Talk:Osteopathy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mentioning Robert C. Fulford & Andrew Weil & referencing their books

These two people have been repeatedly added to the article, along with books they have written. Can someone please explain how mentioning them and their books is an improvement to the article that reflects the weight of their relevance to the field of cranial osteopathy. Without such an explanation, their addition seems to act purely as an advertisement of them and their books. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sutherland, which the section acknowledges as the father of cranial osteopathy, has strongly influenced Fulford, who then in turn strongly influenced Weil; the later is probably one of the main figures in alternative medicine today. The text and references that you deleted simply tried to establish this line of reasoning. They were not repeatedly added; they were added once. And, they were not advertising; Fulford has been deceased for more than 10 years, and Weil is probably more famous than he wants to be (this includes being on the cover of Time), and would arguably benefit very little from a link to a Wikipedia article. Finally, I was trying to build links between articles, not artificially inflate anyone’s notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eric. Sorry if my language sounded accusatory, I'm sensitive over edits that look like they might be promoting subjects unduly.

• Firstly, I can see that if Weil is "one of the main figures in alternative medicine today", and if he is strongly influenced by cranial osteopathy, then that could perhaps be worth mentioning in passing in the Cranial Osteopathy section of this article. Do you have reliable sources that establish that Weil is prominent in alt med, that he is strongly influenced by cranial osteopathy, and that draw the conclusion that this means that cranial osteopathy has been influential in alt med? Can you provide a quote from the reliable sources to that effect? If not, and the reasoning is your own, then I'm afraid that is original research, which is not allowed to be used in articles. All conclusions must be sourced from independent reliable sources, they cannot be reliant on an editor's own reasoning.
• Secondly, your desire to "build links between articles", while well meant, is not a valid reason to add content to an article. Content should only be added to an article if it improves that article. Links come after.

I apologise if that sounds like a lecture, but it does seem like you're fairly new to this and that reading the guidelines I've linked to above could help. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I included references with the original text; you deleted them. My contribution was far from WP:OR. Also, please see WP:BUILD policy, which explains the rationale I used as a basis for building links among articles. Finally, I have been editing Wikipedia articles since 2004, previously through a different account.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please provide a quote from a reliable, independent source that concludes that Weil is prominent in alt med, that he is strongly influenced by cranial osteopathy, and that this means that cranial osteopathy has been influential in alt med. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OMT, meaning of the Acronym?

This acronym is cited twice in the criticism section, without prior definition, neither any link (could possibly refer to "Orthopaedic Manual Therapy" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMT). This ambiguity definitely needs to be solved.

I went ahead and defined it as "osteopathic manipulative treatment". Good? -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 22:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds perfect great thx! MarmotteNZ (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed ref to a single scientific trial

I removed the referece to "One placebo-controlled trial" as there is a more suitable "meta-analysis and systematic review" - as pointed out at above, this is more like a secondary source. Various other individual studies could be quoted - no reason to quote a particular one if there's a secondary source.

Note that I'm not connected with osteopathy, am agnostic about it, and don't know a lot about it. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The review (Licciardone, Brimhall & King 2005) does review the trial (Licciardone et al 2003). The primary source should be dropped in favour of the review, which is a secondary source and reviews the primary source. I would also suggest that the Criticism section be replaced by a section on Effectiveness and a section on Safety describing the research into those areas. The "Criticism" label doesn't really describe the content, which is more like the results of studies into effectiveness and safety. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the changes I suggested above. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research in the safety section

I've tagged the safety section as having an issue with original research. The source quoted doesn't mention osteopathy, so it's original research to generalise its findings to osteopathy. I've had a look for a more relevant source, and found a 2007 systematic review. This source also concludes that "Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known." It does mention spinal manipulation being used in osteopathy, however none of the cases of injured people it reviews were treated by osteopaths (which is a curious absence, given that two of them were manipulated by medical doctors), and it notes that "Patients receiving spinal manipulation were more likely to experience adverse effects than patients treated with mobilization, a more gentle manual technique preferred by many osteopaths". So again, I think it would require original research to draw much about research into the safety of osteopathic spinal manipulation from this source, as the source chiefly addresses the safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation and its main mention of osteopathic spinal manipulation is to say that it may often use safer techniques. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've undone recent changes that expand the description of differences between osteopathy in the US and the rest of the world in the lead, and expand on controversy surrounding cranial osteopathy. These changes seemed lacking in reliable sources to back them up. The difference between US and international osteopathy was already clearly explained, it did not need an additional unsourced paragraph, especially not in the lead which is only supposed to be a summary of the article. Quack Watch is not a reliable source on cranial osteopathy, it's self-published. Likewise it's not possible to generalise from a single published paper on cranial osteopathy to stating how it's regarded by many osteopaths or by the scientific community, you need a source that states that. It's original research to draw such broad conclusions from a primary source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that much of the current article on osteopathy stands up to scrutiny. The literature is hardly going to be resplendent with papers on osteopathy, even less so concerned with cranial. I think to attempt to suppress expression of the controversy within and without osteopathy concerning cranial osteopathy by dismissing the sources as the content is unpalatable is using procedural obfustication. Using quality control to justify censorship and give a distorted picture of the place that cranial in fact has. (Cyberdrivel (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia isn't based on the opinion of we editors, it's based on reliable sources. That's one of its founding principles. They don't have to be academic articles, they can be books, newspaper articles, etc. But you do need a source for statements, and you can't elaborate on the source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Osteopathy v Osteopathic medicine

The distinction is accepted and adopted by The American Osteopathic Association, the Osteopathic International Alliance, and the World Health Organization.

