Talk:Osteopathy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Osteopathy → Osteopathy (alternative practice) – There is already an article called Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Its topic appears to be distinct enough to warrant a separate article, and equivalent in weight to the topic of this article. To avoid confusion, this article should be moved to an unambiguous location, and a disambiguation page should be created. Heptor _talk 17:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason why this article should be renamed because of another U.S.-centric article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  Osteopathy is originally from the United States. The continued development of that profession in its country of origin i certainly of global interest. Heptor _talk 18:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, they're both from the U.S. since it all started with Andrew Taylor Still and osteopathy in the 1800s diverged into two modern professions (osteopathic medicine in the U.S. as mentioned above and osteopathy like in Europe, Australia, etc. as discussed in this article). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We are creating a breeding ground for reader confusion. As it stands, it takes a lot of cognitive effort to understand the basic concepts, and the majority of the readers will probably think that this article is about both the alternative practice and the osteopathic medicine. Adding a disambiguation field would result in a cleaner presentation. Heptor _talk 22:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support as the nominator; quoting the article, "These groups [osteopaths and osteopathic physicians] are so distinct that in practice they function as separate professions." Heptor _talk 18:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support These two fields are commonly conflated despite the already separate articles and I think this rename could make this distinction clearer. The fact that these two separate fields are so commonly confused is why material has had to go into this article explaining the differences as mentioned in the above quote. Clearly, this is a persistent issue and the status quo has not adequately addressed this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There is Osteopathic medicine & Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (Osteopathic physician redirects there as well). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The first of the two articles you mentioned isn't a very high-quality article though (just something noteworthy to keep in mind about that article). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understood your argument, CFCF, any chance you could clarify? I requested the move to minimize the confusion between the alternative practice of Osteopathy and Osteopathic Medicine in the United States. This difference was not always clear to the editors either. For a longest while the article had a section that was about Osteopathic medicine, written as if it was about the alternative practice. I removed it earlier today (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osteopathy&diff=630005853&oldid=630004531). Heptor _talk 21:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support TylerDurden articulates my view of this pretty well. It's not currently clear. Even I was confused by it - and I was already quite aware of the huge split in ways that osteopaths *practice* (and in American osteopathy vs. European) but was not clear on the slight difference in professional title that really helps clarify which type is being discussed. This title change will ensure that the reader is 1) on the page they meant to be reading and 2) aware that there is another type of osteopathy. --Karinpower (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there is no "American osteopathy". There is osteopathic medicine. The only American osteopathy that ever existed was what Andrew Taylor Still founded in the 1800s. The two professions are actually quite different from one another. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Internationally, America is, by far, the exception. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

All the more reason the distinction is necessary (and confusion surrounding this topic has been rather persistent). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this would encourage the confusion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I take concerns of US-centrism seriously.... but I think this confusion is rampant in the US, enough to warrant this change in terminology. I can't see how this change would possibly "encourage the confusion." --Karinpower (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam, can you explain why you think this would encourage the confusion instead of helping it? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Because in everywhere but the U.S. (and maybe Canada), Osteopathy is one of the more extreme forms of alternative medicine. I'd suspect bits of the extreme type live there as well. We certainly need to make it clear it's different in the U.S - but the solution to that can't be to make the respectable, U.S. version on equal footing, when it's the anomaly. Instead, let's discuss the respectable U.S. version prominently, in the first paragraph, explaining the distinction between it and the unreformed version, and making it clear that the respectable, U.S. version is not found outside the U.S. (and Canada?) But the more we direct people away from the osteopathy main page, the more we risk confusing people everywhere but America into thinking that the osteopathy there is something very different. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support as it does not seem that this subject is the primary use of the term in the English language.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, come to think of it I have seen the term osteopathy used in other ways to mean some form of bony disease. I've definitely seen many papers on PubMed listed that way, so that might be another factor to consider. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Primary topic everywhere except the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

User:Smk65536 - your reverts

I am not able to find a specification, policy or general practice that edits may be reverted in order to keep lede and body text in the same topical order. I would like you to support your decision.

As I noted, I have found the present lay-out has created confusion, since non-USA readers read USA-specific information as applicable to non-USA osteopathy. To make statements that apply to only one form before the profound differences between forms has been stated is self-evidently potentially misleading, and subsequent sections continue to make statements that fail to make such distinctions.

As well as this poor presentation, there is a matter of WP:Worldwide balance. I understand that there may be, in a country in which a school of medicine preserves unscientific approaches, many people who wish to emphasise this - but elsewhere in the world this has no meaning. Moreover there appear to be many articles dealing specifically with USA-based "osteopathic medicine", and tags disambiguating the two. I think, therefore, that this article is intended particularly to deal with non-medical osteopathic manipulation as understood in most parts of the world.

