my edits and labelling most of them vanadalism, and I haven't seen any notice given to him that he should not do so !!! second, yes he is vandalizing, cause he is intentionally compromising the integrity of the article by all his recent edits. Again Thanks for your effective intervention and thanks for following the article. Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Overwhelming [primary] evidence
There is overwhelming evidence indicating that most Research Fellow positions require a PhD. To support this I will include the following eight (8) citations:


 * from several different countries on four (4) continents,
 * from a range of different academic disciplines (include medical type of research),
 * which will also include research conducted outside academia.


 * 1) Medical Science example Australia>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
 * 2) Social Science example USA>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
 * 3) Bio-medical science example USA>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
 * 4) Humanities example UK>>>-->  Retrieved 24 May 2010
 * 5) Engineering example Singapore>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
 * 6) Biology example Denmark>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
 * 7) Outside academia example EU>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
 * 8) Outside academia example Singapore>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010

Next, I will use the abbreviation PhD and not the fully spelled out term, as suggested in an answer to a question on the manual of style talk page. Please see here.

Finally, I will remove from the introduction the term doctor of medicine (MD) as an example of a qualification a research fellow has. There is no evidence that is widely the case throughout the world. The scarce evidence relating to MD on this talk page, is limited to the USA/ Canada and tends to be mostly referring to medical training programmes called Fellow (medicine).

Mootros (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

as I already pointed out previously, Just providing few examples with out providing solid statisitcs is not scientific to make a claim that more RF are holding PhD than MD. That means user can easily be deceived by ads and similar stuff without taking a rigorous scientific approach. Simply I can provide far more examples !

So let me take same approach:

UK

http://science.cancerresearchuk.org/gapp/personalfund/fellowships/tcd_rfc

http://www.obgyn.net/meet.asp?page=/all_advisors/T_Ind

http://www1.aston.ac.uk/lhs/staff/az-index/gherghed/

http://www.stephenhamilton.org.uk/plastic_surgeon_london.html

Belgium:

http://www.usc.edu/programs/pibbs/site/faculty/declerck_y.htm

USA:

http://www.stephenhamilton.org.uk/plastic_surgeon_london.html

http://info.med.yale.edu/pharm/hermen/alumni/alumni.html

http://www.hss.edu/cartilage-biology-lab-staff.asp

http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/staff/gloviczki_p.cfm

http://healthcare.utah.edu/dermatology/about/residents.html

http://www.houseearclinic.com/Fayad_CV.htm

http://www.childrensmemorial.org/findadoc/bios.aspx?id=1268

http://pulmonary.duke.edu/modules/pulmfellowship/index.php?id=2

http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/staff/suarez_ga.cfm

http://www.cmki.org/fellowship/faculty.cfm

Canada:

http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/jobs/141054-Research-Fellow

Russia:

http://pulmonary.duke.edu/modules/pulmfellowship/index.php?id=2

New Zealand:

Dr Cara Wasywich, MBChB, FRACP: http://www.heartgroup.co.nz/

5 MD, 7PhD http://www.eyeinstitute.co.nz/pdfs/news/nznec-celebrate-success.pdf

Australia:

http://www.surgeons.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research/Scholarshipprogram/Scholarshipandfellowshipopportunities/Research_Scholarship2.htm

Iran:

http://www.me.sc.edu/CV/Kheradvar_cv.pdf

South Africa:

http://www.fogartyscholars.org/fellows/2008-2009-fellows

Argentina

http://www.fmed.uba.ar/infica/integrantes/cv_morales_ing.pdf

Courtesy break
So To Conclude:

1: the approach of just seeking few examples is completely biased approach, otheriwse I can make such a claim by providing more examples!

2: the claim that it is limited to North america, was completley false as already shown from the SIX continents

Final word : I would advice the dear user Motroos, to refrain from making claims and assertions that showed us his complete ignorance regarding MD and RF over and over again, and please stop acting childishly like a trouble maker. If there is topic under discussion behave maturely and wait till the end of discussion.

accordingly, I will revert the users edits and I consider them Vandalism, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Useful examples that confirm that MD in relation to fellowships mostly refers to medical training programmes as discussed in Fellow (medicine). Above all, all these example are strictly related to medical research and do not bear any connection soever to any research conducted elsewhere. Highly specific; highly localised; utterly unsuitable to provide a nice example in the WP:LEAD. Mootros (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * what is wrong with medical research ?! Do you know what fields fields does medical research encompass ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about a research position at a university or similar institution NOT about medical research. Mootros (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * do you mean that "university" and "similar insititution" don carry out medical research throught research fellows ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No I mean that universities and similar institutions have many other research activities in addition to medical research. Therefore pointing to medical research is highly specific, highly localised, which makes it an unsuitable example for the WP:LEAD. Mootros (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I invite you to read more about the point of the WP:LEAD. All this talking here; you could have written a nice section about Canada and about research fellows who do medical research. Mootros (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1: what does canada has to do with my question ?! switching topics again, please focus a bit with me.
 * Are you not based at a McGill University? I thought that's in Canada. Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * NON OF YOUR BUSSINESS ! hope you can read it clear dear. Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 2: how do you consider this "highly localized highyl specific" when we didnt mention medical research at all. the article is talking about degrees that RF are holding, and it could be MD, PhD, or equivalent work. Where is medical research here ?! or where even other research fields been mentioned here ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of research do people with MDs normally do, if not research relevant medical areas? Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * is there a specific kind of research that the RF article is dealing with ?!!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No that's the whole point, the WP:LEAD is about RFs in general, NOT about RF's who specialise in research relevant to medical areas. Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * " In general" includes medical research or not on what basis ?! does " in general" includes the research in music and bussiness adminsteration ( the examples you prviously used) or you would consider Muscia nd BA as " too specific too localized" ? Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does all include these areas. That's why have all the way I been saying to use PhD. It is a sufficient example if you want an example, because it includes all areas where RF positions are: even medical areas. PhDs (in/ at ...) you find everywhere, alongside Doctors of ... Mootros (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * since you said it does include all even medical research, then why exclude MD, when it is totally sufficenet to hold RF position ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we like to write in a non-repetitious way, without burdening the reader with long lists stating all the other doctorates for each area. It's not very useful for a WP:LEAD to write in such a way. Mootros (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but where is the so called "LONG LIST" ?! why you are exagerating ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because once you add MD you open the possibility of an argument to included other doctors of something. In the end we find ourselves with list like this: Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S), Doctor of Dental Medicine (D.M.D.), Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) and Veterinariae Medicinae Doctoris (V.M.D.), Doctor of Nursing Practice, Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (D.P.M.), Doctor of Optometry (O.D.), Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.), Doctor of Public Health (Dr.PH.), Doctor of Physical Therapy (D.P.T.), Doctor of Occupational Therapy (O.T.D.), Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) or Doctor of Practical Theology (D.P.T. or D.Th.P.), Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.), Doctor of Musical Arts (D.M.A./A.Mus.D./D.Mus.A.) or Doctor of Music (D.M./D.Mus/Mus.D), Doctor of Business Administration.

This would result in such a sentence: ''A research fellow may act as independent investigator, or under the supervision of a principal investigator. In contrast to a research assistant or research officer, the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a MD (Doctor of Medicine) or PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S), Doctor of Dental Medicine (D.M.D.), Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) and Veterinariae Medicinae Doctoris (V.M.D.), Doctor of Nursing Practice, Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (D.P.M.), Doctor of Optometry (O.D.), Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.), Doctor of Public Health (Dr.PH.), Doctor of Physical Therapy (D.P.T.), Doctor of Occupational Therapy (O.T.D.), Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) or Doctor of Practical Theology (D.P.T. or D.Th.P.), Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.), Doctor  of Musical Arts (D.M.A./A.Mus.D./D.Mus.A.) or Doctor of Music (D.M./D.Mus/Mus.D), Doctor of Business Administration, or equivalent work.''

Who wants this? Mootros (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do all of these in the list hold RF positions ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Y; es, I have seen people in RF positions with these degrees. Some of them are very common. Mootros (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WOW, sinc you consider what you are saying as scientific, then listen: All the RF i have seen are MDs. how is that ?! is that scientifc enough to eleminate PhD from the list ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is irrelvant whether is its scientific or not. What matters are secondary citations. Have you got any? Mootros (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * may be it doesnt matter to you, but it matters for others. You want citation for what ?! arent you the one who put the above long list and said that all of them hold RF positions ?! please see the signature again, and if you find it yours, please provide a reliable source or take it back, thanks. Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In Doctor of Business Administration it clearly says DBA is a "research doctorate" . The above list is a hypothetical example. I object to the use of this list in the strongest possible terms. Mootros (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * and why you used Hypothetical examples ?! Please dont waste our time more than this, please try to just deal with facts now, so we can finish this whole thing soon, try to show more respect for our time.
 * So now you saying that we have in the examples, MD, PhD, and DBA ?! I wouldn't mind if you want to include the DBA, just provide enough evidence that there is enough RF holding DBA. Kushsinghmd (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly that is the way long lists start. Next we move to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, you can read there "DOs undergo a similar curriculum as MDs, with the addition of osteopathic manipulative medicine techniques." Now we already have MD, PhD, DBA, DO. Do you still "wouldn't mind"? What next? Mootros (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * DO and DBA are not common examples, since the number of people holding these degree is much less. DO is a degree only offered in the US. But MD is a world wide degree and the number of grads are far more than all other all together . Please enought ignoranvce, you already showed us enough silly argument, cause  of your clear position tht you ar e not willing to include MD, so your using the most silly arguments now, looking for degrees that never do RF and just througfhing them here.Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your evidence about the number of DOs and DBAs? DO is the most common degree I may assert. Mootros (talk)