Here's the links:

• Osteopathic international Alliance, By-Laws
• American Osteopathic Association, Style guide
• Canadian federation of Osteopaths

In my opinion, this article should follow these established guidelines. Bryan Hopping ^T 18:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that distinction already made by having the separate articles Osteopathy and Osteopathic medicine in the United_States? Ryan Paddy (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the distinction should also be made in the article. Right now, its a bit blurry. The lead even suggests the terms are "interchangeable." Bryan Hopping ^T 04:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the terms are interchangeable outside the USA. Both terms are used in the UK. There are nine institutions which qualify people for registration as osteopaths with the General Osteopathic Council: these include the British College of Osteopathic Medicine, earlier known as the British College of Naturopathy and Osteopathy: their main qualification has been upgraded to a Masters degree in Osteopathy (MOst) of the University of Westminster, which may be accompanied by a Diploma in Osteopathy (DO) and a Diploma in Naturopathy (ND). The Surrey Institute of Osteopathic Medicine offers a BSc (Hons) and an MOst, both in Osteopathic Medicine. The websites show that these two colleges teach similar curricula to the six colleges or schools giving degrees in Osteopathy. The ninth, the London College of Osteopathic Medicine, previously the London College of Osteopathy, has a much shorter course for those already qualified in medicine and teaches only osteopathic manipulative medicine.

This equivalence of terms in the UK was added to the Osteopathic Medicine article on 8th December 2007, only to be ripped out by Bryan Hopping and moved to the Osteopathy article, the former thereafter becoming "Osteopathic Medicine in the USA." The reference to British degrees in Osteopathic Medicine remained until 24th April 2009, when it was removed by an anonymous editor, who came back this year to vandalise the London School of Osteopathy's article.

This variation in terminology is found with many forms of alternative medicine. No distinction can be drawn between homoeopathy and homoeopathic medicine, or between ayurveda and ayurvedic medicine. The American situation is closer to that in India where practitioners ostensibly qualified in another system incorporate forms of investigation and treatment from modern medicine, in which they may or may not have also been trained, except that the American osteopaths seem to have gone all the way to scientific medicine but insist on keeping the old name. Would it not make more sense just to say that they practice "medicine?" After all, the medical school at Irvine, California, no longer claims to be osteopathic, just as that of Drexel University no longer claims to be homeopathic.

As this article is explicitly not about the USA, there is no need to adopt their idiosyncratic usage. NRPanikker (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these terms have a long history of interchangeable usage, but I also see that multiple international organizations have adopted by-laws that attempt to make their usages distinct. See above sources. Bryan Hopping ^T 04:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Of the three references above, only the American Osteopathic Association defines "osteopathic medicine," which it says can be practiced only by people trained in the United States. The Osteopathic International Alliance is based in Chicago, was incorporated in the state of Illinois and its property reverts to the American Osteopathic Foundation. They define only "osteopath" and "osteopathic physician," and make no mention of "osteopathic medicine." The Canadian Federation of Osteopaths, founded as recently as 2005, is an affiliate of the OIA and reproduces their definitions of "osteopath" and "osteopathic physician." These are American or American-orientated organisations whose terminology should not be allowed to over-ride the usage of organisations in the rest of the world in an article explicitly about osteopathy outside the USA. NRPanikker (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I've set up an automatic archiving of this talk page, seeing as it was getting a bit long. Let me know if anyone objects. Gabbe (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"New Zea land"?

Is there any particular reason why a space appears almost everywhere New Zealand is mentioned in this article? I notice that Firefox's spell-check doesn't recognize "Zealand" and its first stock suggestion for unrecognized compound words is to split them with a space--not sure if that's somehow involved here. Given that the New Zealand article makes no mention of any alternate spellings, I think I'll go ahead and be bold and assume it was just a spell-check dictionary omission that someone acted upon (i.e. I'll change them back). --MilFlyboy (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I should've checked the revision history first. An anonymous user went nuts with spell-check in the last revision. I reverted it.--MilFlyboy (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