I am prepared to re-order the entire article, but in this case a revert will be reported as prima facie bad-faith editing - I note this due to your initial failure to provide reasons for reverting, and to the inadequacy of your subsequent given reason. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The first revert wasn't done by me, I only reordered the paragraphs. I really don't mind the ordering so much, but felt it consistent to have them in the same order. If you want to reorder them in your way you're welcome to. Smk65536 (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - thanks. User:CFCF? Redheylin (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Upon going through the edits I don't see anything objectionable, it seems my revert was a mistake. I don't recall why I did it at all, so it might even have been a slip of the hand. I've been monitoring this article for misinformation that sometimes creeps in and could have mistaken the edits upon a quick glance. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

BRD - replaced NHS ref, and text

The latest removal of a perfectly acceptable ref is surprising. I intend to return the ref per WP:BRD today, unless an acceptable justification per WP:PAG -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the ref is acceptable however the article is claiming something entirely different. The article claims that "Analysis of peer-reviewed research yields little evidence that osteopathy is effective for non-musculo-skeletal conditions, and limited evidence that osteopathy is an effective treatment for some types of neck pain, shoulder pain, or limb pain". Nothing in the source mentions any analysis of peer-reviewed research. Smk65536 (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you think they came to their conclusions? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I don't see them mentioning peer-reviewed research on their page. Smk65536 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Information Please?

This has got to be the worst article I've seen on wikipedia. It doesn't contain even the slightest bit of information of the sort that someone looking up 'osteopathy' would presumably want: what does an osteopath do, and why? With what results? Instead all we have is a pointless catalogue of the names of organizations that regulate it in one country after another. What's the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.45 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Did You Know? Nomination

Osteopathy ( Back to T:TDYK Article history ) ... that "the medical field of osteopathy had a rocky start, resulting in the harsh criticism and even arrest of early 20th century osteopathic doctors"? Reviewed: I still have to review another nomination and will post this here once it's done. Comment: History section of article expanded on March 10, 2017 5x expanded by Emarti84 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarti84 (talk • contribs)

The nomination actually reads as follows ...

that "the medical field of osteopathy, which today is equal to the allopathic field, had a rocky start, resulting in the harsh criticism and even arrest of early 20th century osteopathic doctors"?

... and is, to me, something that is dead in the starting blocks. How do I object to this actually appearing? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The hook should not say "medical field" at is this is a pseudoscience (or at least psudo-medicine as it even admits in the info block)! RobP (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The above statement "the medical field of osteopathy", which today is equal to the allopathic field"...is incorrect. That should read osteopathic medicine (which is considered different in scope/definition from osteopathy since the former is uniquely practiced by American osteopathic physicians) and allopathic medicine. Osteopathy is the field practiced by non-American osteopaths who are not physicians. The above statement is a conflation of these two fields. Make sure you're careful that you're using the correct terminology as it can get tricky to navigate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article is still unclear regarding its subject, Osteopathy, a pseudoscience, vs. Osteopathic medicine. I have done a bit of rewriting to correct some of the worst issues, but others remain which I do not have time right now to address. I do not believe this should be a DYK entry until these issues are corrected. RobP (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that this discussion has been continued on the DYK nomination page here. RobP (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

History Section

The history section is well written but it is unclear whether there were other major players in osteopathy beside Still. The section reads like a biography of Still since it discusses a single person. If osteopathy didn't change much after it began and he is truly the only person to influence it this is fine but should be made more apparent.

Zsmith7 (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zsmith7 Thanks for your comment! Still was the sole founder of osteopathy. I'll consider omitting the details of his bio since his wiki page is more suited to address that. However. I do think a background of Still and his developing philosophy is relevant to the history of osteopathy and is at least worth brief description. There were those who influenced Still, such as Andrew Davis, who is mentioned. Because Osteoapathy developed from a perspective of alternative medicine, it can be argued that many prominent figures of alternative medicine influenced its birth. Even so, the predominant figure in the history of osteopathy is Andrew Still. Emarti84 (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Side bar "alternative medicine" and "pseudoscience"