 * evidence for what ?!! First you are the one who brought the DO, and now you are asserting, so if you are not the one who is willing to support your speech with evidence, how come you ask others?
 * if you just did a little effort reading the link you provided, you would have know that yourself, that DO is a US degree, and it is much less in quantity than MD. I already told you before try to read vfore you through links.
 * Please enough wasting time brining up issues that you dont know how to support. If you wanna add something to the list provide references, if not then Keep silent.
 * thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Positions
If I'm not mistaken, the dispute is mainly over what the lead should contain in terms of who can be a research fellow and who cannot. I'm going to lay out your positions below and, hopefully, that will help focus the discussion. (Also, please try to use neutral words in your edit summaries - labeling each others edits as vandalism is not helpful.)
 * 1) Are examples of doctoral degrees needed.
 * 2) Do the abbreviations need to be spelled out. This seems to be resolved as follows: MD needs to be clarified but PhD doesn't.
 * 3) Should Doctor of Medicine be included in the examples of qualifications for research fellows. Mootros thinks not but khushsingmd thinks yes.
 * 4) What should the order of the examples be. Khushsingmd thinks that MD should come first while Mootros thinks it should come second.

Is that a reasonable summary? Or are there other points that are also contentious?--RegentsPark (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this! Excellent summary. Mootros (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, then why don't we do the following , the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) or an MD (Doctor of Medicine), or equivalent work. That way both of you get something. Khushsingmd gets examples of doctoral degrees, gets MD included, gets the abbreviations spelled out, and Mootros gets PhD listed first. Something's gotta give somewhere. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * but why do we need to change positions ?! thanks for you positive interventions Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the point is that something has to give. Since, apparently, both of you agree that some research fellows need to have a PhD. Mootros feels that an MD is not necessary. It seems a natural compromise to say 'let's include MD but list them with the PhD first' and it is certainly not incorrect. You don't have to agree with the compromise but both of you are on a slippery edit warring slope here. I'd like to hear what each of you think below.--RegentsPark (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will refrain from inappropriate revert action. Mootros (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your intervention to the highest possible degree. All I need now is to understand, why user would like to switch positions now ?! after I see his reasoning then I will give you my desicion. thanks a lot. Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this section to summaries positions, not to argue. Mootros (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But I would urge RegentsPark to continue his interventions, in any section you like, thanks. Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my preferred version: , the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD, or equivalent work I will concede to Kushsinghmd and include the MD in the following way , the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD or an  Doctor of Medicine, or equivalent work I object to the use of abbreviations if not used later in the text and insist to follow the WP:MOS by putting abbreviations in brackets and not the other way around. Mootros (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And this is my preferred version:  the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a MD (Doctor of Medicine), PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) , or equivalent work. about the abreviation issue: at first Mootros, insited on using aabreviated version and prohibited me from speeling out Doctor of Medicine on the basis of incosistency: either to spell it out all or keep it abbreviated, and he convinced me and I agreed, so I put both of them in abbreviated and spelled out version. Mootros prefered to keep both of them abbreviated and he kept his position till other users intervened trying to confirm what I said that in peer reviewed Journals and scholarly articles, they mention both the abbreviation and spelled out version in the very first of the article. But, now Mootros is calling for what he previously called "inconsistency" !!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What "inconsistency"? This is called finding a solution to the article. This is not a game here, called World of Encyclopediacraft. Mootros (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Listen, WATCH you tone.
 * The above link leads to a page that is considered to be humorous. I suggest you focus on the article and not on me in your argument. Mootros (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought you are a serious man who understand that I dont have time for Joking. Wise men only know when to be humorous. Anyways, I am not focusing on you, but I am focusing on your unacceptable edits to the RF article. Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Second: Previously here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Research_fellow#Use_of_abbreviation we were trying to fins solution, or were you trying to find dsomething else ?!. And user (Mootros) himself called his current version as Incosnsitency, for combining between a speeled out version and an abbreviated one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) So, if I understand this correctly, kushsinghmd is ok with the suggested , the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) or an MD (Doctor of Medicine), or equivalent work but mootros is not. Correct? --RegentsPark (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am against the order. MD should be first alphabetaically, unless he can provide solid reasons with references not to do so. Kushsinghmd (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you are against the order. But can you live with it or must you absolutely see MD before PhD? The crux of the matter is whether you are willing to compromise or not. The compromise is necessary because mootros believes that MD is not usually a qualification for a research fellow. I'm hoping that he/she will agree to including MD provided you agree to the order suggested above. The fact of the matter is that, whaverer your beliefs, the statement is unsourced - in which case the preferred alternative will be to drop the sentence in its entirety. Let me know if that is ok with you. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that an MD is not usually a qualification for a research fellow in general. Mootros (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "general " ?!!! is there a new field called general research ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Trust me I am very willing to compromise, but only infront of two things, 1: solid reliable reference, 2: strong logical argument. So the matter is not what I like, or what other users would like, it is about laying down facts with references. So the matter of order now depends: is there any reason to put PhD first ?! if not, then will keep it as it is alphabetically, if yes he has to back it up with solid data. Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The logical argument that you find (i) PhDs everywhere (ii) MDs not everywhere but only in one place, has been spelled out numerous times above. I have not seen any sound justification as to why MD first. Mootros (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again using "gernal and everywhre" term. PhD is not essential to become RF, already proven. PhD is  a specific degree in a specific field, holding a PhD in music doesnt get you a RF in Bussiness adminsteration !!! (if there is one) . you saying MD is not everywhere ?!!! I dont know where do you live exactly, but try to go to nearby hospital and clinic and you will see a lot of them Kushsinghmd (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations and the MOS again
The above suggested use of abbreviations is a complete violation of the WP:MOS policy. Mootros (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hyperlink is coonecting to wrong page, check you link first please. Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Mootros (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the terms but would you please elaborate on which term exactly that I violated ?! thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

When introducing a new name or term in an article, use the full name or term on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in round brackets. This clears the way for later use of the abbreviation alone...

01:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you really understand what you are quoting. Cause under this term, your version is a complete violation. You havent included the spelled out term of PhD, that is not me who did that. Read the term again lest you understand. thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style! There is an agreement that common abbreviations should not be spelled out. What are you going to do about the blatant violation of the MOS you have (re)introduced to this article ? Mootros (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope you know the differen between a "term" and a "discussion". Or do you consider my discussion here as terms that you are vilating ?! the term is clear, to spell it out in the begining of article, any way around i called violation. Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your use of (round) brackets (i.e. parentheses in US English) in the article blatantly violates the MOS. Mootros (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

When introducing a new name or term in an article, use the full name or term on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in round brackets. This clears the way for later use of the abbreviation alone...

Ok so the format should be Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), not a problem. On the other hand, you version is a complete violation, cause you dont want to mention the speeled out version! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good! This looks fine now in terms of the MOS. It might also be worth considering whether to have consistency of form of the listed examples or a mix of spelled out terms and common abbreviations not spelled out. You may find this page helpful WP:Adopt-a-User. Mootros (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you agreed that it is "Good" and that it lokks fine, then there is no reason to discuss further. Discussion Closed Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The high significance of the MD qualification for RFs in general
We haven't heard any sound argument from Kushsinghmd as to why the MD is of higher significance to RFs in general than the PhD, in order to be listed first in the WP:LEAD. Will we ever? Mootros (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Prove it first then ask. Prove that I claimed so. I am leaving it alphabetically. If you wanna change it, please tell us why, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not engaging in the discussion. What is the basis of the changes you introduced. What evidence do you have to support your statement that most RFs have MDs? It defines common sense. You are trying to create a further deadlock by reverting to alphabetical order excuse. Mootros (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * what do you mean I am not engaging in the discussion ?!
 * What change I am introducing ?! you are the one who is switching positions !!
 * Please show me where my statement is ?
 * alphabetical order is more logical and more common in life and can easily be understood, but you claim need clarifications.
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The following articles link to Research fellow. I cannot see any specific mentioning that highlights medical research in any way. Mootros (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

So as usual you fail to respond to my objections, which shows your weak position when you claimed that I asserted something I didn't do. anyways, I checked the link, and I have to thank you, but I was really shocked that till now you haven't learned to investigate links before you through them. From the frst 30 link on the frst page alone here are Medical research and MDs:
 * Focus on the content of the article and not on me. For the irrelevance/ absence of medical research or MD in the following article that link to RF see below:
 * Mootros (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * bELOW WHERE ?~
 * :: yours Claims already been addressed five times now, and you failed to respond. Here is my response to your claims:
 * exactly, and that's what I am doing. i am exposing all the false content you are providing here. read what I wrote once more. I didn't focus on you, or asked about your location as you did with me multiple times. So I guess you are showing us again inconsistency. Where did I focus on you and not on the content you provided ?!! also why did you try to ask about my location severa times ?! as usual complete dishonesty!
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bomedical and life sciences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia_Sinica
 * "In each institute and research center, tenure-tracked Research Fellows" bio-medical one of several dozens centres Mootros (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad you know that, it doesnt seem you knew that before. Kushsinghmd (talk)