POV, Fringe, Minimal, and Inferior

This article is POV in that Osteopathy is often viewed as somewhat fringe, of minimal efficacy, and a degree in it is typically viewed as an inferior degree to an MD. As far as I know, only an osteopathic doctor views it as on an equal footing with nonfringe medicine. This article does not mention this so is pro-Osteopathy POV (maybe I missed it, in which case it is written in an UDUEly positive POV). Reading the article as my sole information source, one would think it does not have the shady reputation it does (whether or not this reputation is justified). If this critical view is actually true in any part, that also should be in the article. PPdd (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "Osteopathy" isn't accepted medical practice, yet there's NO "criticism" section. This needs one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's somewhat irresponsible to have this article up without one. 129.137.218.171 (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

Comparison of MD and DO in the United States has a more complete discussion. I would say that a DO in the United States (as opposed to the more alternative practices elsewhere) should have minimal interaction with the WP:FRINGE guideline. By my personal impression, it looks like osteopathic medical schools have somewhat lower standards than medical schools, but they have largely overcome the early unsupported claims. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure a "board certified" acupuncturist might disagree with you as to other fringe. LOL :) PPdd (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is barely a difference anymore in the admission standards of DO medical schools and MD medical schools. It's still there but it's a pretty small difference at this point.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE

The section, "Osteopathy around the world" is so long it dominates the article. Instead of being about osteopathy, it reads like an attempt to promote a view of legitimacy by name dropping. PPdd (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Change the section name to Regulation, but keep the subsections; there is probably something in the MEDMOS than supports this, but if nothing else the current name does not convey a proper encyclopedic tone. Make sure that we properly convey the difference between actual regulation and professional associations. Nix the single news items and run a source check for anything talking about the other kind of osteopathy. The lists of schools are probably okay for the more targeted regional articles, but are overlong here. Cut or merge most of the educational detail except where needed in discussion of the regulations. Sound about right? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My complaint is really upside down. The info on what osteopathy is UNDUEly little, not the other info is uduely too much. I still have no idea what osteopaty is beyond being people who got rejected from med school, or the rare people who had a lifelong passion to do some obscure manipulation tehcnique that they haven't even learned yet when they apply to the osteo school, so they could not know what it is they wanted to do their whole life when they were wanting to do it. It makes no sense to me, but the article sounds like what a osteo doctor said to me when I asked the difference. In instead of explaining a difference, he went into a dfensinve rant about how accredited it is, etc. PPdd (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are some fundamental differences in the way Osteopathy is practiced around the world, this entire section should be removed. For comparison: there is no "around the world" section on Oncology either. 193.202.33.19 (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening paragraph--definition?

I feel that most Wikipedia pages start with a clear explanation of the topic at the beginning. This page's opening discusses use of the word/s, what the idea is based upon, etc., but it is not clear in what osteopathy is. How can this be addressed? Is it really based upon the philosophy of the interrelationship of body structure and function, or is it just that philosophy, period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.151.154 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is vague and woolly, and I still have no real idea what osteopathy is supposed to be. Sounds like pseudoscience, and the article comes across as propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.24.118 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

The philosophy of osteopathic medicine falls within the evidence-based paradigm of conventional medicine. The concept of 'health' and 'wellness' are nuanced in Osteopathic Medicine to impart a specific emphasis in clinical practice.

The wikipedia page on Medicine states in regard to the legal controls for medical doctors: "While the laws generally require medical doctors to be trained in "evidence based", Western, or Hippocratic Medicine, they are not intended to discourage different paradigms of health." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroofbeam (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This article describes osteopathy in the general international sense in which it is classed as an alternative medicine, there is another article for Osteopathic medicine in the United States where osteopathic physicians are licensed to practice medicine. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to reply to your reversion comment: "osteopathy uses orthodox scientific research as a basis for clinical decisions which makes it not alternative but conventional medicine. to claim the international sense is different than the patent practiced reality of osteopathy is false." I think what you need here are some good reliable sources saying that Osteopathy is conventional medicine. If you like, I'm confident that I could find a number of scholarly sources, both from medical doctors and from osteopaths, that categorise osteopathy as practiced internationally (i.e. the subject of this article) as "Complementary and Alternative Medicine", or "CAM". On Wikipedia, CAM is presented in the Alternative medicine article. There is no point in us debating the merits of whether this is an accurate designation, our personal opinions on the matter don't count here. If it's the designation used in the most reliable sources, then it's the term to use on Wikipedia. That's kinda how things work here - we go with whatever the best sources say. If the best sources disagree on the subject, then we could present that disagreement here. I'm not fobbing you off - if you present appropriate sources in support of what you're saying it'll get play in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added the term "alternative" (+ a link to the alternative medicine atricle) to the opening sentence. The article on alternative medicine provides enough links to reliable sources to accept the classification of Osteopathy as alternative. Please DO NOT remove this without providing reliable sources that prove the opposite. 193.202.33.19 (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'm still not happy with the word "skilled" in that sentence 193.202.33.19 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted "skilled" from opening sentence 62.12.14.28 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

there's a need for new definitions

There is a need for a definition of oseteopathy in the lead. There currently isn't one. The definition in the section Osteopathy#Techniques of osteopathic treatment is too technical. makeswell (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Osteopathy POV bias

This article is NOT written objectively (as if a neutral, third-party observer wrote it) but subjectively, as if the author(s) are pro-osteopaths. Instead of reading about multiple viewpoints on osteopathy, the reader is presented with "cherry-picked" quotations and material that attempts to argue from a position (i.e., that osteopathy is a legitimate, "scientific" medical practice) while ignoring the large amount of literature that suggests otherwise.