Hi everyone, could we discuss the possibility of removing the sidebar "alternative medicine" and "pseudoscience" from the "Osteopathy" article? My reason is that when people want to learn about osteopathic medicine, a lot of times the google search bar suggests "osteopathy". "osteopathy" and "osteopathic medicine" are too close to be told apart by many people. Since "osteopathy" has the "Alternative medicine and pseudoscience" sidebar, it misleads many people into thinking that osteopathic medicine is pseudoscience. Also osteopathy is also used interchangeably occasionally with osteopathic medicine, so the sidebar "alternative medicine and pseudoscience is simply incorrect. Thank you for your consideration. Jing3094 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Osteopathy is an alternative medicine, so it should be labeled as such. If your concern is that people may get osteopathy confused with osteopathic medicine, then let's try to make the distinction clearer. Player 03 (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that because 1) some people might perhaps misunderstand the term because of a website that Wikipedia has nothing to do with (Google, that is) and 2) the term is sometimes used interchangably with another term in one country, the article should be made less informative for Wikipedia's readers by removing a relevant sidebar. The hatnote right at the top of the article makes the distinction clear. Adding an extra disclaimer to the first sentence only looks repetitive - there are thousands of articles about concepts, or places, or people that can be confused with other things by the same or a similar name, and that's what the hatnotes are there for. It is not incorrect to identify osteopathy as pseudoscience. --bonadea contributions talk 06:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur that these are two separate issues. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jing, just so you know, the "hatnote" is the part that says "For the American medical practice of osteopathic physicians in the United States, see Osteopathic medicine in the United States. For diseases of the bone, see bone disease and osteology." This is Wikipedia's standard way to distinguish between similar names, and anyone familiar with Wikipedia will most likely notice it and understand what it means. Player 03 (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The article does talk quite a lot about osteopathic medicine, though. That content doesn't really belong here - it's hard to remove it from the history section since the concepts have a common history, but the "Worldwide" section could do with some pruning. The lede is pretty clear on what this article is not, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 07:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that I entirely agree. As you say, there are common aspects of the history and conflation is a relevant issue and still occurs. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:14, 28 Junen the2017 (UTC)

I am not going to pretend to be an expert o subject, so I defer to those who are. But if osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are currently two different concepts, one of which is pseudomedicine and the other one isn't, it would make sense to me if there were two different articles, referring to each other but not overlapping too much. Osteopathic medicine in the United States only deals with one country, but in this article, there's information about osteopathic medicine in other countries - I assume that it is about a valid branch of medical science (again, really not my field!). Maybe some confusion about the validity of osteopathic medicine might come from it being included in the article about the pseudomedicine, and perhaps our readers would be better served by a general article about osteopathic medicine in addition to this one about osteopathy? --bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine is idiosyncratic and education in it is limited to the United States. The article is clear enough that what differentiates DOs from MDs is that DOs also practice Osteopathic manipulation, which is Osteopathy. I suggest we merge Osteopathic manipulation here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Carl, that's incorrect. Osteopathic manipulation is not synonymous with osteopathy. The term you're looking for is osteopathic manipulative treatment. Osteopathy is the field practiced by non-physician osteopaths. This is precisely why it's so important to have crystal clear definitions making the distinctions clear. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. Osteopathic manipulation is perhaps a subset, but there is very little else to the field of osteopathy. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, osteopathy practiced by non-physician osteopaths is largely defined by the practice of osteopathic manipulative treatment. That's true. However, that's precisely why the scope is so different from osteopathic medicine since osteopathic physicians trained in the United States who practice osteopathic medicine attend four years of medical school and learn osteopathic manipulative treatment simultaneously. The privileges, scope, training, and responsibilities of osteopathic physicians and non-physician osteopaths, and therefore their respective fields osteopathic medicine and osteopathy, are different. To conflate the two related but separate fields ignores about 150 years of history and is simply incorrect. Non-physician osteopaths practice osteopathy and osteopathic physicians practice osteopathic medicine. This is explained well here [1]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if osteopathy and osteopathic medicine mean the exact 100% same thing. Probably not, but the overlap is large enough that to a laymen, they think they are close enough to be considered the same. If you insist that since there is a separate page where osteopathic medicine is explained as different from osteopathy, then why don't we at least switch the order of the countries and make United State the first country in the list. Or point out in this article early on that osteopathy might be different from osteopathic medicine, so that people are aware that these might be very different terms. Because I had to scroll down a long list to dig out a tiny piece of information that's the most relevant. If we moved "United States" to the top of the countries, people will get that piece of information faster, which helps with the efficiency of information distribution? Can we consider either moving United States to the top or adding (osteopathy is different from osteopathic medicine) early in the article? Thank you. Jing3094 (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Osteopathic manipulation should be merged with osteopathy. Because in D.O. schools they learn osteopathic manipulation in a evidence-based medicine format (as much as research results allow). So the modern concept of osteopathic manipulation is not alternative medicine or pseudoscience. If Osteopathy is different from osteopathic medicine, then osteopathic manipulation(which is part of osteopathic medicine) is different from osteopathy and should not be merged with it. Jing3094 (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