Psychiarty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen
 * A Fellow of Trinity College! Mootros (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Psychiatry or not ?! I hope you know that psychiatry is a medical science! Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Colombia
 * "It is also one of the few universities that employs post-doctorate fellows in the country." School of medicine one of 20 schools Mootros (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great that you noticed that they ddnt exclude it there!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychatry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Strassman
 * See Medical training fellow (medicine). Mootros (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * again you are confused. arent you the one who providing the link page of research fellow ? I am showing you what it links too !!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Clinical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_associate
 * No clinical! no RFs apart from a see also Mootros (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * again you are confused. arent you the one who providing the link page of research fellow ? I am showing you what it links too !!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Biology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivia_Judson
 * A biologist with a PhD Mootros (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * but don't you think that Biology is too localized too specific as you claime before ?!! wake up, it is among life sciences.Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychotherapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Stone
 * A professor at a department of International Relations! Mootros (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Professor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_supervisor
 * No medical in here no RF apart from a see also Mootros (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

''':: you are funny!!! you provided us with what RF links to too show us the lower significance of MD, then now you say, no these are wrong links !!!! thas what I am saying, your approach from the begining was biased !''' Visiting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visiting_scholar
 * No medical in here no RF apart from a see also

''':: you are funny!!! you provided us with what RF links to too show us the lower significance of MD, then now you say, no these are wrong links !!!! thas what I am saying, your approach from the begining was biased !'''

and of course you will get many unrelevant links like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Undergraduate_Television http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qianling_Mausoleum

I dont have to look throught the rest of the links, thats enough. So in conclusion, the user is providing another biased approach, that will turn back aganst him Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverse alphabetical order
I suggest reverse alphabetical order, which is very common nowadays. Mootros (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why reverse Alphabetical order ? very common where ?! did you change the order of the alphabet in your country or what ?!!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_order#Alphabetical_order Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User Failed to backup his claims, therfore we should follow alphabetical order Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not going to do anything with a list because MD is irrelevant for the WP:LEAD. Mootros (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  comment whether or Not MD is relevant as an example, that is not the subject under dscussion Here. Please read the title of this section, and try to focus a bit, don't be driven by you impulses to keep repeating in every section MD is not relevant. repeatng you claims doesnt make them true. This section s about ordering examples. So in conclusion you showed us that you used to make false claims like this ' reverse alphabetcal order' and as usual you couldnt prove your claims. And it seem that all your claims about MD, are also Hoxus claims. Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the article since the edit warring continues. I've also removed both PhD and MD for the time being. I suggest you somehow agree on the text that should go in the lead and then the article can be unprotected. In the meantime, if there are any non-controversial edits, or agreed upon edits that you would like to make, let me know. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to thank you for your intervention. However removing MD / PhD is not a neutral action, but it favors the side of the other side represented mainly by Mootros. Please note that aas been discussed before:
 *  1: user Mootros already admitted that MD are elgible for MD.:
 *  Comment: Nobody has said that an MD is not sufficient for becoming a RF; Mootros (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 2: Other users agreed to give examples of t the most common doctoral degrees that are elgible for RF
 *  I think there is nothing wrong with explaining abbreviations, this is common practice in explanatory texts such as encyclopedias. On the other hand we do not need a full list of all possible abbreviations and their meanings in this article, because that's not the topic of "Research fellow" and that's what the doctorate wikilink is about. The mentioning of examples of doctoral in the lead should be left as in this edit. The phrase "i.e MD (Doctor of Medicine) or PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), or equivalent work" clearly is meant to be exemplary for some of the most common doctorates. De728631 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 


 *  3: I already have shown many examples world wide who are MDs and worked as Research Fellows.



UK

http://science.cancerresearchuk.org/gapp/personalfund/fellowships/tcd_rfc

http://www.obgyn.net/meet.asp?page=/all_advisors/T_Ind

http://www1.aston.ac.uk/lhs/staff/az-index/gherghed/

http://www.stephenhamilton.org.uk/plastic_surgeon_london.html

Belgium:

http://www.usc.edu/programs/pibbs/site/faculty/declerck_y.htm

USA:

http://www.stephenhamilton.org.uk/plastic_surgeon_london.html

http://info.med.yale.edu/pharm/hermen/alumni/alumni.html

http://www.hss.edu/cartilage-biology-lab-staff.asp

http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/staff/gloviczki_p.cfm

http://healthcare.utah.edu/dermatology/about/residents.html

http://www.houseearclinic.com/Fayad_CV.htm

http://www.childrensmemorial.org/findadoc/bios.aspx?id=1268

http://pulmonary.duke.edu/modules/pulmfellowship/index.php?id=2

http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/staff/suarez_ga.cfm

http://www.cmki.org/fellowship/faculty.cfm

Canada:

http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/jobs/141054-Research-Fellow

Russia:

http://pulmonary.duke.edu/modules/pulmfellowship/index.php?id=2

New Zealand:

Dr Cara Wasywich, MBChB, FRACP: http://www.heartgroup.co.nz/

5 MD, 7PhD http://www.eyeinstitute.co.nz/pdfs/news/nznec-celebrate-success.pdf

Australia:

http://www.surgeons.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research/Scholarshipprogram/Scholarshipandfellowshipopportunities/Research_Scholarship2.htm

Iran:

http://www.me.sc.edu/CV/Kheradvar_cv.pdf

South Africa:

http://www.fogartyscholars.org/fellows/2008-2009-fellows

Argentina

http://www.fmed.uba.ar/infica/integrantes/cv_morales_ing.pdf


 * Therefore deleting MD and PhD is not helpful and affects the integrity of the article.


 * overall, please notice the several ways Mootros is approaching to keep the article the way he likes. he brought up many irrational arguments: like: reverse alphabetical order, bringing up many irrelvant examples to make it look like a long list like DO ( a degree only in US), Doctor of music!, started many times an edit war, inconsistency with abbreviation position, mentioned false facts that MD RF are only with North America, tried to get personal many times, asking about my location, tried to kick me out from the article many times, reporting me as vandalsim, and also asked me to lead an article my own, when he reported the last edit war he hided the fact that he deliberatly was changing positions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kushsinghmd, many several times he makes the assertion and then asks me to prove the ooposite, all these actions and more makes it clear enough to show you that his real motives are to keep the article the way he want which is not to put an MD there and even more spell it out. But unfortunately he provided no sound argument for this. Therefore again, please put back MD PhD the way it was, since this action goes well with the other user motives.
 * Again, Thanks very much for you interventions Kushsinghmd (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please focus on the content of the article not on me.Mootros (talk)
 * exactly, and that's what I am doing. i am exposing all the false content you are providing here. read what I wrote once more. I didn't focus on you, or asked about your location as you did with me multiple times. So I guess you are showing us again inconsistency. Where did I focus on you and not on the content you provided ?!! also why did you try to ask about my location several times ?! as usual complete dishonesty!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me hear from mootros as well. I'm assuming he/she would like to see PhD up there but I could be wrong. Frankly, the doctoral degree link points to a page that lists several types of doctoral degrees so I don't see the big issue here but let's see. I'm going to be offline for a while, so I suggest you both respond here (but please be polite to each other and stop labeling edits as vandalism!)--RegentsPark (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact if you go over this discussion page carefully, you will see Motroos position very clearly, he doesn't mind about seeing or not seeing the PhD degree, all what he cares in not to see the MD specially in spelled out version. That why he tried to invent all the irrational excuses above. Therefore, again I would afirm that the recent action is in favor of the other side. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The wikified term doctoral degrees is sufficient. Mootros (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  we do not need a full list of all possible abbreviations and their meanings in this article, because that's not the topic of "Research fellow" and that's what the doctorate wikilink is about. The mentioning of examples of doctoral in the lead should be left as in this edit. The phrase "i.e MD (Doctor of Medicine) or PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), or equivalent work" clearly is meant to be exemplary for some of the most common doctorates. De728631 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 
 * I agree with De728631, and that's what examples are made for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples. Exemplar, a prototype or model which others can use to understand a topic better Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is De728631's evidence that they are the most common ones? Mootros (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * before going into another point as you always do, first question we are discussing here is the about the use of examples. Using examples is a common practice to make others better understand. Do you have any objections on using examples, whatever the most common are ? Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So Today is the second day, and the opposing party didn't provide any objecction to the use of "examples". he just questioned what are the most common examples, but this is a separate intity. Kushsinghmd (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I object to using MD as an example; your contributions attempt to turn this article into Research fellow in medicine: this is evident for example in the following sentence in a section called Research_fellow. "Medical research is often performed by research fellows, and they may also be involved in clinical trials and studies of everything from new surgical techniques to different approaches to psychotherapy." Or will you be listing another hundred methodologies RF are commonly use throughout the University? Mootros (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are having a great confuson motived by your unacceptance of MD. The question has NO relation to specific examples. You Prviously said that Doctoral is sufficient without examples, yet when I questioned this further you failed to show us why we should not use examples whatever the most common are. Therefore: it is clear that you are motivated by not including MD in the examples, so you preferred NOT to put examples at all, not because doctoral is sufficient as you claimed, but because you just want to exclude MD as a common example. Therefore the previous statement (it is suffiecient) is clearly Biased. In Conclusion: I would urge RegentsPark to return back the examples, as there is no sufficient reasons to remove the examples statmenet. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop focusing on me; focus on the content of the article. This is a article talk page not a user talk page. Mootros (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Claims already addressed, and you failed to respond. Here is my response to your claims:
 * exactly, and that's what I am doing. i am exposing all the false content you are providing here. read what I wrote once more. I didn't focus on you, or asked about your location as you did with me multiple times. So I guess you are showing us again inconsistency. Where did I focus on you and not on the content you provided ?!! also why did you try to ask about my location severa times ?! as usual complete dishonesty!
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is this sentence all about you added to a section called Research_fellow? "Medical research is often performed by research fellows, and they may also be involved in clinical trials and studies of everything from new surgical techniques to different approaches to psychotherapy."It appears that you are writing this article as if RF usually do Medical research. This article is about all Research fellows. Mootros (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the fourth time, it seems that user is confused, and I have to thank him for showing us hios clear positions and motives.
 * So there are two related questions here:
 * a- should we mention examples for explanation?
 * ❌ Definitely NOT in this case! Read Research and University and you might get an idea about the multitude of different type of research. Why highlight some? We don't needs endless lists that burden the reader. A good article is concise. I quote: Featured_article_criteria "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Mootros (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unforunately this is your case. See how you responed when I said asked:
 * Using examples is a common practice to make others better understand. Do you have any objections on using examples, whatever the most common are ?
 * --> your response was complete silence !!!
 * and when I commented saying  we do not need a full list of all possible abbreviations and their meanings in this article, because that's not the topic of "Research fellow" and that's what the doctorate wikilink is about. The mentioning of examples of doctoral in the lead should be left as in this edit. The phrase "i.e MD (Doctor of Medicine) or PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), or equivalent work" clearly is meant to be exemplary for some of the most common doctorates. De728631 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 
 * I agree with De728631, and that's what examples are made for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples. Exemplar, a prototype or model which others can use to understand a topic better Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)''
 * -->you didnt object on using examples, but you objected on usng MD as an example. Which you repeated today.
 * So my first question to you now, if you really want to object on using examples in general, why didnt you explain to us why, rather than attacking the MD degree as " irrelevant example" ?
 * Sceond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead#Relative_emphasis says the following: Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them.
 * Third Who said we are going to include a list ?!! it is you who tried to invent the ireelevant list thing. Hope you really understand the difference between examples and list!!
 * Fourth, who siad that two or even five example affect that integrity of a consice article ?!!
 * Fifth, if exmaples are not used to explain a topic to users, then why there is something called "Examples" ?
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop focusing on me! Mootros (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Claims already addressed, and you failed to respond. Here is my response to your claims:
 * exactly, and that's what I am doing. i am exposing all the false content you are providing here. read what I wrote once more. I didn't focus on you, or asked about your location as you did with me multiple times. So I guess you are showing us again inconsistency. Where did I focus on you and not on the content you provided ?!! also why did you try to ask about my location severa times ?! as usual complete dishonesty! Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Silence does not mean I agree. Mootros (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Silence in a discussion mean you failed to reply, which mean your claims are so weak to defend. It is like not answering on a test or exam !! Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You and De728631's are entitled to your opinion, even if it is against the Wikipedia's policy. See WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not If you feel the policy is wrong than this not the place to have such a discussion go to he villagepump or other relevant places. Mootros (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I cant see any response to my objections and questions ?! what I am seeing here is a rude behaviour trying to kick us out to go to villagepump !!!! WOW, is that really your response, and is that how you back up you claims ?! and you telling me I am focusing on you, whn I have never told you go away, leave us here alone ?!! Please respond appropriatel to the above questions , thanksKushsinghmd (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

