- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by SL93 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Not even close to passing.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Osteopathy
edit- ... that "the field of osteopathy, which today has evolved into osteopathic medicine, had a rocky start, resulting in the harsh criticism and even arrest of early 20th century osteopathic practitioners"?
- 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).
Objection
editThe 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). Worse, after reading it over, 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) 19:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Concern that osteopathy is being made to be on the same level as medical science.Sgerbic (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment on Objection: Thank you for your evaluation. I edited the DYK hook to simply say the "field" of osteopathy, which was the root of osteopathic medicine. I agree that the two should be distinguished. Thank you for making corrections as you see fit in the article. Emarti84 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)emarti84
Hello @Emarti84:: A few things:
- Please take a crack at clarifying the final paragraph of the United States section. Especially "...refers only to osteopathic medicine or osteopathic physicians, respectively..." is confusing. The citation there will not open on my PC so I can see what that is supposed to mean.
- Also, as you edited it, the hook is still questionable because "the field of osteopathy, which today has evolved into osteopathic medicine..." makes it sound like osteopathy is no longer practiced and became osteopathic medicine. Am I missing something basic here? I believe both types of practices are in existence, which I tried to clarify in the lede paragraph which now reads as follows:
- In the United States osteopathic practitioners are legally restricted from referring to themselves as "osteopaths" to avoid confusion with osteopathic physicians who are medical doctors trained and certified to practice in the branch of scientific medicine called osteopathic medicine. Osteopathic practitioners on the other hand, are trained only in manual osteopathic treatment, generally to relieve muscular and skeletal conditions.
- Also I could not open the link for the final citation (the non-English one). Not sure a foreign language source is OK on the English language Wiki in any case. RobP (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Rp2006:: Thank you for your examination of this article.
- I focused on expanding the History section of this article and did not edit any other sections. I see what you mean about the United States section. Unfortunately, the citation also does not open for me so I'm not sure what the writer meant. I will look into clarifying this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
- I also see how the DYK hook can be misleading. What I meant is that practitioners trained under the osteopathic approach are no longer considered psuedoscience practitioners. Osteopathic medicine is nowadays considered more "scientific" than it was in the past. There of course remain stereotypes associated with osteopaths and there are likely osteopaths that remain pseudoscience followers, just as there are medical doctors that adhere to pseudoscience. But, there is a stronger scientific character associated with osteopathy today than in the early 1900s. I am working on finding a clear distinction between osteopaths and osteopathic doctors, should there be one. Do you have any sources that would be helpful in explaining this? For example, I'd like to know where you found that "In the United States osteopathic practitioners are legally restricted from referring to themselves as 'osteopaths' to avoid confusion with osteopathic physicians..." I didn't see a reference attached to this statement in the article. Please let me know.
- Hi @Emarti84: That was my interpretation from related WP articles and other websites, but I must admit now that I look a again I cannot find any citable reliable source... and in fact I am more confused on this topic than ever. For now I am going to put "Citation needed" on several of these items in the article. Hopefully others more knowledgeable in this topic will either find citations, or revise the text accordingly. RobP (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- I did not add the final non-English citation, but will look into finding an English alternative.
- Thank you again for your input. Emarti84 (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Regrettably, the article does not meet the DYK 5x expansion requirement, where an article must be expanded to five times the original number of prose characters that existed before the expansion began. Immediately prior to the expansion that began on March 10, the article was 15638 prose characters; it is currently 20382 prose characters, a 1.3x expansion. A 5x expansion would require 78190 prose characters, which is beyond feasible. The sole remaining avenue to qualify at DYK is for the article to be improved to the point that it can be nominated for and be listed as a Good Article. Should that happen some day, be sure to nominate it again within seven days. Sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