They can learn that all they want — it doesn't make it true. There is no evidence osteopathy is better than placebo. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are not yet willing to remove the label "alternative medicine and pseudo-science" from Osteopathy, I'm willing to look for more evidence and reference for you. Would you like me to look for more evidence? This decision should not be made solely on me believing it is not pseudoscience or you believing it is. It should be based on facts, not opinions. I'm asking if you'd like to see more evidence because I'm not very good at computer stuff and this is definitely the first time I edited anything on Wikipedia and I don't know anything about how these disputes should be resolved. So I just wanted to learn the steps of how things are done on here. Jing3094 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that show that it isn't pseudoscience, please do. In that case, we will be happy to cite them in the article, and perhaps even adjust the intro. Just be aware that Wikipedia has strict guidelines on what counts as reliable, so you'll need to find peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals. Player 03 (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that even the editors of this page are confused by the terms "osteopathy, osteopathic manipulation, osteopathic manipulative medicine, and osteopathic medicine" just means that the reader can also be confused by these very similar phrases. So labeling any of these articles "alternative and pseudo science" just makes it that much easier to think all the other terms are associated with it as well. Jing3094 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jing3094 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 

Jing, please make sure there's clear consensus before you remove those terms from the lead sentence. It's very important that this is fully discussed before you make that kind of bold edit. And just to clarify about one of your earlier uncertainties, osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are not the same thing. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello TylerDurden8823, I was the person who was suggesting that the phrase "alternative medicine" and "psuedo medicine" be removed from "Osteopathy". I appreciate your edits, but I wanted to explain why I would like those terms removed even though the rest of the article does explain osteopathy is different from osteopathic medicine.

The concept of osteopathy cannot be completely separate from osteopathic medicine. Let's talk about osteopathic manipulation first. I am a medical student at a D.O school, and I don't believe that osteopathic manipulation works all the time. But extensive research is being done to find out how much of it is supported by evidence. There are some evidence that some components have therapeutic value and some don't. Therefore, I don't think osteopathic manipulation is alternative medicine or pseudoscience. Now let's talk about osteopathy. Frequently at school people use the word osteopathy, so I had no idea that "osteopathy" was different from "osteopathic medicine" untill I saw that there were two separate articles on Wikipedia. If a osteopathic medicine school used the terms interchangeably, I could only imagine a lay person confusing the two. Therefore, using the tag "alternative medicine and pseudo medicine" damages the reputation of osteopathic medicine and the descriptions are not even true. I hope you could consider keeping the terms "alternative medicine and pseudo medicine" out of this article. Thank you. Jing3094 (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The history of the fields of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine shows they clearly diverged into two separate fields albeit with some common historical roots dating back about 150 years ago. There are sources that detail this very nicely. The scope and training of the two professions is quite different and thus they are distinct. Non-physician osteopaths primarily focus their training on osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) but this is different for osteopathic physicians who incorporate this into their training but it's not the primary focus. Regardless, a modality is not defined as pseudomedicine or alternative medicine based on the absence or presence of research. The quality of the research is very important as is the modality's plausibility. Acupuncture is one of the most hotly researched topics yet it is still widely regarded as alternative medicine. As of 2017, OMT has not gained widespread acceptance. You're right that it is a modality being studied but many of the studies and the few RCTs done have been critiqued for significant methodological flaws/limitations. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I did a search on Pubmed, here are three examples of research articles supporting that osteopathy and OMT are different from placebo. There were many results and these are just some examples. Also, these articles does use the term Osteopathy when talking about treatments done by osteopathic physicians and OMT, which supports my statement that you cannot separate the term "osterpathy" from the field of osteopathic medicine. Maybe they are not equivalent, but they are used interchangeably in literature. You guys are Wikipedia editing experts, but please also try to look at the issue from the aspect of non-expert reader like me. Something is clear in the eye of the experts, doesn't mean it's not confusing to the rest. The words "alternative medicine" and "pseudo medicine" carry bias. You can say it is controversial, up to debate, but as evidence suggest in articles I'm citing here, osteopathy cannot be completely separated from the field of osteopathic medicine, and evidence supports that it is different from placebo.

I didn't meant to make bold edit. I just didn't know that to change anything on an article a consensus needed to be met. Sorry about that.

Here are the articles, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426148/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28643968 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28532881