''' Opposing party has been online and kept addressing other issues on the same page, but failed to address the point why not add examples for better understanding. since User failed to address my objections and questions, and his position has been clearly biased, I am requesting to return the examples statement as they were. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC) '''


 * B- what are the examples.
 * unfortunately the opposing party has a biased position cause he isists on answering reversely. He say if B is going to include MD, then the answer for A is no. But if B is not going to include MD, then the answer for a is yes. This a is horribly flawsed response clearly showing his complete bias.
 * My answer was clear. for a, I would say yes, cause examples give better explanation for other users, as stated by wikipedia, and other users. then answr for B to be discussed separtely.

Hi RegentParks, In a trial to solve this sipute, I added this section as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Research_fellow#Medical_Research_as_an_integral_part_of_research to stress on the importance of Medical research as integral part of Research. Other Wikipedia articles as you can see, didn't seem to have much of a problem in mentioning such information. Therefore adding the foremendtioned degree examples would go very well with the already mentioned facts. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks. Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It seems clear to me as an non-involved editor that the best and simplest solution is to keep the article as it currently is (the protected state, no mention of either MD or PhD). Adding the information will invariably lead to conflicts. Furthermore, as was pointed out by someone earlier, it tends to lead to the slippery slope of wanting to include other types of doctoral degrees. The article already links to Doctorate, so anyone who is confused about what a doctoral program is can go there. Adding in the abbreviations adds no necessary/notable information, and is obviously leading to massive conflict. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First I have to thank you for sharing the discussion. I see that you haven't added new for the same previous claim that doctoral is enough, which was already addresed all over this discussion page, and particularly in this Protected section. So in order to justify the position of how doctoral is sufficeint, I think that there are some objections that you need to be address first before confirming the previous claim. Just an offside pont: I don't understand why your name appears in red to me, Thanks again Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My whole point is that I don't want to wade into that discussion, and don't see the need to. The discussion of whether to include both MD and PhD is obviously contentious.  Including both leads to both slippery slope inclusion of other things and to the basically unsolvable debate about which order to use.  Thus, to me, the sensible choice is to remove both.  As the Doctorate page shows, right in the lead, it includes both MD and PhD, along with a variety of others.  Why do you need to repeat that information here?  You don't need to have an example of every term used in an article, particularly when that term already has it's own article and has clear examples there.   So, in short, I believe two things: 1) Consensus will not be reached on which specific degrees to include and what order to include them in; and 2) Such a decision need not be made because adding the examples adds nothing salient to this article.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead#Relative_emphasis says the following: Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them.
 * if exmaples are not used to explain a topic to users, then why there is something called "Examples" ?
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That MD and PhD (among countless other degrees) are doctoral degree is not even close to "startling." Not even in the same country as "startling."  Examples are necessary when they help explain something people won't otherwise understand.  I notice that the lead doesn't say "a research position at a university, such as Oxford or UCLA or similar institutions, such as The Salk Institute or TSRI."  You don't use examples when the topic is well known; you furthermore don't use examples when there is a link to an article whose lead contains the same examples.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First Put aside what are the most common examples, just focus on the principal of using examples in the lead. So the only onjection you providing on using examples, whatever the most common are, is tht the subject is wll known. Let me tell you, examples is to familiarize others with subject, and not to familiarize thse who already knwo the subject. Why would one try to search wikipedia and learn about RF if as you claim that the subject is well known ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If they come to this page out of ignorance, that means they are trying to learn what a Research Fellow is, not what a Doctoral program is. And the great thing about a hyperlinked encyclopedia is that, if they don't know what a doctoral program is, they can click on the link that's right there, and from that page learn what a doctoral program consists of.  That was the point I was trying to make with why we don't give examples for "university", because there are already articles that do that.  If the details of this dispute are worth having, and it may very well be, it's a dispute that belongs with the Doctorate page, not this one.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the idea of having example is not to explain, thats not what examples in general were meant for. But adding example help familirize others with topic. So if the topic is about RF and you mentioned that they hold a doctorate, so is it like a doctor of music as it was claimed, or what kind of doctorate ?! the reader will have a question what are the most common doctorates who are RFs. Why not answer this question in a simple, half line example ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources
The following citation was removed with the following edit summary: (This the english wikipedia. Please use english reference that can be read it by readers who know english. use russian in russian wikipedia, thanks)

Verifiability clearly states:

English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material.

I read through this and it looks fine. The required qualification is Candidate of Sciences. Could this be added back in; I'll provide a footnote if needed. Mootros (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide an accurate and reliable translation of the reference. Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Qualification Requirements for Positions of Managers, Specialists and other Employees Mootros (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How is that relevant to RF ?!!!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read through the last section it states what is required for RF. Yes, RF are employees and not someone on a trainingship. The requirements are: Doctorate or  Candidate of Sciences. The exact transaction of the job titles is alrady in the text.  Mootros (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you understande what is an accurate and reliable translation of an article or even a pragraph means. Do I have to explain this also ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not required; see Verifiability again. Mootros (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If only you have learned to read articles before you throught he links, you would have saved us a lot of time.
 * so le me quote to you from the link what you haven't read
 * When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote..''
 * Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still cannot see where it says "translation of an article or even a pragraph" Translation and original already in the text. Mootros (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok since you dont understand what the rukes are, so let me ask you this based on the rule: Where is the original language quotation, and the reliable Ebglish Translation. And what is the reliable source for translation? Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this: Ведущий научный сотрудник... Требования к квалификации. Ученая степень доктора или кандидата       наук. Наличие научных трудов или авторских свидетельств на изобретения,        а также реализованных на практике крупных проектов и разработок.

senior/ professorial research fellow... Qualification requirements: A doctoral degree or the degree of "Candidate of Sciences". A track record of publications or certified inventions, as well as practical contributions to major research and development projects.


