text:
Talk:Allopathic medicine

Use as a pejorative
The lead sentence Allopathic medicine or allopathy is a pejorative used by proponents of alternative medicine to refer to modern scientific systems of medicine appears to be an excessive generalisation. I do not dispute that the term was and is used to disparage modern scientific systems of medicine by proponents of alternative medicine, but that is not the only usage of the term and therefore does not accurately define the concept. It seems quite clear from other sources such as the dictionary definitions, which are generally neutral, and the WHO report ( Xiaorui Zhang (2001). "Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative Medicine: A Worldwide Review"), that the term is used in other contexts, quite neutrally, as a way of distinguishing western scientific medicine from other systems. I find it hard to believe in the absence of reasonable evidence that the World Health Organisation would publish a report using a term for western/scientific/evidence based medicine that is universally or even generally considered pejorative of one of the systems they represent and support. The way the lead sentence is composed suggests against this evidence that there is only one usage, and while the derogatory meaning is a common usage in parts of the world, the neutral meaning is common in other parts of the world. This statement, in Wikipedia's voice, in my opinion constitutes undue weight and/or an American/Eurocentric bias. There are many ways this could be corrected. I am not unduly fussy about which is used as long as the balance is restored. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * shows that your WHO example is actually an example against your position. Xiaorui Zhang is a proponent of alternative medicine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That special report certainly shows that there is disagreement with the Xiaorui Zhang report, and the arguments seem rational. I am not going to argue against them. If anything, I agree with the gist. Renckens, Schoepen, and Betz do not mention the terms allopathy or allopathic medicine at all, so while they are clearly objecting to the general content of the report, they do not seem to consider those specific terms worth mentioning. Maybe they do not consider them particularly derogatory, or maybe they just had more important matters to discuss. I cannot draw any strong conclusions from this. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point. My link only shows that the author of the WHO report, Xiaorui Zhang, is a proponent of alternative medicine. Therefore, your claim
 * "I find it hard to believe in the absence of reasonable evidence that the World Health Organisation would publish a report using a term for western/scientific/evidence based medicine that is universally or even generally considered pejorative"
 * is invalid. Yes, the WHO would do that, if the author of the report belongs to a subculture that regularly uses those pejoratives and there is no one there in the WHO who can and will override it.
 * Your deduction is WP:OR anyway - your phrase "I find it hard to believe" would be a dead giveaway if it were not obvious anyway that you are trying to insert your own POV into the article. We say what the reliable sources say. They say the term is used in a pejorative way. Even if you managed to find a counterexample, the research done by the reliable sources trump your original research. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * [ec] Xiaorui Zhang may be a proponent of alternative medicine, but the use of the term allopathic medicine in the WHO report specifically states:"Allopathic medicine, in this document, refers to the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes  called  Western  medicine,  biomedicine,  scientific  medicine,  or  modern medicine. This term has been used solely for convenience and does not refer to the treatment principles of any form of medicine described in this document." (my emphasis). Unless she was going out of her way to be deliberately offensive to that broad category, it suggests that the term is in common use for that purpose in a significant part of the world. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you have deduced from a statement of disbelief that I do not currently have evidence to support that disbelief. That is why I used those terms. However your claim that I am trying to insert my own PoV into the article suggests that you have some preconception of my PoV other than my stated intention to reduce bias and provide a more global and neutral explanation of the term which is the subject of the topic than the current lead section contains. Since you have not stated what you believe my PoV would be, that is not particularly useful to the discussion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do your reliable sources state that the term is always used in a pejorative way everywhere? If so, please provide quotes to support this and I will concede the point. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "but the use of the term allopathic medicine in the WHO report specifically states" Yeah, the alternative medicine proponent Zhang does specifically state that. But it is not the goal of Wikipedia that its users draw the sort of conclusions from sources you do: "it suggests that the term is in common use for that purpose in a significant part of the world". Actually, it suggests nothing except that Zhang likes to use that vocabulary. Everything beyond that is WP:OR.
 * "However your claim that I am trying to insert my own PoV" - this doesn't matter. Maybe you are trying to insert the opposite of your own POV. So what? You are trying to insert WP:POV and WP:OR.
 * "Do your reliable sources" - They are not mine, and they do not need to say that. The article says
 * "Allopathic medicine or allopathy is a pejorative used by proponents of alternative medicine",
 * and not
 * "Allopathic medicine or allopathy is a pejorative used everywhere by proponents of alternative medicine",
 * nor
 * "Allopathic medicine or allopathy is always a pejorative used by proponents of alternative medicine",
 * nor
 * "Allopathic medicine or allopathy is a pejorative only used by proponents of alternative medicine".
 * or anything like that. There is no reason to demand that the sources give a stronger statement than the article that quotes them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have arrived at this page via wikipedia comments from some fairly typical 'modern western mainstream' viewpoints. In those conversations any type of 'alternative medicine' is spoken of with a level of disdain which renders 'alternative medicine' to be effectively a pejorative term also. While talking of allopathy I come from a British perspective as a patient who is simply seeking whatever works best for me. When I am consulting my GP I listen carefully & have no wish to denigrate her or her profession but when discussing medical options as a whole I have a need for a term that describes the schools of thought she is trained in. This article section referred to above [[Evidence-based medicine#Limitations and criticism] addresses quite well some views that I share and I'd say are quite widely held. Another example of why some people look for alternatives in medicine is found in another wikipedia article which states < Systemic mycoses due to opportunistic pathogens are infections of patients with immune deficiencies who would otherwise not be infected. Examples of immunocompromised conditions include AIDS, alteration of normal flora by antibiotics, immunosuppressive therapy, and metastatic cancer. > Without antibiotics I would have died a long time ago & I don't think alternatives would've saved me. Equally it must be said antibiotics are often prescribed in non life threatening situations where the balance of risks and benefits looks different. In practical terms there are many instances where the cure leads to new problems which then require another cure & so on. Personally, being rationally trained I find it impossible to place any faith at all in (e.g.) homeopathy but I do personally know individuals who have had consistently good results with certain practitioners for conditions where allopathy has failed them. Perhaps it is a placebo effect but if it works for someone then it works. In short, I & people I know do not generally use the word allopathy in a pejorative sense, we simply use it with an awareness of the limitations of the schools of thought it represents. Another aspect not yet adequately addressed here is the wider philosophical & cultural context in which modern medicine has developed and is practiced, this can become especially relevant when we start to look at choices faced by (e.g.) cancer patients. 86.148.15.235 (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't care how you use words in your life, but we use them properly. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 11:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I certainly appreciate that wikipedia would wish to use words "properly" as you put it but I'm quite sure that the way I use the word is the way it's most commonly used in every day conversation in England. I certainly didn't invent this usage myself & I learnt the meaning I know from people who I'd say were well qualified to explain their meaning to me. In finding ways to improve the article surely that should be acknowledged? It seems reading here that the precise meaning may have shifted over time, however that is the case with much of our language.86.148.15.235 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources are what you need to bring to this discussion, Wikipedia doesn’t care how you learned your usage.-Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Sources are needed for the article, what I hope for is that someone else may at some point be able to bring to the talk page acceptable sources which illustrate my view, either they will or they won't. You need not be afraid that I would be interested in editing the article otherwise. I'm afraid though that I don't find it constructive to be as dogmatic as you seem to be, denial of real world experience is a betrayal of common sense and I can't see how good articles can happen that way.86.148.15.235 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 * You are free to "hope for is that someone else may at some point be able to bring to the talk page acceptable sources which illustrate my view", but the fact that no such reliable sources exist makes this unlikely. I wrote up some good advice for editors in your position at WP:1AM. Please let me know on my talk page whether it helped.