Thank you. Jing3094 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's okay, now you know. I took a look at each of the links you provided but none of them proves your proposed point that osteopathic medicine and osteopathy are not distinct fields. They most certainly are separate terms and professions. The articles you placed here are not particularly high-quality. I disagree with your assessment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that one of the Search Key Words is Osteopathy and the articles talk about OMT performed by physicians is evidence that these terms are used in the same settings. And by "not high-quality", do you mean "not meta analysis"? Jing3094 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Yes, systematic reviews/meta-analyses of RCTs are the highest level of evidence. That aside, no, I meant that the sources you put forward don't illustrate your point well and aren't MEDLINE-indexed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that one of the Search Key Words is Osteopathy and the articles talk about OMT performed by physicians is evidence that these terms are used in the same settings - no, that is anecdotal evidence at best, and violates Wikipedia's original research policy. --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: but it does show a fact that when people talk about osteopathic medicine, they use the term osteopathy to refer to osteopathic medicine. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact the the word Osteopathy is in all these articles that are really talking about osteopathic medicine? ALso see the new reply at the bottom, I think that answers the question.Jing3094 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It does not show that as a fact; as I said, it is anecdotal evidence at best. To actually show something about how people use language you need a very large sample of language, collected in a controlled manner. And we don't do that as Wikipedia editors, it is synthesis, a form of original research. --bonadea contributions talk 07:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jing3094: You said on my talk page that "The concept of osteopathy cannot be completely separate from osteopathic medicine". True, so we shouldn't sanitise the former because of the hurt feelings of those involved in the latter. It would be a bit like removing the toxicity section from Foxglove because MDs don't want heart patients to know they were being treated with a deadly poison extracted from the foxglove. Moriori (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Moriori: That makes sense and I agree. We don't sanitize it. We state that it has both therapeutic value and toxicity. We can state that there is a alternative medicine component to the word "osteopathy", also there is a valid medicine component if the word is used in the context of osteopathic medicine. A word can have multiple uses.Jing3094 (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. I think I figured out where the problem is. The problems is that the word Osteopathy really has two components: 1) the alternative medicine that you guys are talking about, there are separate schools that teach just osteopathy and they don't call themselves osteopathic doctors. 2) osteopathic doctors also use the word osteopathy when they talk about osteopathic medicine-related stuff. Because from what I read in these journal articles, they do use the osteopathy to refer to osteopathic medicine. So for whatever reason, osteopathic medicine doctors and researcher use the word osteopathy to loosely refer to osteopathic medicine and osteopathic philosophy, but it is also true that osteopathy is also its own entity. Do you agree that it seems like osteopathy is used in both circumstances? After doing some more searching, I do agree with the statement that osteopathy has its own system, but I also couldn't deny the fact that osteopathic doctors use the word osteopathy in daily conversations and articles and they can't all be talking about the alternative medicine stuff. Opinions? Jing3094 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Jing3094 (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with your statement (it is not that osteopathy has "two components", but that there are two different concepts with similar names, and maybe that some practitioners of osteopathic medicine call it "osteopathy" - but that's really not a problem for Wikipedia, even if it is the case, which we don't know). But the remedy is the same regardless: the article has to make it clear that it is about osteopathy, the pseudoscience, and not about osteopathic medicine. If there is a terminological confusion, the thing to do is to clarify which concept we're talking about. The article does this, if you read the lead section - the first thing he reader sees is the link to the osteopathic medicine article! What we absolutely should not do is confuse the issue by talking about the word "osteopathy" as if it can be used in different ways, when the terms are in fact different. It is extra important in an article about a pseudoscience, to avoid the risk that the article gives that kind of thing the semblance of legitimity. --bonadea contributions talk 07:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Jing, it's simple to reconcile. The fields of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are often conflated/confused for one another but they're not the same. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the side bar claiming or Intending to mislead the general public and labeling Osteopathic Medicine as complementary

Could some one remove the misleading bar, placed on the page by supporters of the Bastardy Sect AllopathyGabirro (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC).

No. You have not justified such a removal. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Restricted from using their degree abbreviation?

The article says in the lede:

In the United States, osteopaths are legally restricted from using the title D.O. to avoid confusion with osteopathic physicians who are medical doctors trained and certified to practice medicine as well as osteopathic manipulation.

This is unsourced, and the equivalent statement in the body has been called out for a cite for several months. I find it dubious, not the least because it refer to a purported restriction "in the United States," when in fact, regulation of this type is done on a state-by-state basis. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Osteopathy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.meridianinstitute.com/eamt/files/webster1/webcont.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908041004/http://www.nj.gov/highereducation/AGMEC/osteopathic_med_school_accreditation_standards.pdf to http://www.nj.gov/highereducation/AGMEC/osteopathic_med_school_accreditation_standards.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316164329/http://history.osteopathic.org/educate.shtml to http://history.osteopathic.org/educate.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324124423/http://www.oialliance.org/pdf/australia_osteopathy.pdf to http://www.oialliance.org/pdf/australia_osteopathy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219150950/http://www.osteopathyboard.gov.au/Codes-and-Guidelines.aspx to http://www.osteopathyboard.gov.au/Codes-and-Guidelines.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602132251/http://www.oialliance.org/pdf/germany_osteopathy.pdf to http://www.oialliance.org/pdf/germany_osteopathy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602130203/http://www.oialliance.org/pdf/newzealand_osteopathy.pdf to http://www.oialliance.org/pdf/newzealand_osteopathy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602130524/http://www.oialliance.org/pdf/newzealand_om.pdf to http://www.oialliance.org/pdf/newzealand_om.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412122741/http://www.osteopathy.org.uk/about_gosc/about_standards.php to http://www.osteopathy.org.uk/about_gosc/about_standards.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia sponsore by Pharma companies?