 * 1. what is the source of translation?
 * Me. Mootros. Mootros (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * you are not reliable source! Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability clearly states: "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians" Mootros (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I havent seen anyone who said you are reliable translator, s there any ?

second, How come you are asking not to focus on contributor, and yet we want us to blindly consider the conrtibutor as a reliable source ?!!!

Third, second you are already shown us that you always provide false information. your previous acts, already took your credibilty from you. For example:

1: reverse alphabetical order,

2: RF holding MD are confiined to North America,

3: That I stated that MD is higher signfcance and yet asked me to prove a statement I didnt say,

4: That I violated the MOS, when you dd,

5: you used Hypothetcal examples to fill in an irreleveant list, 6:

6: when you reported me, you deliberately hided the fact that you changed the order and swtching positions

Therefore: YOU ARE NOT RELIABLE, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs)


 * 2. where is research fellow mentioned ?!!!!!
 * The title is Ведущий научный сотрудник which is means something like senior/ professorial research fellow See also Mootros (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So why I can't see it in your translation ?!!! what is the article about ? and from where ?! please elaborate rather than all this vaguenss that I have to keep questioning, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. It is a summary of the role, function, responsibilities, and qualification requirements for this position. It is some form of documentation that is not linked a specific job posting. It comes from a Russian Internet portal that is geared for leaders, the managers, financiers and economists of enterprises. Apparently it provides an electronic library of business literature and documents, on different aspects of theory and practice of organization, planning and management the activity of enterprises. As good as it gets... Mootros (talk)
 * 1. again Please provide a reliable source for translation
 * User translations are permitted. Mootros (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * your translation is not accurate. check this, http://translate.google.ca/translate_t?hl=&ie=UTF-8&text=%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+&sl=ru&tl=en# the above word just means S2enior researcher

I havent seen anyone who said you are reliable translator, s there any ?

second, How come you are asking not to focus on contributor, and yet we want us to blindly consider the conrtibutor as a reliable source ?!!!

Third, second you are already shown us that you always provide false information. your previous acts, already took your credibilty from you. For example:

1: reverse alphabetical order,

2: RF holding MD are confiined to North America,

3: That I stated that MD is higher signfcance and yet asked me to prove a statement I didnt say,

4: That I violated the MOS, when you dd,

5: you used Hypothetcal examples to fill in an irreleveant list, 6:

6: when you reported me, you deliberately hided the fact that you changed the order and swtching positions

Therefore: YOU ARE NOT RELIABLE, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It literately means "Chief scientific worker"; in Russian culture the scientific worker is the one who is equal among his/ her peers, equal among her "worker" colleges. I.e. a fellow. What does this Fellow do? Research. Check out the Russian entry in wikipedia for "scientific worker" Научный сотрудник Guess where it links in the English wikipedia. A good translation is never a literal translation. Mootros (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the provided translation is wrong and not accurate, and the wikipedia page link to researcher page not RF. http://translate.google.ca/#ru|en|%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%0D%0A Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when are google translation permitted? Научный_сотрудник in the Russian wikipedia links to Research Fellow in the English wikipedia Научный_сотрудник is meaningfully rendered as Research Fellow in terms of describing a position of employment. Mootros (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Google translation is more reliable than you, and I already explained why. Otherwise I will translate it myself, and you have to accept same as you are forcing me to accept your translation Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. what you are telling me is not a translation, it is your understanding to the article !!
 * :I have given you a direct translation of a passage of the document, plus put the document in context. Mootros (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * and we already told you you r not reliable translator, please give us an honest translation, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 3. Still I can see RF among the list you mentioned!!
 * Look at the above quote not the background info. Mootros (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you just cuting a quote from the whole article ?!!! what scientific approach is this ?~
 * 4. You make me feel that I am asking for too much, when I am asking to check the article and its translation !!!
 * Patience. Mootros (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I am very pateint. 18:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Medical Research as an integral part of research
I was reading about research, and I came to my attention this interesting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research#Research_funding And what is really interestng is that this section is talking about research funding, and it mentioned the two major resources for scientific research are Medical, which has previously been dispute by some user. Also in ths link, Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_funding and the examples of reseach mentioned in the lead, ar Cancer, Malaria and AIDS. In reading about research fnding, I haven't seen much of the other types of research being funded as much as Medical research. like I havent seen major part of the US budget going for research in Music, as mentioned by the Doctor of Music.

Also Please Notice the organiztions of research mentioned as Examples: Canada Research funding agencies: In the US, the well known NIH of course. In Canada: at least five out of 9 are Health related research.

Therefore if we are talking about significance of Medical Research, I think it is clear enough that much more bucks are being expended on medical research alone compared to others. Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Using Examples
For anyone who object against using examples, please address the following.

1. Why can't we use examples ? is there any Valid objective reasons ?!

2. Sceond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead#Relative_emphasis says the following: Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them.

3. Third Hope everyone really understand the difference between examples and list!!

4. if exmaples are not used to explain and familiarize a topic to other, then why there is something called "Examples" ?

5. the use of " examples" is a common practice, and there are COUNTLESS examples here on wikipedia, and also in scholary articles and a lot of textbooks as well ?!


 * 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry

in the lead of the article "Poetry, and discussions of it, have a long history. Early attempts to define poetry, such as Aristotle's Poetics, focused on the uses of speech in rhetoric, drama, song, and comedy.[1] Later attempts concentrated on features such as repetition, verse form and rhyme, and emphasized the aesthetics which distinguish poetry from prose.[2]"

6. Few would claim that the link is enough, however when we investigate WP we find that there is a trend among so many articles to talk briefly about another WP article within the context of the former one, yet for people who need more explanaiton there is a hyperlink!. If as you claim that hyperlinks are to be enough, why then summarizing important points ?! I can provide so many examples. Here is one examples


 * 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold

"Although primarily used as a store of value, gold has many modern industrial uses including dentistry and electronics.

even more in the same articles, they talked breiefly about production of gold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Production, yet they provided a hyperlink to other Main articles: Gold prospecting, Gold mining, and Gold extraction.

7. Some claimed that the wikified term Doctorate is enough, however when we investigate WP we find that so many give examples to the wikified term. like:


 * 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

"whilst simultaneously using his position as head of the English Church to pursue religious policies which generated the antipathy of reformed groups such as the Puritans."


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotics

"used to treat infections caused by microorganisms, including fungi and protozoa."

"This original definition excluded naturally occurring substances that kill bacteria but are not produced by microorganisms (such as gastric juice and hydrogen peroxide) and also excluded synthetic antibacterial compounds such as the sulfonamides."

"With advances in medicinal chemistry, most antibiotics are now semisynthetic—modified chemically from original compounds found in nature,[3] as is the case with beta-lactams (which include the penicillins, produced by fungi in the genus Penicillium, the cephalosporins, and the carbapenems)."

"Some antibiotics are still produced and isolated from living organisms, such as the aminoglycosides, and others have been created through purely synthetic means: the sulfonamides, the quinolones, and the oxazolidinones." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

8. Let's see what WP said about using examples ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples. Exemplar, a prototype or model which others can use to understand a topic better'' therefore, that's what examples are made for.

To conclude: For an editor to eliminate the need for using examples, they have to address the above mentioned points, plus provding us - as I did - with good objective reasoning, and not subjective ones.

Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Above, we were trying to address all points simultaneously. But I think that's too difficult; so I would like to address just one point at a time, if you don't mind.  This first point I would like to start with is your conclusion itself.  You state that the issue at hand is that "for an editor to eliminate the need for using examples, they have to address the above mentioned points, plus providing us -- as I did -- with good objective reasoning, and not subjective ones."  First, my apologies for using subjective phrasing--for a variety of reasons, I have a tendency to argue using words like "I feel" and "I believe."  I am more than willing to switch to your preferred style of phrasing, as best as I can.  Please forgive any lapses I might may might make.
 * Having said that, I have to put forward that you have not adequately captured the question at hand. Your phrase assumes that the "standard" or "normal" state of affairs is to include examples, and that the burden of proof lies on us to "remove" them. I would state, rather, that there we have a disagreement about whether or not the article lead should contain examples for types of doctoral programs.  Neither your (and others) preference for including examples nor my (and others) preference for not including them is the default; we have a situation where a group of editors have not yet concluded whether or not the lead is best with or without examples.  Are you willing to accept that as an "objective" statement of the problem?  22:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)


 * It doesn't matter to agree or disagree. It is all about who provide best logical argument supported by evidence in view of the presented opinions. IT IS NOT A A DMEOCRATIC VOTING SYSTEM, IT IS ABOUT VERIFIABILITY. So in support to my view point, I presented the above case in separate points for more clarity. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that you are saying that the automatic, default position is "These examples are appropriate for the lead in this Wikipedia article." Thus, you are requiring me to 1) Prove each of your points wrong, and 2) Provide specific examples for why I should delete the default stance.   However, I could say that the default position is that "These examples are inappropriate for the lead in this Wikipedia article;" this puts all of the burden of proof on you.  Now, I do intend to address each of the points, but I'm asking that we start from a fair starting point.  I propose that right now there is no consensus on whether or not to include examples.  Thus, the goal now is to establish consensus on whether or not to include these examples.  This is the way discussions are conducted here--unless there was previously a long-standing consensus, neither side gets to start from the point of "I'm right, you must meet every single objection or my version is correct."  We start from the point of "We have a disagreement; now let's each present our reasons why we believe as we do, and achieve a working consensus."  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are either confused or yet making another false claim. Please show me where did I state that the automatic, default position is "These examples are appropriate for the lead in this Wikipedia article.. Sir, If you go over my argument and reasoning carfeully, I showed many referenced reasons why examples should be included. I didn't make such a claim that examples are automatic by deafualt. However I presented my case argumentation, showed many references, and backed up my talk with several proves, and afterwards I concluded my case. I didn't do what others have been doing here and just kept making subjective claims repeating them over and over!. I didn't claim that examples are important and stopped like others who have been claiming that examples are unnecessary and bankrupt afterwards cause they don't have more to say or backup their claims. Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe I was misinterpreting your phrase " For an editor to eliminate the need for using examples," because to me that sounds like the examples are "in" and it's my job to "eliminate them." So, I'm willing to move on.

