User talk:Antelan/Archives/2007/July

thanks

for dropping by. about those Sploooshman AfdsDGG 22:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I noticed your internet connection looked shoddy, and I didn't want to let those strange allegations stand uncontested, so thanks for tolerating me on your talk page. Antelan ^talk 23:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathans

Hi. I'm curious why you feel the seealso I added to Daniel Nathans is inappropriate. Would you feel better if I made Nathans be a dab page, with two entries, one for Daniel Nathans and the other for Nathan's Famous, instead of the redirect that it is currently? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I'll help you extend the list of "Nathans"-es on the dab, too. Antelan ^talk 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've got it going. How's that for a start? Antelan ^talk 03:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. I cleaned it up a bit. And, while we're at it, I'm thinking maybe nathan's should redirect to the new dab page as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm not that well-versed in dab's, can you tell me why you don't feel that brief descriptive detail (Nobel-prizewinning, fast-food, etc.) belongs? Thanks. Antelan ^talk 03:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The basic concept (per Mos:dab#Individual_entries is, The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. So, let's say I was looking for the place where I can buy hot dogs. I type "nathans" into a search box, and get to the dab page. I'm presented with two choices, one is described as an American microbiologist, the other as a restaurant chain. It should be instantly obvious that the hot dog place is the latter. Likewise, if I'm looking for the enzyme guy, it should be just as obvious that I want the first one. The extra text (Nobel-prizewinning, fast-food, etc) doesn't help me make that decision. If anything, it makes it harder since it gives me more text to read and sort through. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you for the thorough primer. Antelan ^talk 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon a good exampe of when putting in more details would be good for a dab page. In Gupta, under Revolutionaries, there are five people listed. If I had read something about "An Indian revolutionary named Gupta" and wanted to learn more about him, I wouldn't know which one to click on. Some additional information such as when they lived or which revolution they were involved in would help here. There's no hard and fast rule. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic

Response to your post on User talk:Nunh-huh.

Hi guys. OK - so we disagree. Perhaps we can work it, or at least move beyond the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality of this discussion.

I want to better understand what we disagree about. Here's my points, feel free to state your objection to each one.

1. Homeopaths created the term "allopath" and "allopathic" to slam their opponents.
2. "Allopathic" is a term used by many today, in a non-pejorative manner. Including US gov, AMA, AMSA, etc.
3. There are objections to this usage. There are claims that it is an incorrect usage.
4. Conventional medicine, known by some as "allopathic medicine", has a history of its own that includes slamming its opponents.
5. The allopathic and osteopathic branches of medicine (the big two of US conventional med) have a history of hostility towards one another.
6. Over time the once stark differences between these branches have blended.
7. Differences remain.
8. Very recently and with lots of politicking, important U. S. medical organization have taken a "separate, but equal" stance on the issue.

OK - so that's where I'm at. What part of this do you not agree with. It seems like maybe we agree on 1-4, and then we have some major rift around 5 and beyond. At what point am I losing you? Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you're using the term "allopath" in ways it's just not used in common parlance. [1] You keep making highly contentious changes. I will be calling for an RfC. Antelan ^talk 23:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Between us

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your message. The WP:AGF is a good one, and I think we've all done a bit of that in recent weeks. For my part, I'll be the first one to admit that I do have a POV that is non-neutral. I'm learning what it means to neutralize it, and you are helping me do that.

Obviously, I'm an osteopathic medical student. I have my angle to push. But I really want to tell you that I'm not into propaganda, osteo or allo. And I do see that there's a lot of it out there. I want to report verifiable, well-sourced facts.

I sincerely don't know how to best handle the Allopathic question. Clearly, it is odd to refer to anything as allopathic medicine, and yet at the same time, it is definitely used, it definitely means something - something different than what Hahnemann was referring to in the 1830's.

For those of us within the osteopathic community, we likewise wonder what osteopathic means these days. Does it mean 'second-rate' as certain statistics might suggest? Does it mean 'M.D. + OMM'? There's no consensus on this issue even within the community. Yet the numbers say, most of us D.O.s work right next to M.D.s everyday, in the same hospitals, in the same departments, prescribing the same treatments for the same diseases.