Just wondered. Because all of this - "While the national health services of some countries consider there is "good" evidence for osteopathy as a treatment for low back pain and "limited evidence to suggest it may be effective for some types of neck, shoulder or lower limb pain and recovery after hip or knee operations", there is little, or insufficient, evidence that osteopathy is effective as a treatment for health conditions "unrelated" to the bones and muscles, "such as headaches, migraines, painful periods, digestive disorders, depression and excessive crying in babies (colic)"; an explicit reference to the claims of osteopathic manipulative medicine.[9] Others have concluded that osteopathic style manipulation "failed to produce compelling evidence" for efficacy in treating musculoskeletal pain.[10]" - is in the intro to this subject.

Sure it belongs in a section about criticisms of Osteopathy. But in the intro??? Do all medical and drug related articles have such heavily 'anti' introductions? Nope. So why does this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB05:45D:5B00:142C:68A3:5DE:EC77 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

The claim here is that the term "osteopath" is NOT applied to D.O.s (Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (USA)). This is wrong. Further, the confusion between an osteopath and a D.O. should be a top priority here and it is badly fumbled. This article needs a statement at the top CLEARLY discriminating between Osteopathic MEDICINE and the pseudo-scientific practice of (traditional) osteopathy. It seems that this difference may not be meaningful in countries other than the USA, if not, then the article needs to be clear about that, too.98.21.208.72 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this request was complied with in the recent edits, mainly my edit on Feb 8th. Nod if you disagree. Also, to the guy who quite combatively replaced a commonly-used latin phrase to its English equivalent: chill. Heptor _talk 22:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The article already has "For the American medical practice of osteopathic physicians in the United States, see Osteopathic medicine in the United States" at the beginning. I am going to disagree with that edit though, since there is no evidence in the article that "Some countries mandate that osteopathic practitioners must be physicians or medical doctors" and it is absolutely not the case (as established in the article) that "...a person without a medical degree is not allowed to call him- or herself an osteopath in the United States" or Osteopaths in the United States are osteopathic physicians and practice the full scope of modern medicine.--tronvillain (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You are right, this requires more research. In the US, medical licenses are granted by the state medical boards, not by the federal government. I suspect the article is not very wrong, there is an official osteopathic medical board in California at least, http://www.ombc.ca.gov/. I don't know if I have enough subject matter knowledge to make improvements, unfortunately. Heptor (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that The American Osteopathic Association and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine recommend using the terms osteopathic physician (U.S.-trained only) and osteopathic medicine in reference to osteopathic medicine as practiced in the United States. What the language and limitations specified in state laws are is another question.--tronvillain (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Differences between Osteopathy and Chiropractic

Almost ten years ago an editor suggested adding a comparison between the two similar practices of Osteopathy and Chiropractic, but there was no response to that suggestion. I'm making it again. The Chiropractic article contains exhaustive and very helpful comparisons between the two as well as other forms of manual therapy. The same kind of comparison should be added to this article. Currently, it doesn't even contain the word "chiropractic" (or any word beginning with "chiro-") except in the Fringe Medicine sidebar. — 8.47.96.133 (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Helpful in the sense that it notes that they're both pseudoscientific garbage that hurts people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.200.183 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Dubious information from Osteopathy Australia

The OA account OA2020 is repearedly adding text to the article.[2] which appears to fail WP:V. What is going on? Alexbrn (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly all additions made have be cited materials, that are produced by independent and often government regulators. As such most are verifiable in making such editdecisions. Often deletions occur minutes after such additions, when reference materials wouldn't be able to be reviewed in that time. OA2020 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

So you added:

Students training to be an osteopath in Australia must study in an approved program in an accredited university. Current accredited courses are either four or five years in length.

References

Where on that page does it say "Students training to be an osteopath in Australia must study in an approved program". Reminder: WP:V is a core Wikipedia policy. Alexbrn (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The whole page is titled "approved programs of study" as applied to osteopathy on a government regulators website OA2020 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

So? Where does it say students "must" study an approved program? Alexbrn (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