Your first point is the most contentious, and thus the one I want to address last. I think we can get agreement on the other points more easily. So, let's look at your second point: Sceond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead#Relative_emphasis says the following: Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them. I claim that you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting. "Startling" means surprising, unexpected, suddenly alarming, and/or wondrous. The word "doctoral program" is not even vaguely startling, nor, for that matter are the examples MD and PhD. If you for some reason still believe this policy applies, could you please explain?

Also, just to get it out of the way, I definitely agree to your third point--you are not proposing a list, merely 2 examples. I think we all agree a list of all possible doctoral programs would be bad, and I think we all agree that you are not proposing a big long list like that. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am happy for the promising progress, so lets move on as you said. Doctorate may not be startling fact for you, but are you ignoring millions of users using WP among which there is potential group for whom "Doctorate" perse without a bit of elaboration could be startling ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am claiming that there is not a single user for whom the word "Doctorate" is startling. Did you see my definition of "startling?"  Startling does not mean "new," "novel," or "unknown."  It is a much higher standard.  Even if there are users who do not know what a doctorate is, they will not be "startled" by that word.  They will simply see it as a word that they don't know.  That is not the same thing as being "startled."  Furthermore, the guideline says "Do not surprise the reader by hinting at startling fact without describing them" (emphasis added).  We're not talking about a "fact," we're talking about whether or not to give examples of a word.  I sincerely cannot see how this particular part of the MoS guideline provides us with evidence, one way or the other, about whether or not examples should be used in this case.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you are subjective; when you claimed that there is not single WP user could find it startling, therefore your assertion is weak!. And to defeat such claim further, I as a user of WP, the term Doctorate was startling to me when I first read it. Kushsinghmd (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not trying be disparaging, but do you understand what "startling" means?  Again, startling does not mean "new."  To startle means, and I quote (the American Heritage Dictionary), "1. To cause to make a quick involuntary movement or start.  2. To alarm, frighten, or surprise suddenly."   I am more than willing to believe that the first time you saw Doctorate in WP, that it was  new word for you.  I simply find it unbelievable that you either 1) jumped or 2) were alarmed/frightened/surprised suddenly.  If that were the case, then every single new word would make you jump.   So, are you misunderstanding what "startling" means, or are you really asserting that new words surprise and frighten you?  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir, I hope that you understand what is allegorical or metaphorical speech. If you don't understand this, then how would you explain the WP rule when it stated so ?! do you think that there is any single word that can make you jump suddenly or to literally start having involuntary movement ?! It is like saying knock their socks off, or like saying it costs an arm and leg !!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are actually making my point. I believe this policy is aimed at the danger of including facts, not words, that are startling.  Since, as you have stated, words don't make a person jumped or be surprised, I think it is clear that the point behind this guideline is that we should not include facts that are not explained.  For example, a lead should not contain something like, "Mr. X owned many successful businesses, was a respected politician, and was convicted for murder of a family of 4."  That last phrase is startling.  My whole point is that you are incorrectly citing this guideline when it has absolutely no relevance to this discussion, because it's not talking about whether or not we should give examples to help define words--it's talking about startling facts.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What I am seeing now is that you took a step backward, when faced with the metaphorical nature of its use. So since you took this point back, I will restate that the term "Doctorate" per se without any bit of elaboration is startling fact, which according to WP MOS will need a bit of elaboration. Kushsinghmd (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I can't find anything at else metaphorical in the MoS, and since guidelines are generally written plainly, I dispute that your interpretation is correct. However, at this point, we are obviously not going to get any further on this point, as to me it is plainly obvious that the guideline does not apply here, while to you it is plainly obvious that it does.  So we have a point of dispute.  For now, shall we continue on and see what else we agree or disagree on?


 * Thing is: if the term Doctorate would startle any reader; like me, then according to WP MOS, a bit of description should be included. Lets move on Kushsinghmd (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, your points 4-7 all say approximately the same thing--all of them assert that, on Wikipedia, people use examples to explain things that may be unknown to the reader, and that further they do so in the lead. I accept that there are, in fact, articles that do so--your sample articles are quite convincing in this regard. However, I do not believe you are correct to say that this is a trend among may articles. I pointed out three articles (Political Parties, Couch, and Whaling) that do not use examples in places where they could. Now, we can spend all day (or all week, or whatever) pulling up articles that do or do not use examples in the lead. What I hope we can agree on is that neither of us could possibly establish that one or the other is the standard, without doing some sort of impossible numerical analysis of all Wikipedia articles. Thus, I believe that neither one of us can say with certainty "This is the way Wikipedia does it." Therefore, I argue that we should focus on what is best for this page and this lead. Do you agree with this plan? Or do you have some way to prove that this is a Standard that is broadly applicable to most Wikipedia pages (just citing more pages won't prove anything, since we'll just end up citing endlessly, with articles both with and without examples in the lead). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * well the point of putting examples here, was to reply against many false claims and assertions that have been thrown all over this discussion page claiming all sort of wrong things regarding examples and wikipedia, and I think that even you, when I mentioned that scholarly articles and textbooks uses examples, you objected saying that this is irrelevant to WP. Some of the claims asserted that examples spoil the flow of the articles, others claimed that it affects the integrity of an articles being concise, others claimed that it is against WP !!, while some stated that the wikified term is enough. All these claims were addressed by these few examples from WP itself. I didn't claim that all articles do so, however the articles using examples are countless. For you position, mentioning negative proves wouldn't help much, cause negative proof wouldn't eleminate the positive proof. t is like saying, That you went to Germany and you haven't seen BMW, therefore there are no BMW in germany. It would only need one witness to prove this assertion as false. Accordingly, No one can claim now that using of explanatory examples after wikified terms is not a common trends when faced by the overwhelming evidence. Kushsinghmd (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I should have been more clear. I, just like you, do not agree with the statement that examples always break up the flow of a lead; I believe the person who put forward that argument is wrong, as in fact your examples prove.  However, I can definitely claim that you have not presented "overwhelming evidence" that using examples is "a common trend."  I agree that some articles do it; similarly, you agree (I think) that some articles do not.  But to be a common trend, you would need to show that it is often, regularly, customarily, the case.  Presumably, you would do this by showing that a high proportion of WP articles contain such examples in their lead, and that those use of examples is similar to the use you propose here.  I hold that you cannot do so as there is no way to determine such a statistic.  Again, I'm not saying that this proves there shouldn't be examples; I'm just trying to answer your point that this is some sort of common trend that we should follow, and therefore does not prove that there should be examples.  It is merely the case that some articles use examples and some do not, and thus we can only make a determination about this one, specific article.  I completely understand why you used the examples, and I definitely think it proves the point that we cannot say that examples are either good or bad, in a general sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would consider the presented examples as overwhelming evidence to eliminate the claim that wikified term is enough. However if you would like to have an overwhelming evidence to prove it is a common trend, that is simple, and I can do, But, I feel that I am doing all the work here, and the other sided - opposing opinion, is doing nothing so far other than saying NO (or similar implying comments!).
 * Also It is surprising for me that now you switched gears, cause yesterday when the following was said "Wikified term is sufficient. Examples just spoil the flow of the sentence. Most people interested in this article will know what it means. Those who do not can use the link. Yaris678 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)", you agreed with this statement !! however after 24 hours from this agreement, you are saying that you " do not agree with the statement that examples always break up the flow of a lead". to be Honest, I am sorry to say that I am quite disturbed with the position you are representing here. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First my position is consistent, although perhaps, again, I was not clear enough. I was agreeing with Yaris that the wikified term is sufficient in this case; at the same time, I was agreeing with you (I thought), in saying that examples do not in every case break up the flow.  Mind you, even if my position were not consistent, that is not relevant--the only question is the final consensus we arrive at.


 * As for the first bit. You have cited, several articles that contain examples in the lead.  I am more than willing to stipulate that you could cite several hundred more, and I specifically don't need you to do that--please don't think I'm trying to make you do unneeded work.  I hope that you would be willing to stipulate that I can do the same.  In the end, I don't understand how either of us could possibly prove that there is a "trend" in WP articles, unless one of us could site a policy or guideline that stated "Examples should/shouldn't be used in leads."