 * "...the fact that no such reliable sources exist makes this unlikely" I am prepared to be very patient here thanks! 86.148.15.235 (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "any type of 'alternative medicine' is spoken of with a level of disdain which renders 'alternative medicine' to be effectively a pejorative term"
 * You misunderstand the meaning of the word "pejorative". 'Alternative medicine' would be a pejorative if the use the word lowered the respect for the concept itself. But the reason alternative medicine is disdained is not the word "alternative medicine", it is the concept itself, which is skipping the careful evidence gathering process and routinely using the stuff on humans when there is no good evidence for its effectiveness, or even when there is good evidence against its effectiveness. Alternative medicine by any other name would stink as bad.
 * Also, please do not use Wikipedia Talk pages as a forum. They are not. Their purpose is the improvement of the article, and you should only do that here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 * My purpose in commenting here (as opposed to elsewhere) has been to assist with badly needed improvement to this article, what I have said is not out of line with now quite extensive discussions above on this page. You might not like the chattiness of my style but it is my way of making points that are relevant to the purpose of this talk page. Dictionaries give a neutral meaning for both allopath & allopathy (while in contrast the same dictionaries - e.g. Oxford English - make clear that terms such as 'paki' & 'nigger' most usually now have informal derogatory meanings). I think it's absolutely fine for the article to point out that allopathy is not a term routinely used by the mainstream medical profession to describe itself & it's fine to point out that there are medical professionals who for various reasons might take offence at this label & it's fine to point out that there have been times when some alternative practitioners have expressed as much contempt for mainstream medicine as you express for them. It isn't fine when using 'look up' on my apple computer automatically takes me to a wikipedia article which straight away introduces allopathy as a pejorative term, that's POV, this is wikipedia spreading fake news. 86.148.15.235 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article uses reliable sources which call the term a pejorative. If you have other reliable source which say it is not a pejorative, name them. That you personally disagree with the reliable sources currently used, and that your dictionary is either not up to date or is not very detailed, is your personal problem, not that of the article. BTW, calling things you disagree with is "fake news" makes people think that your intelligence is only on the same level as a certain US president. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Hi Hob, so far I am relying on the fact that when I wrote that Apple had appeared to connect me directly to the online (so presumably up to date) version of the actual Oxford English Dictionary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary & while there also I was able to confirm that if that (so wikipedia leads me to believe) 'full' version of the OED thinks that the most common current use of a word is chiefly pejorative, then it can be expected to say so. With such slender pickings I could end up with egg on my face so let's see who comes up with the goods. I would urge anyone interested to first view a presentation on http://www.oed.com entitled "Have you ever wondered how words enter the Oxford English Dictionary?" I would then ask you to reflect upon how the valiant but disparate volunteer/amateur resources of wikipedia compare with the professional resources of such a prestigious institution as the OED. In choosing reliable sources for me the OED does what wikipedia aspires to, I would say so far this doesn't look so much like my personal problem but one of whether wikipedia thinks it's a more capable organisation than the OED? My personal view (though shared by some other more experienced WP editors) is that the WP processes for choosing reliable sources are imperfect. In this case for example, where there has been controversy, the context, the circumstances surrounding any sourced information require careful scrutiny. If we already have an opinion & are just looking for something to back it up with things are going to get skewed aren't they? I am English, speaking English every day in England & have been accused of improper use of words in English wikipedia. The OED seemed a good place to go. Is there anywhere better? It turned out that the OED definition was not incompatible with my own everyday experience. Now, I know little of the full story here, my intervention stems chiefly from concern at the social harm liable to be caused by the blanket misrepresentation of essentially innocent social groupings. For a way forward I'm thinking an avenue not yet exhausted is suggested in wikipedia's own page on Pejoratives < Sometimes, a term is regarded as pejorative in some social or ethnic groups but not in others, or may be originally pejorative and eventually be adopted in a non-pejorative sense (or vice versa) in some or all contexts >  < When a term begins as pejorative and eventually is adopted in a non-pejorative sense, this is called "melioration" in historical linguistics. It may also be called amelioration, reclaiming, or semantic change.[5] Some examples of melioration are "punk", "dude" and "nerd".> Finally I apologise that unlike the president of the USA I lack the talent necessary to summarise all of this within the space of a Tweet 86.148.15.235 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Am I getting this right now?
I have been skimming through all the historical discussion here trying to see what the problem really is. It looks to me like the camp that wants to claim that allopathic is always a pejorative (in the face of contrary evidence from many well mainstream websites) has an orchestrated agenda aimed at replacing the current usage of the term 'allopathic' with the term 'evidence based'. It would save an awful lot of bother here if you would just own up. (profound apologies if I'm misjudging anyone). I briefly thought of nominating the article for deletion but actually there's a lot of interesting material gathered here which would be a shame to waste. I now think the real problem with this article begins with its title. An article entitled 'allopathic medicine' ought logically to be based upon the philosophy of those practicing 'allopathic medicine' but as far as I can see a significant proportion of those supposedly practising it reject any concept of it, so that's a recipe for endless conflict. Would a better title be something like 'A history of the usage of the term allopathic medicine'? just a thought...86.148.15.235 (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC) 86.148.15.235 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article - 'Uses & meanings of the term allopathy'
I am a long term user of the terms 'allopathy', 'allopathic' - even allopath for an allopathic practitioner. However, in my view an article entitled 'allopathic medicine' ought logically to be based upon the philosophy of those practicing 'allopathic medicine'. As far as I can see here though a significant proportion of those supposedly practicing it reject any concept of it (& that's fair enough because the term & any definition did not originate within their school of thought). So with the current title we have a recipe for unresolvable unnecessary conflict (within a subject that will remain nevertheless not without controversy). Would a better title be something like the above 'Uses & meanings of the term allopathy'? Or if not then perhaps some variation such as 'A history of the usage of the term allopathic medicine'? 31.51.220.92 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No – there is no reason to rename the article, and it would be contrary to WP:PRECISION to rename it. The situation is not unresolvable at all; it simply needs to reflect the definition used by the preponderance of reliable sources, as Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires. I'll be addressing this separately. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking back at this now, although IP's proposal for a title wouldn't wash, their idea about how to restructure the article is a reasonable one, and has something in common with a Broad concept article, discussed in more detail below (especially, here and here). Also, I no longer agree with my previous comment about using one definition (now struck), based on the preponderance of sources, because a BCA wouldn't have just one definition, it would have several, thus resolving the conflict in warring about a single definition for this article. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight given to negative connotation
The current lead contains a definition which does not represent the majority of reliable sources, which states that it is pejorative when it is not, and which claims that it is "used by proponents of alternative medicine" when in fact, it is used broadly. The overwhelming evidence is that allopathic is a neutral term in current usage, as shown in dictionaries, encyclopedias, in medical schools, in glossaries, and elsewhere; such as these:

Allopathy – that system of medical practice which aims to combat disease by the use of remedies producing effects different from those produced by the special disease treated; —a name invented by Hahnemann, as opposed to homeopathy. Also, erroneously, the system of medical practice making use of all measures which have proved of value in the treatment of disease --Webster's New International Dictionary Second Edition Unabridged G&C Merriam, 1956 Springfield Mass

allopathy – Therapies with remedies that produce effects differeing from those of the disease treated. Compare homeopathy. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Houghton Mifflin Boston 1979

allopathy – The treatment of disease by conventional means, i.e. with drugs having opposite effects to the symptoms. Often contrasted with homeopathy. New Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford Univ. Press NYC 2001

allopathy – a system of medical practice that aims to combat disease by use of remedies (as drugs or surgery) producing effects different from or incompatible with those produced by the disease being treated — compare HOMEOPATHY m-w.com

allopathy – A method of treating disease with remedies that produce effects different from those caused by the disease itself. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2019 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/allopathy

allopathy – The treatment of disease by conventional means, i.e. with drugs having effects opposite to the symptoms. Often contrasted with homeopathy https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/allopathy OUP 2019

allopathy – a name for conventional (= traditional and ordinary) medicine used by some followers of alternative medicine Cambridge Dictionary Cambridge Univ. Press 2019 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/allopathy

allopathy – the method of treating disease by the use of agents that produce effects different from those of the disease treated (opposed to homeopathy). Dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/allopathy, from Am Heritage Stedman's medical Dict, 2002 Houghton Mifflin

allopathy – field of therapeutics concerned with using drugs and other therapies to produce effects upon patient’s body that are opposite from or incompatible with those of disease being treated; term was coined by German physician C.F. Samuel Hahnemann, founder of homeopathy; often considered opposite of homeopathy; word comes from Greek words allos (other) and pathos (suffering); term often wrongly used to describe conventional medicine in general. Brittanica Kids https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Allopathy/316096

M.D.s, also known as allopathic physicians, treat disease mainly with drugs, surgery, and other well-established remedies. Brittanica Kids https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/medicine/275767

There are two kinds of practicing physicians in the United States: allopathic physicians (MD's) and osteopathic physicians (DO's). Both are fully licensed physicians, trained in diagnosing and treating illnesses and disorders, and in providing preventive care. Indiana U Bloomington http://www.hpplc.indiana.edu/medicine/med-res-twokinds.shtml Two Kinds of Physicians: Allopathic and Osteopathic

allopathic medicine refers to a system in which medical doctors and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery. Also called biomedicine, conventional medicine, mainstream medicine, orthodox medicine, and Western medicine. Allopathic physicians receive an MD. https://www.cc-seas.columbia.edu/preprofessional/health/types/allopathic.php "Allopathic Medicine – Overview of the Profession"

allopathic medicine – Allopathic schools, the most widely available type of medical training, confer the MD degree on their graduates. The traditional model of training consists of two years of basic science courses followed by two years of clinical rotations. Allopathic schools focus on the “systems-based” approach to medicine. The program is organized around physiologic systems, such as the endocrine system or the nervous system. Many schools employ case studies and teach through clinical vignettes. Allopathic training will give you the option to practice in any of the medical specialties and is universally recognized as the medical degree, including international practice. "Types of Medical School Programs and How They Lead into Primary Care" https://www.aafp.org/medical-school-residency/premed/programs.html AAFP American Academy of Family Physicians

ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE (M.D.) – According to MedTerms Dictionary, allopathic medicine is defined as “The system of medical practice which treats disease by the use of remedies which produce effects different from those produced by the disease under treatment. M.D.s practice allopathic medicine. The term “allopathy” was coined in 1842 by C.F.S. Hahnemann to designate the usual practice of medicine (allopathy) as opposed to homeopathy, the system of therapy that he founded based on the concept that disease can be treated with drugs (in minute doses) thought capable of producing the same symptoms in healthy people as the disease itself.” Johns Hopkins University https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/preprofadvising/pre-medhealth/overview/allopathic-medicine/

allopathic medicine – A system in which medical doctors and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery. Also called biomedicine, conventional medicine, mainstream medicine, orthodox medicine, and Western medicine. National Cancer Institute https://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/oilspill/20120921182436/http://www.cancer.gov/dictionary?CdrID=454742