To be helpful I have added another citations to assist in building peoples understanding. I hope that is useful OA2020 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It also fails WP:V. This looks like misinformation. So far as I can see when registering as an osteopath in Australia, there is no requirement an applicant has taken an "approved program". In any evemt we are only meant to be including material which can be WP:VERIFIED, preferably from secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me, would it be better for me to add another several dozen (cited) paragraphs on the regulation, accreditation and legislation surrounding the approved courses, and registration requirements to become an osteopath in Australia? OA2020 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edits appear not to correspond to current Australian law. But we need to have independent sources discussing this topic, not try to intepret it ourselves. This all looks undue and needs to come out: Wikipedia is meant to be a "summary of accepted knowledge" about topics, WP:NOT an assemblage of primary information. Alexbrn (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a secondary source - a government legislated health regulator...the same regulator who regulate medicine, nursing and about 10 other professions in Australia. OA2020 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what i don't understand - the requirements for approved study, and how to become registered as a health practitioner in Australia is summary of that accepted knowledge. It is therefore useful (or not?) for people to understand that in Australia (unlike some countries) all osteopaths have to go thought a regulatory framework to reach registration and the ability to practice. If that simplified summary with links isn't enough, then surely a more in-depth info is acceptable to help summarise accepted process and understanding OA2020 (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again WP:V is key. You are adding material that is not supported by sources: no source you have provided says students "must" study an approved course as a path to becoming an osteopath; in fact, the requirements to register as an osteopath do not mention this. Please also learn to WP:INDENT you posts. Alexbrn (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the osteo Registration citation I added states this criteria: Online applications for general registration as an osteopath are available to: - final-year students that are due to complete within the next six weeks an Australian-approved program of study, or - graduates who have completed an Australian-approved program of study within the last 12 months, or OA2020 (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Which does not support your text about "must study". You are still not WP:INDENTing, which is also becoming a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of cited, independant informtion

It appears some editors on this page remove cited information, linked to independent or government sources as they don't like the verified content. Often the cited content is removed within minutes, depite the citation being linked to 10-15 page documents so clearly there has not been a true review of the independent sources before delating or objecting. Likewise there appears several editors who try to remove any positive, verifiable citation and hark back to decades old resources of no relevance other than in a historical sense. OA2020 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If you continue to display bad faith and make personal attacks, you can expect to be sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:OA2020, I am one of the editors who removed your cited information. It was blatant cut and paste copyvio info from a source. Do that again and you can be blocked from editing. Moriori (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moriori, that one I understood and then re-edited the content as a summary, rather than a quote from the source. That wasn't really the deletions I was talking about so thanks for helping me to understand wiki better OA2020 (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

What we need for the Australia section is a summary of how independent, secondary sources are discussing osteopathy there. Not factoids dodgily synthesized from primary sources. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source, not an instruction list of brochure. I'll see what I can find. This looks like an attempt by Osteopathy Australia to get its preferred presentation into Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph to the osteopathy page has some inaccuracies. And I propose the changes as below:

1. The Forbes article by Salzberg that was referenced never mentioned osteopathy as "extra training in pseudoscientific practices" with regards to the statement regarding osteopathic training in medical school.

2. The statement: "Osteopathic medical schools also tend to be weaker than MD schools with regard to research and the understanding of scientific inquiry." is inaccurate. The author of this statement cited 3 studies. One is from 1987, this source is over 30 years old and cannot be used to compare osteopathic medical schools to allopathic medical schools in 2019. Another source stated that osteopathic research was lacking in the early and mid 20th centuries but there was no mention of other types of research lacking (in fields outside of osteopathy), therefore the comparison cannot be made to the counterpart MD schools. The third source cited a report from Abraham Flexner in 1910 who made this assertation.

3. Regarding the statement of Osteopathy in the Cranial field; the reference is to only 1 author who listed cranial osteopathy as pseudoscience in a blog post. Therefore, one can label it as pseudoscience using a generalization statement and placed in the introductory paragraph. I had originally moved the criticism of cranial osteopathy to the criticism section, specifically the paragraph regarding Stephen Barrett, the physician who wrote the blog posts.

The 3 above edits were reverted without explanation. The only reasons given were "fringe sources" and "whitewashing" without further explanation. Please be aware that you are responsible for your edits made using the Twinkle Javascript gadget and you are required to explain edits or reverts of edits. I am proposing the above changes to the article, please be aware. Golan1911 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the Salzberg ref. Cranial osteopathy is obviously pseudoscience/quackery and so sources say so. Wikipedia must accordingly reflect that. "Criticism" sections are generally frowned on as non-neutral. Everything here now seems well-sourced, so these proposed changes would worsen the article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the explanation. However, you did not address my second point above. I would still like to remove the statement comparing osteopathic medical schools to allopathic ones regarding "research and the understanding of scientific inquiry". Again, I have shown that the 3 sources pertaining to this statement are outdated by at least 30 years. I would also like to add that this statement is vague.

Thank you for changing the reference regarding my first point above, but I still propose to remove the statement regarding Osteopathy as "extra-training in pseudo-scientific practices".