 * Finally, I know I haven't given my arguments yet; I'm trying to do what you asked, which is to first address all of your concerns to the best of my ability before providing my reasons. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I already put the WP MOS guidline in regards to explaining startling facts. But, I understand that you tried to find several different exegesis, which I already proved that your exegesis was false.
 * also let me remind you, as I already said, that me proving positive evidence for using examples is totally different from you citing negative examples. Meaning, you can cite hundereds of articles that don't use examples, however this proves nothing, Cause many articles are still under development, and others possibly didn't include examples cause writer opt not to do so, for one reason or another. Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, my negative examples don't prove anything. But I'm trying to say your positive examples don't either.  All we can show is that some articles have examples in the lead, and some do not.   But you're trying to assert that using examples is the common trend, the normal way of doing things on WP.


 * Okay, I just deleted a big block of text I wrote, because I realize that I may have misunderstood you. When you say "common trend," you don't mean "most common."  You just mean that some measurable, non-trivial number of articles use it.  If that's what you mean, then I accept your claim.  If you do mean to say that using examples is more of a standard than not using them, we do have a disagreement (one that could only be solved by a systematic survey of all articles, clearly an impossible task).

So, let me see if I am adequately paraphrasing your stance (this helps me make sure I understand your points).

1) WP:MOS says that we shouldn't use startling facts in the lead, and the word Doctorate without examples is startling (this point is in dispute).
 * not it didn't say you shouldn't. In fact it clearly mentioned that you can use startling facts, but insisted on providing a dscritption Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2) Many articles on Wikipedia do use examples in the lead (this point is not in dispute), which is evidence that showing examples can, in some cases, be helpful to readers (also not in dispute, in the general case).


 * Great! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

3) This specific lead makes more sense or is easier to understand if we include, specifically, the examples of MD and PhD (this is the point I haven't disputed yet but plan to).


 * I haven't yet mentioned specific examples, however these are the examples I previously included, however would argue this separately if further discussion is needed. Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a fair, objective summary of your points? If not, please correct me. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your analysis of #1 is correct, and how I should have phrased it. I think this is evidence that I need to stop for the moment--I'm simultaneously grading English test papers, and I think I'm losing my ability to focus here. I will do my best to organize my thoughts by tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * NP. However let me be fair and state my appreciation to your work. You really acted professionally, took criticism very well, stayed as much on topic, showed courtesy. All in all, despite holding different opinions, let me raise the hat for you. Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasons to not use Examples

 * 1. The term "doctorate" is a fairly common term for those people who would read this article.
 * I'm trying to move past the issue of what "startling" means for the moment, although I do want to return to that (I just don't want to look like I'm abandoning my promise to provide my own arguments). But even if we stick with the lesser interpretation of "startling" as "novel," I argue that the word doctorate is one that is commonly understood by a majority of readers.  Now, do I have evidence for this?  Of course not--how could I gather such evidence?  Do I have a logical argument?  Yes.  A doctorate is a standard part, in one form or another, of education systems throughout the world.  The specific forms the doctorate takes of course differ, but that isn't the question here--the question is whether or not the general term "doctorate" is novel.  WP:LEAD states that "Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." If the word "doctorate" is not uncommon, we are under no onus to define it or give examples of it.  The only person I can imagine for whom the word “doctorate” is novel is one who has had no interaction with the university system at all—that would be either someone from a country without such a system, or someone too young to have encountered the university system.  I argue that such readers of Wikipedia are rare.  I wish I could provide statistics to back that up, but of course I have no way to survey thousands of people to ask them if they know what a doctorate is.


 * 1. You failed to support your claim with any bit of evidence. Hence I don't think That I need to respond to this objection. Simply I can Just reverse all what you said like: ''The term "doctorate" is a fairly common term for those people who would read this article.


 * The term "doctorate" is a fairly UNcommon term for those people who would read this article.''


 * 2. you forgot that the encyclopedia is not user specific. Meaning, it doesn't need to have certain level of knoweldge before you search encyclopedia. It is the opposite. Most people go to wikipedia when they are stumbled with any information they find around. Like for instance, if I am going to read on antibiotics, I dont have to know microorganisms first in order to go to such article. It is not a structured learning system. Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. The term "doctorate" is no more novel than other terms in the lead--particularly, the term "unversity." There is no reason to privilege the word "doctorate" with an explanation when we do not privilege the other words in the same way.
 * I'm not trying to add a new topic in here, or deal with more than one issue at the same time. I'm trying to say that the format of the lead should be consistent. If we are going to use examples for words that are novel to readers, then we should do so each time such novel words occur.  However, it is difficult to imagine a reader who knows that universities exist, that they award degrees, that people study there, etc., but that the same reader would not know that the universities offer some type of degree that can be classified as a "doctorate".  So, if "doctorate," is an uncommon word to a typical reader, I believe we must also hold that "university" is an uncommon word (and possibly others).  But since I believe it is readily apparent that "university" does not need examples, I believe that we can hold that “doctorate" also does not need examples.


 * This is not the right section to discuss this point. I haven't argued using examples somewhere else in the article. So I am not going to argue this point, since it is very irrelevant to our discussion. Please find the appropriate section. Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 3. The examples don't do anything more than the link does.
 * This is the one I had the most difficulty formulating. I realized that I had a problem with some of the sample web pages showing examples; I felt that they were different from this one, somehow, but I couldn't put my finger on it.  I realized that, in those other cases, the examples are used when the wikified term itself doesn't provide the exact same information, but when it provides examples unique to the specific topic at hand.  Look, for example, at Gold. Here, the examples are in the line, "Although primarily used as a store of value, gold has many modern industrial uses including dentistry  and electronics."  Here, the examples are necessary because there is no "modern industrial" page to link to, and, even if there were, there would be no way to know which specific industries Gold is used in.  Thus, the examples help explain something about Gold. Our article is not like this at all.  The examples included are not unique in any way to "research fellow."--it's not that there are certain doctorates that can be research fellows while others cannot (or if there are, I don’t think we talk about it). Furthermore, in the lead to the doctorate article itself, these same examples, and more, appear.


 * Not true, since I have already shown many WP articles with BOTH links and examples.
 * Links are like references for those who need to know more about a subject, however examples gives a concise information to familiarize others with a topic. Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The other time I see examples being used are as in you point out in Charles I of England, when the article itself discusses in details those examples later. In this case, Puritans is provided of an example of reformed churches.  However, later, the article discusses Charles I's specfic policies with reference to several different reformed churches.  The Research Fellow article does not do this, and thus this reason for using examples is not relevant.  This is related to the idea in WP:Lead that "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."  This article is not about how the different types of degrees relate to different aspects of being a research fellow.


 * If you think that the RF Doctorate degree lead is not related to the rest of the article, does that mean that you agree with deleting the term Doctorate from the lead ?! please elaborate more on you position, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 4. If we include the examples, we need to achieve consensus on which examples and which order to include them in. I do not believe that we can easily establish such a consensus, thus leaving out the examples is a better compromise.
 * This is the least important of my reasons, but it is relevant, nonetheless. In some editing situations that I have seen, two sides cannot agree on how to properly include certain information.  In some cases, it seems to me that the comprimise is to not include the information at all, so long as the article is still sufficiently explanatory without that information.  This reminds me most of the previous long-running debate over how to name the Liancourt Rocks page.  There, two nationalistic groups could not decide between the Korean name (Dokdo) and the Japanese name (Takeshima).  While there were many reasons for the final decision, from what I recall of reading the final "consensus" was that using the English term Liancourt Rocks, while perhaps the least accurate, was certainly the most neutral.  Now, I don't mean to say that the debate of whether it should be "MD, PhD" or "Phd, MD" or somethng else rises nearly to that level of dispute, but if we can establish that the article is sufficiently clear by not including the examples, then we can avoid another several weeks of debating about which samples to include.  That is, the "no examples" becomes a compromise position between "MD, PhD" and "Phd, MD."


 * The reason I believe we cannot ever achieve consensus on the order is that it has a lot to do with differences in the way the different degrees and professions are treated in different countries. The Doctorate page provides quite a bit of information about how the term differs, but we can't go into that level of detail here.


 * Though I already addressed this point with you before, so you are forcing me to repeat myeslf. Again most of the other issues have been settled. Also refraining from doing the right thing cause of fearing problem, is not right! Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how to proceed based on your refusal to listen to anything I have said. I admitted I don't have conclusive evidence, but neither do you.  You can't "prove" that these examples are necessary, because some articles use them and some don't.  I provided a logical reason why "doctorate" is the same level of difficulty as "university," and you pretended like that's a different issue.  You're holding me to a different standard than yourself.  The only "evidence" you have provided is that some articles use examples, therefore this article should use them.  I have provided examples that show that some articles don't use examples, so this argument doesn't have to.  You cited a policy which I am 100% certain you are misinterpreting in more than one way (in the definition of "startling," the definition of "fact," and the overall intent of the guideline).  At this point, it is clear that we cannot reach 100% agreement.  Outside opinions were solicited (mine is one of those), and the overall consensus is to not include the examples.  Yes, I know, WP is not a democracy.  But at some point it will always be true that neither side can persuade the other.  If WP always waited until we had 100% agreement, we'd have almost no articles.  We have to move past this issue.  How do you expect us to do so?  It's obviously not through reasoned discussion--we've tried that.  Furthermore, as pointed out below, you're misusing WP:V--it is true that we need to give "reasons" for our editing decision, but we don't have to "verify" them.  You're essentially arguing that every editing decision, every word, needs a solid reason.  But, as we all know, there are hundreds of ways to write every sentence, every word.  There isn't always a way to "verify" that one editing decision is best.  Sometimes, it really is a matter of style.  I tried my best to justify why my style is best.  You have as well.  I accept that you have valid points, but I don't believe you have any better "evidence" than I do.  I have to finally repeat--what do you want to do now?