The allopathic medical degree is the traditional medical degree, and these physicians can take patient histories, order laboratory tests, read x-rays, diagnose illness or the extent of an injury, and prescribe medications. They have also completed hands-on training in an area of specialty that gives them license to perform a variety of tasks specific to their residency or fellowship training (i.e., surgery). Allopathic physicians can do a residency in any medical specialty that they choose (and get accepted into) such as family practice, cardiothoracic surgery, orthopedics, pediatrics, etc. "What does an allopathic physician do?" Wittenburg University https://www.wittenberg.edu/academics/pre-professional-programs/allopathic-medicine

DO vs. MD: The differences -Most students attend traditional (or allopathic) medical schools that offer an MD. However, osteopathic medical schools are growing in popularity. David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA https://medschool.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=1158&action=detail&ref=1019

This table reviews MCAT and GPAs for applicants and acceptees to U.S. allopathic medical schools in the 2017-2018 application cycle. "AAMC Allopathic Medical School Data: MCAT, GPA and Major" https://www.wellesley.edu/careereducation/resources/aamc-allopathic-medical-school-data-mcat-gpa-and-major Wellesley College

allopathy – The mode of curing diseases by restoring the natural and healthy functions of the body, by using remedies calculated either to combine with, and thereby neutralize the morbid material in the diseased system, or by expelling the same through the emunctories, or by doing both, and sometimes by producing gradual and systematic counteractions. The Kansas City Medical Index-lancet, Volume 8, Issue 9 (August 11, 1887) p. 377

allopathic medicine is the mainstream practice within the National Health Service. It treats medical conditions mainly by attacking their symptoms, usually with pharmaceutical products or with surgical interventions. Allopathic medicine makes great use of technology, and relies on scientific research to establish the safety and efficacy of the methods and products used in its practice. Moonie, Neil: "GCE AS Level Health and Social Care Double Award Book" (2005) p.332

allopathy: The system of medical practice which treats disease by the use of remedies which produce effects different from those produced by the disease under treatment. MDs practice allopathic medicine. MedicineNet, https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10981

None of these sources mention "pejorative", and only one of them mentions "used by proponents of alternative medicine".

The article needs to have a definition in the lead which corresponds to the majority view, such as this one from April 23:

"Allopathic medicine or allopathy is a term which refers to modern scientific systems of medicine, such as the use of pharmacologically active agents or physical interventions to treat or suppress symptoms or pathophysiologic processes of diseases or conditions."

That is a fair paraphrase for most of the sources above.

Sources viewing the term as "pejorative" are in the minority. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, the minority views should not be mentioned first in the lead, nor first in the body sections that cover them, but rather after the majority view, and only in in proportion to their presence in reliable sources; and the defining sentence should give a standard definition like the ones found everywhere. Sources that support minority views may of course be used, but should not be cherry-picked to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE with the majority view, which should predominate. Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I just did my own search to see how the term is defined in various widely-read sources. I purposely did not restrict myself to reliable sources, because some definitions are widely used and are defined in widely-read unreliable sources while the reliable sources give you the little-used but correct definition. Here are my results.

 * Allopathy: the method of treating disease by the use of agents that produce effects different from those of the disease treated (opposed to homeopathy). --dictionary.com
 * Allopathic: relating to or being a system of medicine that aims to combat disease by using remedies (such as drugs or surgery) which produce effects that are different from or incompatible with those of the disease being treated. First Known Use of allopathic: First Known Use of allopathic: 1827, in the meaning defined above --Merriam Webster
 * Allopathic: Pejorative retronym. First invented by homeopaths trying to poke fun at orthodox medicine in the 1800s, the term gained new life in the 20th Century as a retronym to distinguish medical doctors (MDs) from osteopathic physicians (DOs). --Urban Dictionary
 * Allopathy: (in homeopathic medicine) the orthodox system of medicine, in which the use of drugs is directed to producing effects in the body that will directly oppose and so alleviate the symptoms of a disease. Compare homeopathy. --Oxford Reference
 * Allopathy: Allopathy is a term used by American homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors and other advocates of alternative health practices to refer to scientific medicine. My Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition) defines allopathy as "the method of treating disease by the use of agents that produce effects different from those of the disease treated (opposed to homeopathy)." The word was invented by homeopath Samuel Hahnemann as a term for those who are other than homeopaths. In America, the term has not caught on and is used mainly by "alternative" practitioners and some osteopaths. Further reading: Sampson, Wallace and Lewis Vaughn. (2000). Science Meets Alternative Medicine: What the Evidence Says About Unconventional Treatments.], [Misuse of the Term "Allopathy" by William T. Jarvis, Ph.D.] --Skeptics Dictionary