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

Ryoung122 18:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

this is one of the most biased articles i've ever seen on wikipedia

Why don't they just come out in the opening paragraph and say "In 99 percent of cases, Osteopaths is just another word for Chiropractor, that attempts to make it sound more legitimate because most people don't recognize the word Osteopath." Seriously, this article is misleading and completely uninformative. I vote to have the whole thing deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.124.19 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely uninformative. I read the article and still have no idea what osteopathy is. 150.101.58.177 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Osteopathy is not a 'thing', its a profession and individual osteopaths vary greatly in the approaches used in their work. I am not surprised that you have little idea about what osteopathy is after reading Wikipedia page! Try reading a book? What aspect of osteopathy are you interested, philosphy, technique, history, contemporary training requirements. Look at the website of the statutory regulators in in Australia, NZ, the UK. or the Osteopathic International Alliance, or read the WHO education benchmarks for the profession. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s17555en/s17555en.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distawrwydd (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Osteopathy came before chiropractic. Daniel David Palmer invented chiropractic after being taught osteopathy by Andrew Taylor Still. So osteopathy is not "another word for chiropractor", rather chiropractic is an offshoot of osteopathy that has gone its own way. However, I agree that the article is uninformative about what osteopaths actually do. The closest the lead comes is mentioning that some osteopaths perform "manual therapy". The chiropractic article says in its lead that "chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, including manipulation of the spine, other joints, and soft tissues; treatment also includes exercises and health and lifestyle counseling". Similarly simple statements should be made about osteopathic treatment in the lead of this article, and in the section on treatment techniques, to make things clearer to the average reader. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the chiropractic article, you'll see what this article SHOULD be written like. It is NPOV, whereas this article seems to have been written by a bunch of osteopaths. I would expect to see in the research section, mention that osteopathy is not based on solid science, and that the research on SMT is conflicting.

The "Techniques of osteopathic treatment" section of the article is basically all unscientific bullshit. Any medical doctor who treats ear infections or asthma with manipulation shouldn't be practicing medicine. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking you may have conflated osteopaths and osteopathic physicians/ Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine here. I see people get confused on this issue all the time (understandable since the names are regrettably so similar). Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine do not treat ear infections or asthma with manipulation as the primary treatment with perhaps the occasional person on the fringe though what field these days doesn't have someone on the fringe ruining it for everyone else. This is not to say that some of them will not use OMM as an adjunct therapy in asthma patients on occasion but few Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine even use OMM today. There is some science behind OMM though I certainly agree that far more research is necessary to definitely prove or disprove its efficacy in a clinical setting and much of the research that has come out in the past has suffered from methodological flaws though newer research is improving in that respect. Osteopaths on the other hand who are foreign-trained and specialize only in osteopathic manipulation techniques might subscribe to such practices though I cannot confirm that for sure. I hope perhaps this clarified things a little bit. Also, on a separate note, is it really necessary to use such strong language such as the BS? I hardly think that is called for here considering this is a place for calm, logical discussion. Just my opinion but I think you can make your point without such language but that's neither here nor there regarding your point. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Since you are only talking about a single section of the entire article I think perhaps a more appropriate tag might be a neutrality dispute tag or NPOV tag for the section, not the whole article if you're going to put a tag like that one up. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the article - it says osteopaths treat asthma and middle ear infections using manipulation. I don't normally use strong language, but given the content of this article that was the only way to convey the depth of the problems with this page. As noted by other editors in the comments above, the entire article is POV so I think the tag should stay at the top of the article, but I would welcome other editors to come in and give their opinion and work on the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read the article but I do not think you read my comment very carefully which I urge you to do this time. Osteopaths and osteopathic physicians (Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine in the United States who are equivalent to Medical Doctors) are not the same thing. I highly doubt that resorting to strong language was the only option to convey the depth of your dismay here. Your inference is incorrect about me being an osteopath. I am a medical student and I am an American not to mention you sound like you have quite the bias yourself since you have provided nothing to support your claims of quackery but your own opinion. That being said, read my earlier comment more carefully. I stated quite clearly that I am in agreement that OMM requires more rigorous study to be proven or disproven in terms of efficacy so I do not see how your claims of a conflict of interest or bias are true at all. I think my statements have been quite rational and NPOV. You should try to refrain from personal attacks, assumptions, inferences, etc. Again, if you think the entire article is NPOV then you need to support your claims by showing how that is so if you're going to attach such a strong label to it Sciencewatcher. The burden of proof to show the neutrality dispute is on the one who puts the tag up, namely you and you have not sufficiently done this. That being said, can you clarify exactly how that paragraph is "NPOV?" I don't think I see it. You may not agree with what is said there and you may not even think it is scientific but that does not necessarily mean it is NPOV. I do not see the bias you speak of but just an explanation of what foreign-trained osteopaths do and your disapproval of this, especially given your unnecessarily bias-laden comment on this talk page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It boils down to this: manipulation is unscientific, and many consider it to be quackery. I do fully understand your comments about osteopaths and osteopathic physicians. It is similar to naturopaths and NDs (and if you read the naturopathy article, it is much more NPOV than this article). The bottom line is that osteopathy is unscientific and this article doesn't adequately address that. I've given you one example above (ear infections and asthma), but really it is the tone of the entire article that is the problem. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure you were making the distinction between Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine and foreign-trained osteopaths because your initial comment did not sound like you were making this distinction since you said "any medical doctor who treats asthma or ear infections....etc." As I said, can you demonstrate how this is the case throughout the entirety of the article? Popular opinion is not the same as scientific fact. Whether you like it or not there is some (admittedly not enough yet) science supporting osteopathic manipulative medicine (I cannot comment fully on how similar the specific practices of OMM are to those of foreign-trained osteopaths) and as I have said twice I agree with more research for OMM being needed. Should research show that it is not worth doing, then that's really that. But the verdict is not in on that from what I can see. Your opinion and some other people who believe manipulation to be unscientific does not make this article's tone (especially the paragraph you spoke of, I re-read it) POV. Can you cite specific sentences in that paragraph showing a biased tone? If so, we can work on making the tone more NPOV but so far I have yet to see you provide evidence to support your claims which I think is necessary since your claims are strong ones. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked to provide an additional opinion on the neutrality dispute. I've read through the article looking for areas where neutrality is blatantly compromised to see how much of a problem non-neutral language is. I haven't looked at any similar articles because they have no bearing on the neutrality of this article.