 * Actually, let me be more clear. Having seen your arguments, having seen you refuse to accept my points/claims even a little, dismissing them as irrelevant or wrong, I am now certain you will never persuade me that your reasons are any more valid than mine.  I explicitly declare that we are at an impasse.   No amount of arguing will get us past this.  So, again--what do we do now? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

---


 * Okay, that's my reasoning. Feel free to respond to any or all of these.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * However...


 * WP:V refers only to the verifiability of content through reliable sources. Generally, the policy says that if a contentious statement is included in the article then a reliable source that verifies the accuracy of that statement must also be included. It says nothing about editing decisions (where consensus should be the norm). --RegentsPark (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this discussion really all that important?

 * ...while doing research for this, and re-reading the article, I realize that I may have been quite amiss to make such a big deal about what is, in fact, only 4 to 7 words. I came here because of the RfC, but I think I missed the forest for the trees.  This article overall is seriously, seriously flawed.  It contains no references, makes bold claims about specific details without support, and seems to give undue weight to some things while not covering the topic broadly.  I don't want this issue to be dropped, but I realize it's like criticizing the paint job on a car with no engine.  If there's any chance that any of the above is persuasive, then leave the examples out.  If not, I would be willing to let the issue drop for now (and I hope that Mootros might be willing to let the issue of the order of examples drop for now) and work on repairing the "real" issues with the article, contingent upon the fact that we will return to this at a later date.  Now, I'm in a country where I don't have access to any printed sources that can help us; I am certainly willing to do some online research.  The first question is whether or not either of you can point to a better starting point than what is up right now.  An alternative would be to continue on with this discussion while also improving the body of the article; that is, we revert to some version that has more, better sourced info, and work on that, while also talking about whether or not to give these examples.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Current state of play
Until 8 May 2010, this article was substantial, but contained some irrelevant material; everybody was able to edit it. Today 8 June 2010, this article is still substantial, but contains a lot of irrelevant material; nobody can edit it. Mootros (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope you are happy and enjoying the fruit of your previous actions Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) Kushsinghmd and Mootros, with regard to the comments of Qwyrxian above, let me know what you want to do. My suggestion is to stick to the non-confrontational doctorate and that we revert to some mutually agreed version of the article so that it can be fixed or that one or the other of you take the high road. I don't want to protect this article any longer and would rather not delve into the extended discussion below and implement a version by fiat. So if you guys could come up with some sort of agreement, that would be a lot better.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Regent, good to see you again. So I will provide my options here which I think it would be a compromise but it is enough with wasting time, effort, and keeping the article protected. So the least acceptable version to accept, after all what we went through here, is the one that was previously agreed on from the other side http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Research_fellow#Positions ,
 * "This is my preferred version:, the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD, or equivalent work I will concede to Kushsinghmd and include the MD in the following way , the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD or an Doctor of Medicine, or equivalent work I object to the use of abbreviations if not used later in the text and insist to follow the WP:MOS by putting abbreviations in brackets and not the other way around. Mootros (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)"


 * and As I said I would agree for the above reasons. The accepted version included Both degrees spelled out and abbreviated; to conform with the MOS, and I will agree with changing positions with PhD being put first. Otherwise, shall continue arguing till reaching a consensus. Greetings Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kushsinghmd. That is a good gesture and much appreciated. I'll make the change and unprotect the article. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Startling fact?
star·tle (stärtl)

v.tr.

1. To cause to make a quick involuntary movement or start.

2. To alarm, frighten, or surprise suddenly.

v.intr.

To become alarmed, frightened, or surprised.

How can the phrase "requires a doctoral degree" in a sentence in an article that is a part of the WP:WikiProject Education be a startling fact? Mootros (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * to me as a regular WP user, when I first read it, it was! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC Comments without page long rebuttals

 * Comment from jheiv: Simply put, the use of examples in the lead is unnecessary .  Despite all the arguments you've given, I remain unconvinced.  The wikified term is not only cleaner and more clear, but more accurate (as it can cover all the examples, while a list reasonable cannot) and thus it is preferred.  jheiv  talk  contribs 01:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I second jheiv's view: use of examples in the lead is unnecessary. Mootros (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [copied from above] Wikified term is sufficient. Examples just spoil the flow of the sentence.  Most people interested in this article will know what it means.  Those who do not can use the link.  Yaris678 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [copied from above] Agree with Yaris678 [...] The examples are not necessary [...] Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I really find it very interesting that the above comments are very subjective, and every one is talking about his feeling. No references being used. I guess there should be a better understanding of what third opinion is, since it is not like you are being asked to give your impression, it is more or less like a peer reviewed article. Therefore if someone is going to comment, Please remind two important WP rules:
 * Verifiability try to verify your claims, and here would be verify your opinion, in order to be valid
 *  WP is not a Democratic Voting system, so no matter how many opinion with or against, it is not a democratic, it is all about verifiabilty
 * and would like to remind to with a simple rule, that repeating a false claim thousand or million time, doens't make it true.

'''Therefore, I hope that my above argument, was referenced enough for you all. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Kushsinghmd, You have made a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. We are talking about an editorial decision.  A decision about how best to present information so that readers understand it.  This is always going to be matter of judgement, and yes, to a certain extent, feeling.  If you check the policy on verifiability, you will find that if information is unverifiable, it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.  The policy does not say that editorial judgements need to be verifiable.
 * Where editorial judgements differ, the important policy is WP:Consensus. It is correct to say that this is not the same as a democratic vote.  Other considerations apply such as who is prepared to do the work to implement whatever is decided upon and which ideas are supported by the best arguments.  The best arguments may refer to policies and guidelines, they may refer to all sorts of other things, but that is not the same as saying that we can not reach a consensus unless we are able to verify the decision using sources.
 * Where one particular idea seems to have a lot more editors supporting it than an opposing idea this is usually accepted as the consensus. This is sometimes known as the Snowball clause.  The way I prefer to see it is that if everyone is disagreeing with me I have probably misunderstood something... and even if I was right, how much does it really matter?  Yaris678 (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your link, But I really hope that you had a chance to read the links you are providing. Cause If you did so, I think you already Know this : :::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Process


 * ''Discussions should always be attempts to persuade others, using reasons. If discussion turns into a polarized shouting match then there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the page will suffer.
 * So that goes well with what I am seeing here in the RFC, I am afraid that all the 3Os we are getting here tend to be polarized repitions, without providing any VALID reasoning whatsoever. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_Opinion
 * Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.


 * I'd like you to think about what it means by a shouting match. What sort of things are like shouting in the context of a wiki talk page?  Yaris678 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact I did think about it. And I hope that you dont ignore the rest of the scentence, to better understand rules, ThanksKushsinghmd (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. In that case you won't mind editing your sentences above so that they are less shouty.  Yaris678 (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact I wouldn't consider them shouty, and I am sorry that you considered them so.
 * And now, If you understood the rules for 3O, (which you clearly avoided touching on) please edit yours since they lack valid reasoning and verifiability, Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kushusinghmd: then how are we supposed to move forward? 5 of us believe that there is several good reason to keep out the examples.  You disagree.  You believe your reasons are legitimate, as do we.  I haven't looked at your responses to my comments, yet, but I'm sure that there will, in the end, be points about which we reasonably disagree.  How do we proceed with editing if there is intractable disagreement?  Obviously, Wikipedia needs some sort of process to continue with editing when the issue is Content (not a policy, like BLP or RS or whatever).  Consensus is generally considered to be that process.  Both involved and uninvolved users have weighed in against the inclusion of examples.  What do you suggest we do if the final result of all the discussion is that you consider your arguments reasonable and we consider our arguments reasonable?  We can't just continue the discussion about 5-ish words forever--some disagreements just inevitably remain disagreements. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter How do I want to proceed, it is about How would WP want us to proceed. And I quoted the rules for RfC when providing 3O. I Do like to have others opinion of course, however such opinion should be referenced. You can't just claim " Hey, I would prefer this style, because I like it more and I dislike the other", No one on earth will consider this as a valid reasoning. Valid reasoning are referenced logical reasoning, like which I have provided above in my argumentation supporting the idea of having examples, and no one was able to rebuttal. On the other hand side, I haven't seen any single shred of evidence, rule, or any valid reasoning to backup the above RFC claims, which consequently put them into question. Therefore in a reminder of WP, I quoted the above statements, ironic enough from the links they provided! Kushsinghmd (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved response to Request for Comment Research fellow and postdoctoral fellow or researcher are different names for one position category. The postdoc is usually a researcher with a PhD. Some research fellows have MD/PhD or only the MD, but most postdocs are just PhDs. Many postdoc positions specify that a PhD is required. An exception would be positions with clinical trial responsibilities. The lead should not say that MDs qualify for postdoc positions because this is not universally true. Consensus obviously is against it, too. Another suggestions, this article and Postdoctoral research should be merged. MiRroar (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing the discussion, But you didn't touch the current debate.

are you with or against giving examples, and why ? Thanks, Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Against like all other editors. It is predominantly a PhD position with some exceptions not needed in the lead. MiRroar (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)