 * So my search leads me to the conclusion that the term may have started out as a pejorative and may appear to be only used as a pejorative if all you read are fringe sites or skeptic sites, but that Mathglot got it exactly right concerning the definition used by medical professionals and by that part of the general public who know what the word means. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cpsos-muddled-draft-policy-on-non-allopathic-medicine/ and https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33612 list it as derogatory. While Science-Based Medicine counts as a "skeptic" site, I think that MedicineNet is "part of the general public".
 * It looks like one of the problems is that the current meaning varies by culture. It's non-derogatory in India.  It's more or less tolerated in the US in the context of DOs differentiating themselves from MDs, but not necessarily in other contexts.  It is unusual to find an American MD who self-identifies that way by preference.  Specifically in the context of homeopathy, it's not really intended to be a neutral descriptor.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the first page I have ever removed from my watchlist, (that I can remember). -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I am not sure how relevant this is. Do those sources usually say a word is pejorative if it is?
 *
 *
 *
 * After looking at those three examples, I think I would be able to "prove", using the same method, that "bastard" is not pejorative or derogatory. But it is.
 * Also, since when do we use sources which don't say one specific thing for canceling out other sources that do? I often had to tell pseudoscience proponents that we don't do that. Is there a Wikipedia rule that says sources can be used for voting each other down? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Another thing: "used by proponents of alternative medicine" may be rare, but either homeopathy or another fringe subject appears in the definitions most of the time as the opposite. That means that those sources have a some-say-yes-others-say-no stance regarding fringe subjects. Wikipedia explicitly does not. Also, they are dictionaries and have short entries. Wikipedia is not and does not. It seems dubious to me to dilute our rules by copying their stance. Wikipedia always contains stuff dictionaries do not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Hi, Hob, a couple of points:
 * I agree that the sources you quoted don't say that bastard is pejorative. But first you say, "but it is", which seems to be a proxy for the argument, "since the reliable sources either don't mention by choice, or screwed up and forgot to mention that bastard is pejorative, that means we can assume they forgot to say "allopathic" is pejorative, and are free to mark it so." If that's what you're saying (it's not clear to me why you brought up bastard otherwise), then there are two problems: as WP editors, we can't decide that bastard is pejorative, and secondly, even if it is, it has no bearing on the situation with "allopathic", whose "pejorativeness" (or lack thereof) is an independent research question, irrespective of the situation with bastard.
 * We can't base Wikipedia articles on what reliable sources don't say, just because they also don't say something somewhere else that looks pretty similar to us; or because of our assumptions about why they don't say it. I think the policy about verifiability is clear on this point.
 * I agree that MD's rarely call themselves "allopathic doctors" or say that they follow "allopathic medicine". But this is very different from claiming that's not what they are. This can best be understood as an aspect of linguistic markedness: "doctor" means "medical doctor", i.e., a physician with an M.D. degree.  But nobody says, "My brother is an allopathic doctor." People use the "minimum-effort form" because doctor is the unmarked term, and it is not necessary to say "allopathic", because "allopathic doctor" is the primary form.  It is only when you mean to indicate a secondary form, that you need to specify it to eliminate confusion: "My brother is an osteopath." (In fact, they rarely would say "My brother is a medical doctor" either; and for the same reason.)  This also explains why you don't see allopathic all that often in medical schools, because most offer only the M.D. degree, and saying "M.D." is equivalent to stating "degree to practice allopathic medicine".  However, any medical school that offers both the M.D., and D.O., almost invariably mentions "allopathic medicine" somewhere, in order to distinguish it from the "other" medicine, i.e., osteopathic medicine.
 * When allopathic and osteopathic are in dyadic opposition, they are both neutral, descriptive adjectives, distinguising one form of medicine (or physician, or medical diploma) from another, and are often issued by the same medical school. That is the majority of cases among dyads where allopathic is one member. The days when allopathy and homeopathy were the main dyad are gone, but no doubt a minority still intend the former negatively.  Interestingly, I find that while the principles and practice of homeopathy are definitely viewed as pseudoscience by traditional doctors, the word homeopathic itself seems to carry none of that baggage.  Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hob, further to your point questioning whether sources saying something is pejorative if it is: I don't know if they do, in those three cases. Clearly, some articles here indicate that a term is pejorative, for example, this at Queer: Critics of the use of the term include members of the LGBT community who associate the term more with its colloquial usage as a derogatory insult..., along with the appropriate sourcing.  So I certainly see no bar to saying so, if it is indeed the case. We just need the sources, mentioned in proportion to their majority/minority views. Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 * "as WP editors, we can't decide that bastard is pejorative, and secondly, even if it is, it has no bearing on the situation with "allopathic", whose "pejorativeness" (or lack thereof) is an independent research question, irrespective of the situation with bastard."
 * That is not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say, or rather, I did actually say: "since when do we use sources which don't say one specific thing for canceling out other sources that do?"
 * The bastard example was just my clumsy way of explaining that the argument from silence is a fallacy, using the same online dictionaries as you did.
 * We do have sources which say allopathic is pejorative. We also have sources which do not. The second ones do not cancel the first ones because the argument from silence is a fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see what you meant by that, now. And of course you're right about some sources not "cancelling out" other sources. But what we're supposed to do in that case, per Neutral point of view, is to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints... in proportion to the prominence of each, and that "articles should not give minority views... as much ...[space].. as more widely held views."
 * I think based on the proportion of each, the lead does that fairly now, with the homeopathic definition inm the second paragraph. However, the article body is way out of line, and since the lead is supposed to follow the body, that's actually a serious mismatch, and needs to be corrected. User:WhatamIdoing has an interesting proposal, that might speak to that. Mathglot (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * About fairly representing all significant viewpoints: the absence of "pejorative" in all those sources is not a viewpoint. It is the absence of a viewpoint. If even one of them said it is not pejorative, instead of all of them ignoring the issue, then you would have a point. As it is, you do not.
 * That way of thinking is completely foreign to me. If we followed it consequently, WP would be empty, because for every sentence that could be in it, there are legions of sources that do not corroborate it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I agree that MD's rarely call themselves "allopathic doctors" or say that they follow "allopathic medicine"." – outside of the Indian subcontinent. If you ask your favorite web search engine about , you will get a very different POV.
 * I sometimes wonder about turning this page into a disambiguation page, like this:
 * Then details from the current article relevant to each of these meanings could go into the relevant article, and we wouldn't have to have an article about three different subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is very interesting; at first glance, it might solve a bunch of problems, including the body-lead mismatch I alluded to above, as well as others. I need to think about it some more, but I think it deserves serious consideration. Maybe you'd like to restate this as a proposal in a new section, or just break it out by adding an H2 section header above your comment?
 * Also, thanks for the reminder about Indian usage. I did not turn up a lot of mentions of ayurvedic medicine in a general search, although I recognize that that contrast exists in India. Of course, if you add the term to the search query, you're going to turn up more of them, probably disproportionately to the overall picture, so we'd have to be careful about proper proportion, if everything stays in this (or any one) article. A look at the results from, say,   illustrates what I mean.  But by going with your Dab proposal, that whole issue goes away. Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll make a new section. Maybe this (or something like it) will be what we want to try next.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll make a new section. Maybe this (or something like it) will be what we want to try next.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Based on the discussion above, the subject does not belong to alternative medicine. Hence I am going to remove the template unless other contributors object. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we just say, "drugs"?
Can we just say "drugs" in the first sentence, instead of "pharmacologically active agents"?