The lead section is acceptable, but I do find "The principles of osteopathic medicine emphasize the interrelationship between structure and function of the body and recognizes the body's ability to heal itself; it is the role of the osteopathic practitioner to facilitate that process." to be problematic because it presents a theory specific to osteopathy as scientific fact, particularly with the use of "emphasize".

The "History" section is a bit lacking in content so neutrality isn't really an issue there at the moment.

The "Osteopathic principles" section is just about fine from a neutrality point of view, but it reads like a copyvio. (I'm not saying that it is one, but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic). The principles section shouldn't really have any criticism in it because it should state exactly the principles of osteopathy factually anyway.

"Techniques of osteopathic treatment" could definitely do with some further sources. The reliance on what appears to be a broken link to a glossary of terms doesn't really help to back up the claims made. This means that as well as verifiability issues, the neutrality of this section is questionable. The subsection "Scope of manual therapies" lacks sources for some very important claims, particularly "Treatment is said to lead to successful patient outcomes in a great number of functional and pathological disorders," and "The approach is contentious even within Osteopathy," both of these statements suggest something (positive/negative) without any evidence to back up the claims made.

The main section where neutrality is a problem is the "Research" section. This is because it only focuses on research that portrays Osteopathy in an entirely positive light, even when that is unwarranted. For example the part of this section which includes two uses of citation 23 - particularly the second statement sourced by this which states "Serious complications are very rare." This is not something given in the source, which says "The rate of serious complications from spinal manipulation, although not definitely known, appears to be very low overall.", "appears to be very low" is very different to "are very rare".

The "Osteopathy around the world" section is mostly neutral.

Overall it is clear that the article does have some neutrality issues, including some that I haven't mentioned here. Therefore I consider the NPOV tag to be appropriate in covering the entire article at this time.