My point is and has always been, the information needs to be presented, not denied or deleted, but not slanted towards unverifiable claims. Right now, the articles allopathic medicine, comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine and History of the relationship of allopathic and osteopathic medicine are all a complete mess. But none of that information was even on WP just a few weeks ago. It needs to be better organized and better written, but it needs to be there. That's why I've written this articles, to demonstrate, this is a valid topic, an interesting topic, and one that really is a big part of the History of medicine, allopathic and osteopathic in the US. OsteopathicFreak ^{T ?} 00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your kind words. We've both got our Userboxes up (you're osteo, I'm allo), which I like because it puts our biases out there for everyone to see. I'll keep pointing out neutrality issues when I see them, but I'll also get more involved in directly editing, so I'm counting on you to let me know when my edits aren't neutral, too. Also, out here at Hopkins there's a big osteopathic presence in the summer programs and in the physical medicine department - it never crossed my mind that the old osteo/allo rivalries were still in play. Antelan ^talk 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, Thanks for the barnstar which you awarded to me last month. I appreciate it very much, but did not notice it until this evening when I was doing some fine tuning on my user page. Thanks for the kind thought. --Kevin Murray 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine

I've reverted. Feel free to do it next time. If it continues I will protect. DGG (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal barnstar

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		This Barnstar is hereby awarded for your assistance in bringing the parapsychology article to Good Article status. Nealparr 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good is great! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Medical School

You ask how many sources you have to quote to prove that they are not equivalent, and make the point that you would get sued for practicing OMM. This is dubious. I don't believe there's a case of an MD getting sued for practicing OMM. However, there are numerous cases of MDs who get trained in OMM and incorporate it into their practice. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 12:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Conveniently, you throw that caveat in there: "... MDs who get trained in OMM and incorporate it into their practice". Clearly, if you get trained in it, you can add it to your repertoire. Back to the point, though: osteopathic organizations have sued, for example, the New York State Board of Education, demanding the right to use the title "MD", and they have lost based on the rationale that "the state demonstrated a rational interest in maintaining the distinction between physicians whose education included substantial training in the manipulative theories and practices of osteopathy and those whose medical educations have not included such training." [2] Likewise, in California, Maryland, and New Jersey, at a minimum, the degrees are not precisely equivalent due to this distinction, which hinges on OMM, as I correctly specified before. Cheers, Antelan ^talk 20:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I conflated two separate points. Point number one, "I think its dubious that an MD (trained or not) would get sued for practicing OMM. Point number two, MDs can and do get trained in OMM, that is to say, it is possible for an MD to have same training as a DO.

Am I projecting that this is sort of emotional here? Am I reading into your language? Can I do something so that this conversation is not adversarial? I feel like we are just quipping with each other and not even absorbing the intent of each others points.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 23:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that we see some aspects of this subject in such different ways that, many times, what seems painfully obvious and objective to one of us seems contentious to the other, and vice versa. When people disagree with what you (that's the impersonal 'you', not you specifically) consider obvious, it can seem like they're being willfully misleading, which can evoke a strong response. Frankly, I think that's reasonable, so long as it's rare. With regards to your points, I certainly agree with the second one as I've noted above. However, I think that a malpractice lawyer would have a field day if, say, an MD without OMM training caused a vertebral artery dissection while doing routine cervical manipulation. Practicing in an established field in which you have no training could easily be held to be malpractice. This is a long discussion about a comment I made on the talk page, but what is probably more relevant is the government document from Maryland that I cited above. Antelan ^talk 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

an MD without OMM training caused a vertebral artery dissection while doing routine cervical manipulation. I imagine the lawyer would have a field day with any DO who did this as well. My issue with this is that your are building your argument for some meaningful difference based on speculation of a hypothetical and, in my opinion, highly unlikely scenario. I agree with you, they are not equal. My point is that in the context of a brief introductory statement in an article about medical education in the US, the word equivalent is perfectly reasonable. Your arguments establish that the two degrees are not equal, I maintain however that they are equivalent. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 03:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, the hypothetical was something that I threw out on a talk page; the document from the state of Maryland better makes my point. Antelan ^talk 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)