I think it's a good idea to keep the lead, and especially the first sentence of an article as simple as possible without sacrificing accuracy. There's plenty of room to go into technical detail, and more jargon, in the body of the article. Most people never read past the lead upon visiting a page, and no doubt many are just looking at the first sentence or two, or even just the snippet that Google search gives them, and a lot of those are probably doing homework. It would be nice if we could have a comprehensible, one-sentence take-away, for those that never get very far past that point. I'd hate to take a pop quiz demanding a definition of "pathophysiological processes". How about instead of the current first sentence (see a copy of it in the section above, or here: permalink) we have something like this instead: "Allopathic medicine or allopathy is a term which refers to science-based, modern medicine, such as the use of drugs or surgery to treat or suppress symptoms or the ill effects of disease."

Note on changes: "Physical intervention" is just a piped link to surgery, so let's just say that. (There are other, non-surgical interventions: CPR is one. Chemotherapy and radiation are others.  But I don't think that all needs to go in the first sentence; or maybe we could say, "surgery and other medical treatment".) I removed "conditions" because medical condition just redirects to "disease" already. "Pathophysiological" is basically "malfunctioning biological bodily processes" (i.e., the mechanism of disease) but at a first sentence-level, that's kind of redundant with "disease" and I don't think it adds anything. Added links to treat and drugs.

And that's only working with that one lead sentence and simplifying it; we could pick a completely different starting point based on one of the many other definitions; see the collapse boxes above. But my basic idea was to demystify it. I think a weakness of the proposed sentence (as well as the jargony one) is that it omits a key part of the meaning, namely, a treatment that produces different effects than those of the disease itself. But I think that would be difficult to squeeze into one sentence in a way that was clear; I think it would be okay to add a second sentence to explain that part of it, or even just leave the detail for the body. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

 * This is a good idea, User:Mathglot. And since the sentence is giving examples ("such as"), listing the most common and recognizable examples is a good idea.
 * You might consider a link to Modern medicine (the relevant section on the page that scientific medicine points to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you envision adding that link? Currently we have  . Were you thinking of something like,  ? Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, still need ideas how to work in the missing bit, presumably in a second sentence of the lead paragaph, unless it fits better in the body? Mathglot (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of, since the redirect will take the reader to the right section.
 * I'm not sure that the etymology-based definition is relevant, or even true. Desensitization therapy probably produces the same effects as the allergy/sensitivity being treated, but it's still science-based, modern medicine.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change as you proposed. The "opposite effects" part of the definition seems not to be relevant for modern medicine, or Ayurvedic, afaict. I suppose it could be kept as part of the original sense as invented by Hahnemann. Mathglot (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Doc James changed "drugs" to "medications", which I think is fine. It's still perfectly clear, and there's probably some nuance between the two I'm not aware of, or maybe it's just the secondary bad connotations of "drugs" (brings to mind, "dealers", "addiction", etc.) In any case, beats the heck out of "pharmacologically active agents". Mathglot (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Make this page a disambiguation page
Allopathy is a exonym for mainstream medicine. It was created by and is used by people who don't do mainstream medical practice, as a means of differentiating themselves. Sometimes this term is used disparagingly; sometimes it's for lack of a better alternative. Getting this page "right" has been a struggle for years, because different people think it "should" mean different things.

I propose solving the problem by sending people to the pages where all of those things can be explained, instead of continuing to mix things up here. This means that parts of this page would get WP:MERGEd to other pages, and we'd have a simple WP:DPAGE page here, approximately along these lines:

Allopathic medicine may refer to:

 * Modern medicine, especially in contrast to ayurvedic medicine
 * Conventional medicine, especially in contrast to Osteopathic medicine in the United States and Canada
 * Heroic medicine in the 19th century, especially in contrast to homeopathy

(This is just given as an example; we can sort out the ideal links and phrasing later.)

The merge project should be fairly quick and easy. Turning this into a disambiguation page will also produce a little clean-up work for the existing links, but most of the links are via Alternative medicine sidebar (it should probably be removed, rather than replaced), and the remaining ~60 are probably something we can handle (and that User:Narky Blert will remind WP:MED about if needed).