Aside from this content dispute, I am confused by the use of the term "Foreign-trained osteopaths". As far as I can tell this is "foreign" from a US point of view, but it is unclear. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Marmatiko. However I think part of the problem is the cherry-picking of sources, so you can't just read through the article to determine whether or not it is NPOV - you need to either know something about the subject, or do some research to see how the article stacks up against the major reviews. I'll admit I don't know a great deal about osteopathy, and I'll need to research it further before adding anything to the article. I did try searching for some reviews, but came up empty-handed. The med.nty.edu website says "There is little evidence as yet that OMT is helpful for the treatment of any medical condition. There are several possible reasons for this, but one is fundamental: Even with the best of intentions, it is difficult to properly ascertain the effectiveness of a hands-on therapy like OMT." And from the nhs website: "Osteopathy is a complementary or alternative medicine (CAM), and is different from conventional western medicine. Osteopaths may use some conventional medical techniques, but the use of osteopathy is not always based on science...There is evidence that osteopathy is effective for the treatment of persistent lower back pain...There is also limited evidence that it is effective in helping recovery after hip or knee operations.There is no good evidence that osteopathy is effective as a treatment for any other health conditions. Serious side effects or complications have been reported, but they appear to be rare." I think the article needs to be rewritten along the lines of the NHS webpage, which seems to be more NPOV. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher, just be cognizant of the fact that NHS is a website describing foreign-trained/not American-trained osteopaths and it is not describing American-trained Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about "osteopathy", not "American-trained Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine". Or are you under the impression that American trained doctors are the only ones that are any good? --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that this article is about osteopathic physicians. It says in the lede of the article that it is NOT about osteopathic physicians (and also in the US section). --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken in your assumptions that I am under a mistaken impression. I know this article is about osteopathy and foreign-trained osteopaths and not Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine. However, as my comment clearly says, I want you and the readers of this article to be cognizant of the difference between these two groups. That, if you read carefully, was my entire point. Especially considering how often I see people confuse these two groups and you did this yourself with your initial comment or you at least gave the impression that you had conflated these two groups which I said in my initial response. I never once said anything, explicit or otherwise, about American-trained physicians being the only physicians who are any good. Quite to the contrary, I believe that foreign-trained physicians are perfectly capable of being just as skilled as American-trained physicians, you are putting words in my mouth here. That being said, foreign-trained osteopaths who practice osteopathy are not recognized (at least in the United States and I believe elsewhere as well) as full-fledged physicians. You may want to consider reading my comments more carefully before throwing around such bold statements in the future.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't confused...it seems to be you who is creating the confusion here. This article is about osteopathy. It was you who came in talking about Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine, claiming my comments were somehow incorrect because they did not apply to Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (even though this article isn't about them!) The issue seems to be that you are using misdirection to hide the fact that osteopathy is slightly quacky by confusing the discussion with Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. You are the one who clearly made an error dragging physicians using osteopathy from the start not to mention that there was already mention of Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine in this article before this little discussion of ours regardless of the fact that they are not the central topic of the article. It is a valid point and a relevant one to make the distinction that I have been trying to make but you seem to enjoy in hurling baseless accusations and engaging in unnecessary petty behavior such as wholly ignoring my responses (if you read my previous one I have already acknowledged that this article is not about them in plain English which you selectively ignored). You have yet to provide any evidence that osteopathy is "quacky" considering you admitted your own ignorance on the topic earlier in response to Mrmakito's evaluation of the article (which I agree with mostly). I am not attempting to confuse anyone here, my points have been perfectly clear but I will be happy to sum them up for you again to clear the confusion as this will be my end to this discussion. My original point at the start of this was that labeling this article NPOV because you think that osteopathy is not yet proven (I agree, it's not proven one way or the other yet) is not what NPOV really means (recall that I have already clearly stated my position on a definite need for more research into it to disprove or prove its efficacy one way or the other-I am certainly a believer in the principles of evidence-based medicine). Furthermore, I have been attempting to clarify the difference between non-American trained osteopaths and Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine from the United States since your earliest statements on this talk page implied that you were grouping them together. Honestly, you seem to outright reject any opinion that is incompatible with your own (you did not seem terribly receptive of MrMatiko's opinion and went so far as to try and discredit his opinion despite admitting your own lack of knowledge on this topic), you make baseless accusations without providing evidence or citing specific examples (that's quite unscientific), I have yet to see you address a counterargument you were clearly wrong on such as your earlier remark that implied I think American physicians are the only ones who are any good (which I never said and do not think so that was a completely uncalled for and personally charged remark), and refuse to speak to others in a polite tone (I have seen you do it to other people on wikipedia even though their comments did not merit such a harsh attitude). Regardless, I wish you well and I will say goodbye now as this discussion has devolved from a somewhat worthwhile discussion of the substance of this article to a waste of my time correcting baseless personal accusations you are making. Farewell.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you check my edit history, you'll see I deleted the unwarranted accusation against you. The comment about 'only American physicians being any good' was based on your continual use of the word 'foreign', which implies that (but I see you're not using that word any more). I apologise for any offense. Osteopathy is slightly quacky due to not being based on science (I have provided sources above, and I will be adding them to the article). I wasn't discrediting MrMatiko, just pointing out (correctly, I believe), that you can't determine whether an article is NPOV simply by reading the article itself. And anyway, MrMatiko's conclusion was that the NPOV tag was valid. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I have no problem with an NPOV tag, only that it be tagged for the proper reasons. I saw the source you have mentioned and osteopathic medicine is not "slightly quacky" as you say though I will say as I have before that osteopathic medicine certainly does require more research into its efficacy, safety, and utility. At least in the United States, Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine practice the "conventional" aspects of medicine including surgery, prescribing pharmaceutical-grade drugs, etc. exactly the way their M.D. counterparts do in addition to learning about osteopathic medicine. I still feel your characterization of osteopathic medicine is not an accurate one but I suppose we'll agree to disagree and see what evidence-based medicine turns up. As you said, what I did not like was having unwarranted accusations hurled my way but that is the past and I accept your apology. There is science behind osteopathic medicine albeit not of a sufficient amount of quality yet but it is actively being researched and osteopathic manipulative medicine only makes up one small aspect (in the United States, I can't speak about elsewhere) of osteopathic medicine.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Osteopathy around the World