I would also like to point out that the same author (Steven Salzberg) posted another article only 2 days after the original one (where he mentioned osteopathy as extra training in pseudo-scientific practices). In this article, titled "Second Thoughts on Osteopathic Medicine", Salzberg states:

"My post also included an implication that, because osteopathic medicine was founded in the 19th century by someone (Andrew Still) with some wacky ideas, that modern-day practice still included those ideas. I didn't write this explicitly, but the suggestion was there, and that was both unfair and inaccurate. Conventional medicine included all kinds of nutty practices in the past (bloodletting, for example), but it has moved on, as has osteopathy."

Golan1911 (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It still seems fine. Some of your points would seem to apply more to Osteopathic medicine in the United States. This article is about osteopathy at large as an alternative medicine. Alexbrn (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I made suggestion in next section. However, speaking about cranial osteopathy, there are MEDRS sources, such as this and this. They say this is a poorly studied and poorly justified treatment, and more research is needed. They do NOT say this is a "pseudoscience/quackery". My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah there's a lot of wanky research weaselling away with More research is needed clichés, but cranial osteopathy is a canonical quackery, per WP:RS. I mean "let me feel the vibrations in your skull and my magic hands will realign your skull bones to solve any health problem"?! Fuck no. You could use your argument to legitimize any quackery, from homeopathy to bleach therapy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have tried making edits to the introduction about osteopathic medicine in the US to better reflect the statements in the citations. They have been reverted with a vague explanation.

There are two problematic statements:

this has been described as nothing more than "'extra' training in pseudoscientific practices"

This statement is the claim of one professor who is not in medicine 10 years ago. It's inclusion here, without allowing any cited counterpoints, is hardly appropriate.

"Osteopathic medical schools have been criticized as weaker in research than MD schools with regard to research and the understanding of scientific inquiry."

This statement remains uncited. It is, seemingly, original material and not appropriate per WP:OPINION.

The revised statement I inserted ("However, while some have described this as nothing more than "'extra' training in pseudoscientific practices,"., others acknowledge that it is less a part of the medical practice of an osteopathic physician and more a tribute to the legacy of osteopathy.") maintained the original quote while providing a cited counterpoint. In the cited article, the author writes:

In most osteopathic medical schools, osteopathy has been deemphasized to the point where it’s now, more than anything else, a historical vestige that continues to be taught more because of tradition than because of any continued enthusiasm for osteopathy

My counterpoint is a pretty straight paraphrasing.

The other issue with the inclusion of this in the intro at all is that this article is about osteopathy, not osteopathic medicine in the US. There's already an article about that topic. It's no necessary to have these details here. heat_fan1 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ledes do not need citations; the relevant material is cited in the body. Your edit about "tribute" was a total fabrication. What we have is fine and helps our readers understand the situation, notably that this is quackery in general, and an embarrassing rump of quackery for American DOs. Per WP:PSCI we have a duty to be up-front about this. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether osteopathy is pseudoscience, the last paragraph of the intro is focused more on osteopathic medicine in the US, not the general topic of osteopathy. DOs are not quacks, they are licensed physicians. They make up a growing number of physicians in America and are put in leading positions across the country.

Further, the intro, as written, violates several policies:

• WP:LEAD specifically states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Since osteopathic medicine in the US is not really described in any meaningful detail elsewhere in the article, it shouldn't be included here. Further, the scope of the article can be limited in the lead, where appropriate.
• WP:LEADCITE requires verifiability: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Therefore, statements like "Osteopathic medical schools have been criticized as weaker in research than MD schools with regard to research and the understanding of scientific inquiry." should be cited.
• WP:GLOBAL prioritizes unbiased perspectives appropriate to the topic of the article. Osteopathy being something practiced across the world, it's not appropriate to specifically focus an entire paragraph in the lead on the United States. It is proper to mention the US if readers may come across this article looking for another, in which case you can define sub-topics not included in the article, as discussed in WP:LEAD.

heat_fan1 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Cherry picking and misrepresenting the WP:PAGs is going to be no more successful than misrepresenting sources. As LEADCITE says "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article". The relevant material is cited in the criticism section here, and per [WP:PSCI]] we have a duty to be up-front about the pseudoscientific nature of osteopathy. If in doubt, seek further input at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I cherry-picked policies. What I quoted is the second sentence in WP:LEADCITE, and is repeated later: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." As far any reader can tell, the statement about osteopathic medical schools being weaker is original research, which is not acceptable.

I appreciate your concern for pseudoscience. I'm tired of hearing about falsities in medicine and healthcare. Osteopathy is one of those things. But osteopathic medicine, as practiced in the US, is neither osteopathy nor pseudoscience. It's just medicine. Most patients will never know the difference between a visit to an MD and a DO. Since this article is not about osteopathic medicine, the lead shouldn't discuss osteopathic medicine other than to say it's not within the scope. heat_fan1 (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)