The main advantage is that we won't have to maintain an article whose topic is "Plain old Medicine, except with a side order of whatever whomever differs from it says". I think this could do a great deal to centralize information, reduce duplications, and get readers to the content that interests them most.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do indeed have a another pile of bookmarked medicine-related articles with ambiguous links which I haven't yet told WP:MED about. They turn up in my routine activities: I find 'em, you fix 'em.
 * As an alternative to a DAB page, how about a WP:BCA? I'm thinking of a trimmed-down and pretty concise version of the current page, with short paragraphs (or sections) describing the various meanings and including the relevant links. That would get round the potential MOS:DABENTRY problem of "Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line" (emphasis in the original).
 * has identified a key issue: readers might be searching for either allopathic medicine (as distinguished from so-called medicine) or so-called allopathic medicine (as distinguished from medicine), i.e. the term as used by proponents or opponents. A BCA could be neutral on the issue of what is or is not woo; that battle can be fought out in the main articles. All a BCA would need do is set out the various meanings, and non-contentiously point readers in the relevant directions. Narky Blert (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * DABSTYLE says "Rarely should a bulleted entry have more than one navigable link; including more than one link can confuse the reader", and I think that this is one of those rare cases. In most cases, I think the readers aren't actually looking for this page; they're looking for the page that explains this term in relationship to one of its opposites.
 * (It wouldn't be BCA; it'd be a set index. It's 'all the things that are called this' rather than 'this broad concept'.  The overlap between the first two is substantial, but modern medicine has almost nothing to do with heroic medicine.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "In most cases, I think the readers aren't actually looking for this page; they're looking for the page that explains this term in relationship to one of its opposites." I completely agree.
 * The meanings are disparate, and who knows what new meaning someone might dream up next? A WP:SIA instead of a BCA would work for me; just, not a DAB page. None of the links would match the title.
 * In summary: I like the idea of a stable navigation page which is unlikely to get hijacked. (It might be a good idea to include a stern hidden warning at the top of the page to deter editors with an agenda to push.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with anything that involves "paragraphs" is that one paragraph begets two, and two begets four, and four begets six, and then we're right back here with the "but this is all biased, because in my culture, this word means..." problem all over again. A plain page DAB page signals "Go away and write all of those paragraphs somewhere else" far more effectively than any hidden warning ever could.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * generally agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At first blush, this sounds good to me. Also, the two-links-per-entry also seems quite defensible in this case. Is it premature to also discuss here what would happen with all the content already in the article? Also, WhatamIdoing, thanks for adding the feedback request at WT:MED; are there any other projects where a notice would make sense?  Perhaps at WP:WPDAB?  Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinking some more about this, I'm trying to weigh the set index article idea, vs. the DAB page idea and 's concern that a SIA might get bloated and we'd end up back here again. So, I'd like to pose the question to both of youUser:Narky Blert do we have real world examples or data about what happens to SIA articles, and is SIA-bloat-creep an actual thing, or just an empty worry?  I think one of these two suggestions is the way to go, I just don't know yet which one would be better.
 * Also, if it's going to be an SIA, a practical questions poses itself: what would the title be? Since an SIA is a list article, typically it's "List of <something>s", and I started thinking of what goes in the blank. "List of allopathic medicine comparands" (or, contrasting therapies, comparisons, discriminants, antonyms)? They all sound pretty awkward. If for no other reason than ease of implementation, this might favor the DAB page solution. Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Other places to notify might be WP:DAB, WP:SIA and WP:BCA. The more input, the better.
 * It seems to me that there is a broad WP:CONSENSUS that this should be essentially a navigation page, and that its current form is not the best. The discussion is about what form would be best.
 * I have no experience of bloat-creep in SIAs, though I do have some experience of it on DAB pages: there can be a tendency (which should be ruthlessly suppressed) to add free-associating see-also's to synonyms which no-one deliberately landing on the DAB page would be looking for. (See e.g. Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 50.)
 * If the article is turned into a navigation page of some sort, extraneous material should be merged into the target pages; and it should probably be there already. Narky Blert (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with you that there's at least a mini-consensus forming; should we wait a bit for others to weigh in? Or be bold and go for it, and see if there's a revert?  I guess I'd lean to waiting a week or two to see if there are any big objections, but curious what y'all think.  What about you, Ozzie, WhatamIdoing? Mathglot (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Listed: at WT:DAB, WT:SIA, WT:BCA. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting earlier listing: at WT:MED by Ozzie. Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Listed: at WT:WPDIS. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey
Should the article Allopathic medicine get converted to a DAB page, BCA (Broad concept article) or a Set-index article, remain As is, or something else?

 * BCA  DAB – at this point, I'm leaning to DAB page with two blue links per entry, as proposed above by WaId, but am open to persuasion otherwise. Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering II's comments below, and taking another look, I'm leaning BCA now. See below. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation is OK but personally would prefer not to link to redirects in a disambiguation page. But that's not too big of a deal to me. Page should definitely mention alternative medicine since that's where it comes from. Set-index seems maybe ok too, not as familiar. II  | (t - c) 06:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * II, unless I'm missing something myself, there would be no link to redirects in the entries in a proposed DAB. See sample DAB entries above; none are redirects. Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I only see the example at the top - modern medicine and conventional medicine are both redirects into medicine. II  | (t - c) 07:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right; will have to look into that. Anyway, agree with you, that they shouldn't be redirects. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 * BCA --- this really isn't an SIA, which would be a list of the different instances of the same type of objects (e.g., "ships" or "mountains") with the same name. —hike395 (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * DAB. Keep it simple. There should be no need for second links in any line, see discussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BCA. As a rule of thumb, when you start talking about needing to make a disambiguation page with exceptions to MOS:DAB to accommodate peculiarities of the topic, then what you need is probably something other than a disambiguation page. In this case, I would say that what is needed is a broad concept article delineating the relationship between uses (and misuses) of the term. bd2412  T 00:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BCA (note that appears to be the same option as As is). WP:SUBPOV details how this is a legitimate article from a different POV. (and it certainly is invalid as a dab or SIA). Widefox ; talk 06:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Widefox, please see discussion below for why I believe they're not the same. Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dab, list , article. (the A in BCA). I !vote against a non-article and for an article. Widefox ; talk 07:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BOTH. Like Open source is a new BCA after I overflowed the Open source (disambiguation) with profoundly missing information and redirected countless ambiguous links from Open source licence, Open source model, and Open source software, and we finally agreed it needed all of the above.  ~   JasonCarswell   (talk)   18:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Open source is a complicated concept with a network of logical connections. Allopathic medicine does not have a life of its own beyond the word itself as a synonym or antonym. So, bad comparison. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Open source is a valid BCA and a valid dab. This is a valid BCA and a poor or invalid dab. Widefox ; talk 12:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BCA. Second choice, DAB. Not both, not none of them, not SIA, and not what it is now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BCA. The introduction could explain that the word has been independently devised several times, always as a distinction from some other term, but always from the same Greek roots. The business part could then set out what those meanings are and their opposites. Narky Blert (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Independently? Are there sources for that? My impression was that after Hahnemann invented the word, proponents of other quackeries adopted it. The word does not really make sense as an antonym to ayurveda or osteopathy. "Allo" (other) is sort of the opposite of "homeo" (similar), but not of "osteo" (bone). And ayurveda, with its humors, is itself pretty similar to the heroic medicine of Hahnemann's time. Homeopathy is very popular in India, so ayurveda practioners likely got the word from there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BCA. Basically this is what I wanted to achieve some time ago, but it was not received well at the time. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 21:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BCA or Remain As-is. I think this article serves a very useful purpose, is well-written from the perspective of mainstream expert sources, and is a battleground for homoeopaths. I don't think we should change it just because it is describing a pejorative usage, since it describes that usage in an encyclopedic and unbiased way. I was leaning BCA, but the BCA proposals below are not sufficient in my mind. They all remove encyclopedic information from this article. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hybrid of the current content (good text poorly organised) restructured like the BCA proposed below (good format but too short). Failing that, either as-is or the BCA but not a dab. Certes (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
In the section above, WhatamIdoing said, This is what I was referring to, in my original survey !vote above (since changed). I agree that this is one of those rare cases: each of the entries will have one other article that is distinguished from allopathic medicine, and that is the second blue link. This is, indeed, one of those rare cases. Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that there's any need or benefit to having multiple wikilinks in any line of this DAB. If we do need them, then either the DAB structure is faulty (dealing with two topics in one line) or the article structure is faulty (not adequately covering the topic described by the article name, owing to either an ambiguous name without a hatnote, or the article needing expansion). These problems should be addressed rather than worked-around by a tweak in the DAB (with rare exceptions, and this isn't one). Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, Andrewa. The problem I see with a DAB (after initially being in favor of it) is that each of the DAB entries would point to the same article, i.e., Medicine. That makes it not a DAB, in my opinion. Or were you envisioning other articles as the targets? Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