I tried to add a link to the Osteopathic International Alliance country guide. But it I cant get it to work.

http://www.oialliance.org/directories.htm

There was a misleading statement that non-physicians manual scope of practice osteopaths with qualifications from 'recognised' colleges and registration with the International Osteopathic Alliance gave practice rights in all countries. This is false. There is no global mechanism for recognising qualification in the profession that grants practice rights. Its territory specific — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distawrwydd (talk • contribs) 04:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening

Suggest we change: "Osteopathy is a philosophy and an alternative medical practice which emphasizes the interrelationship between structure and function of the body and recognizes the body's ability to heal itself; it is the role of the osteopath to facilitate that process, principally by the practice of manual and manipulative therapy" into: "Osteopathy is a philosophy and an alternative medical practice which assumes an interrelationship between structure and function of the body and an ability of the body to heal itself. The osteopath is thought to facilitate that healing process, principally by the practice of manual and manipulative therapy" or something simular. 193.202.33.19 (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The addition of the words "assumes" and "is thought" weaken the description, IMO. The purpose of the lead is to define the topic. The first description does that. The second introduces a skeptical POV which I don't think belongs in the lead. Sunray (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the suggestion by the IP editor is quite accurate. Nobody is disputing that there is an "interrelationship between structure and function of the body", it's just that the text make it sound like the osteopaths understand something about that interrelationship that the knowledge-based medicine does not. Heptor _talk 13:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Right -- also, the implication that "facilitation of the healing process" via "manual and manipulative therapy" is supported by some sort of neutral, double-blinded study data, which to my knowledge it is not. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to "Osteopaths claim to facilitate the healing process", hopefully it reflects the state of affairs more accurately. Heptor _talk 17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on something that I think needs ammending -The Maidstone School is fully accredited and trains registered (GOsC) practitioners. I am at a loss as to why the article says the school has lost it's GOsc accreditation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.44.129 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That whole sentence (the last one in the scope of manual therapies subsection) seems unnecessary and a bit judgmental to me - not to mention completely unsourced; perhaps we should just remove it entirely? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire section is unsourced and poorly written. Whatever you do to it you can only make it better. Heptor _talk 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take out that last sentence (which is potentially libelous besides), and I'll have a go at rewriting the rest if I can find any WP:RS to cite on it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of this article is not very clear. It is overly complex, poorly worded, and fails to provide the reader with a good summary of the article's subject. Other editors have noted the problems in the lead. One example is the sentence below. I am going to work on it. If anyone has constructive ideas, please share.

"The American Osteopathic Association recommends using the terms osteopathic physician and osteopathic medicine to distinguish individuals trained in osteopathic medicine in the United States who have attained the degree of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.), a degree equivalent, though different in certain aspects, to that of Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), who practice the full scope of medicine and receive additional training in osteopathic manipulative medicine from individuals described as osteopaths who use osteopathy, the restricted-scope form of practice outside of North America."

Rytyho usa (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you can make that make sense, that would be much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the lead looks much better now. It can howver be streamlined further. For example, WOHO does not seem to be important enough to be mentioned in the lead. How about moving that paragraph somehere further down the article? Heptor _talk 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

legit science

medical science shows not only a cause/effect relationship, but the mechanism of this relationship - at least, as is possible. it's not always possible. cip - adhd, and symptom improvement caused by stimulant meds like ritalin & adderal. in this and many other cases, cause/effect is vague. however, take immunization, where dead viral material is identified as foreign by the immune system, which eventually makes anti-bodies to prevent a harmful infection by this virus. this mechanism is understood in great detail. many others are known/documented to various degrees. are there any that can be shown for osteopathy? inclusion of these would make the article more informative, less vague, and for many of us, more convincing. MozartIsNew (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ability to heal and repair itself

It looks like there is a sort of discussion in the article history, let's move it here. Should the first sentence in the lead end with "as well as the body's ability to heal and repair itself", or "as well as the body's claimed ability to heal and repair itself"? I think the first formulation is the most appropriate, since it is not controversial that that the human body has such an ability on a certain scope, for example simple cuts or flu. Osteopaths claim that this ability can 1) be affected by osteopathic practices of applying hand pressure to various parts of the body and 2) be extended to diseases that are considered incurable, such as Parkinson's Disease. These claims do not appear to have any scientific standing, but I don't see how the first formulation in any way implies that interpretation. Heptor _talk 22:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not really right - and not sourced to an independent source. Something like the NHS would be better.[1] Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I'll put it in the article. Heptor _talk 13:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the lede is pretty oversimplified compared to the descriptions of osteopathy that I've heard (I attended a lecture by a Canadian trained osteopath, similar to European training). I don't presently have a source in front of me so I'm not proposing a specific change, but noting that there was appreciation of the subtle complexities of health: fluid regulation including lymphatic and venous drainage as being key for longevity, the many small forces that milk the pituitary, the figure-8 motion present throughout the body during walking, including in the hip joint, between the two hips, and in the sacrum itself, and so forth. Also it struck me that they are incredibly interested in anatomical details and in learning embryology as a guide to adult anatomy and pathology. As embryology is getting cut from medical schools, the osteopaths may be the last to care about that.

This is what I consider oversimplified - because it sounds like the scope of a good massage therapist:

"Its practitioners claim that the wellbeing of an individual depends on their bones, muscles, ligaments and connective tissue functioning smoothly together. Osteopaths receive special training in the musculoskeletal system. They believe that their treatments, which primarily consist of moving, stretching and massaging a person’s muscles and joints...."--Karinpower (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Karinpower, I'm probably the only the only sympathiser you'll find here and I suggest you discuss everything you want to do to the article here on this Talk Page and follow the advice given by others or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned. There are some rules we follow here and until you get familiar with them, follow my advice! That sentence cites a reference in support and you can't remove it. You also have to cite sources for any sentence you want to add to this article.—Khabboos (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what LeadSongDog mentioned which I'm linking to here.—Khabboos (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Khabboos:How many times do you have to be asked? Please stop doing that.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Good to know that this page is contentious enough that one needs to step carefully. I'm definitely a believer in having good sources for adding any info. If I come across a worthwhile source in my reading, I will certainly post it here on the talk page first. --Karinpower (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Blatant copying of text from organization's web page

The "Australia" section [[2]] contains the following text:

Osteopathy Australia[37] (formerly the Australian Osteopathic Association) is the peak body representing the interests of osteopaths, osteopathy as a profession and consumers' right to access osteopathic services. Osteopathy Australia is a national organization. Originally founded in 1955 in Victoria, the Australian Osteopathic Association became a national body in 1991 and became Osteopathy Australia in 2014. Today Osteopathy Australia represents osteopaths in every state and territory across Australia. We are a member of Allied Health Professions Australia[38] and the Osteopathic International Alliance.[39]

Which is identical to the text on the cited organization's web page. Didn't even bother to replace "we".

151.226.143.230 (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The section still needs considerable clean up and is based far to much on primary, involved sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting hatnote link to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine"

Given the ongoing confusion between osteopath vs. osteopathic physician (on WP and in the real world), a WP:hatnote would be helpful. Consider Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, which this hatnote: "This article is about physician qualifications and titles in the United States.... For the restricted-scope form of alternative medicine practice, mostly outside of North America, see Osteopathy." This page needs a similar link. Of course the difference is covered in some detail in the third paragraph of the lede, but a person skimming the article for other information could easily miss it; the purpose of the hatnote is to catch the errant reader before they spend too much time on the wrong page. The link for this page would read: "This article is about the restricted-scope form of alternative medicine practice, mostly outside of North America. For the American Medical practice of osteopathic physicians in the United States see Osteopathic medicine in the United States." Suggestions for edits to this wording are welcome. If there are no objections I will make the change. This is based on a conversation with TylerDurden8823, which you may view here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karinpower#Muscle_Energy. --Karinpower (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Arabic link

The current Arabic link is actually about Orthopedic surgery not Osteopathy. I am creating a new osteopathy page in Arabic this the link https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AB%D9%89

Can you please make the required changes --Es omar (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix that, hopefully someone who does will. In regards to the content you have added, it could really use independent, third party sourcing. FYI on English WP we don't use titles for people in general. See WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:CREDENTIAL. Thank you for your contributions and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, will work on adding independent, third party sourcing yet it would be in Arabic is that OK? --Es omar (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:NONENG, non-English sources are allowed - if you think it will be a controversial point, you can provide a translated quotation, or other editors can request that you provide it. Hope that helps.--Karinpower (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Physical Therapists blog is not really a reliable source and is not third party, the newspaper is good. If you have a translation of the title and post it here I will add it to the reference. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Osteopathy in the UK

This article (and other related ones) seem to imply that osteopathy is recommended and legitimate in the UK. In fact NICE just suggest "manual therapy" as a possible course for the vagueness of NON-SPECIFIC lower back pain - http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG88/chapter/1-Guidance (1.4). This covers just about anything, it's not really a distinct legitimisation of osteopathy as the articles here suggest or imply. I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.45.196 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

More clear separation between Osteopathy and Osteopathic medicine

Is there any good reason to have material about Osteopathic medicine in this article? For example, the section about Osteopathic Principles is based on material from AACOM, which is about osteopathic medicine. It can be mistaken to be applicable to the alternative practice of osteopathy, especially when it is written in Wikipedia voice. Heptor _talk 17:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)