BCA prop 1
WhatamIdoing, II has a point; if we don't have three different articles to point to, then it's not a DAB page, right? Entries can't all point to "medicine" even if it's contrasted with something else. And it doesn't seem to be a SIA either, because it's always basically the same thing, but defined in terms of what it is not (not homeopathy, not ostepathy, not ayurvedic). So, I'm starting to think more about BCA, now. We could have:
 * Allopathic medicine is a term used at different times and in different places to describe what we now label scientific medicine, western medicine, or just plain medicine, as contrasted with a competing system of health maintenance or treatment of illness, from each of whose perspectives different aspects of allopathic medicine were emphasized in the comparison. The term was created by S.H. in year, and then took on other meanings.
 * [section on 19th c. creation of the word, and description of how it was used by Hahnemann to contrast with homeopathy, and any pejorative sense it took on. How viewed now by homeopaths, if different.]
 * [section on how it's used mostly in 20th c. N. America as a neutral word to distiguish from osteopathy, etc., otherwise not used.]
 * [section (possibly just a definition sentence with a couple of references) on how it's used to contrast with ayurvedic medicine in India (20th c?)]
 * [section on how it's used mostly in 20th c. N. America as a neutral word to distiguish from osteopathy, etc., otherwise not used.]
 * [section (possibly just a definition sentence with a couple of references) on how it's used to contrast with ayurvedic medicine in India (20th c?)]
 * [section (possibly just a definition sentence with a couple of references) on how it's used to contrast with ayurvedic medicine in India (20th c?)]

Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since scientific medicine and western medicine are both redirects to medicine, we should not have links, but rather write
 * what we now label "scientific medicine", "western medicine", or just plain medicine
 * to avoid frustration when readers click the links.
 * Also, "western medicine" is similar to "allopathic medicine" insofar as it is "just a term used to describe medicine, as contrasted with competing systems of health maintenance or treatment of illness, for example Traditional Chinese Medicine". On top of that, homeopathy could be called "traditional western medicine", from an Asian viewpoint. That is why I would drop any mention of "western medicine" altogether and just say
 * what we now label "scientific medicine" or just plain medicine
 * Otherwise, it looks fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Took your advice, and made changes in the boxed material per your suggestions. Mathglot (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A dab would work well if we were distinguishing between three similarly named articles on non-homeopathic, non-osteopathic and non-ayurvedic medicine respectively. However, as Mathglot and others have pointed out, those three topics are one and the same: (scientific) medicine.  The current article isn't bad but should distinguish the three meanings better.  (How appropriate to treat allopathy by presenting its opposites rather than the term itself!) The BCA outline presented above would achieve that but I would reorganise most of the existing content into those sections rather than shortening the article drastically. Have we covered (or decided not to cover) sense 1. in allopathy: a system of alternative medicine that treats symptoms with substances that produce the opposite effect?  That overlaps with heroic medicine but I think it's a different concept. Certes (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * what we now label "scientific medicine" or just plain medicine – Who is this "we" · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it was pre-scientific medicine when the term was coined. But I think we could say "conventional medicine" in all three cases.
 * Mathglot, this is an improvement over what we've got now, and I would very much like to see you put it in the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirect

 * Why can't this be a redirect to a section within the medicine article? If the Heroic medicine linkage is an issue, just use the Template:Redirect template on that section. ie. ''"Allopathic medicine" redirects here. For the humoral imbalance therapeutic method, see Heroic medicine. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 01:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the BCA option the same as 'As is'?
In their !vote, Widefox opted for BCA, adding: . But I don't agree; I think they are distinct. I see the BCA as different in an important way for what is there now, and also some of the arguments that have happened on Talk before, as well as the whip-sawing of the lead back-and-forth (see the History over several years). The difference to me, is this: if it is a BCA, then there's no need to argue over which one has an overall "majority" of the reliable sources, because majority/minority wouldn't be relevant anymore.

To give an example: I find it completely pointless to determine if more reliable sources contrast allopathy with ayurvedic medicine or with homeopathy in order to establish the "correct" lead and defining sentence. Once we've agreed (if we agree) that it's a BCA, now we can approach it completely differently, and the RSes in each camp simply belong to the sections devoted to them. See below for an attempt to draft something that would demonstrate this distinction with the "As is" version.

Putting it another way, given the article's history, nobody can really agree on what the "As is" version really is. (We've already lost one years-long editor of this article, who has removed it from their watchlist.) The BCA idea is an attempt to resolve this intractable disagreement about what allopathy "really" means, and put an end to the fighting about a single definition, that will probably never work, in favor of multiple definitions. The lead paragraph should merely indicate this state of affairs, without choosing one definition over the other. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My point being a !vote for an article, as opposed to a dab or a specific type of list (SIA). WP:BCA A broad-concept article is an article .... Once an article is decided, editors can follow normal editing without the distraction of dabs and SIAs. Widefox ; talk 07:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with on the plan described above. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 22:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Elaborated introduction
A comparison between Allopathy and traditional medical systems should be there. Pinkpantherol (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And from which reliable source are we supposed to get it? Also, this article is not about the thing some people call AM, it is about the term AM which is used by those people. Such comparisons are off-topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Allopathy is usefull in emergency.but curing disease Alternative medicines having more calliber.
some Alternative medicines are best and safer than Allopathy in most of the cases,Allopathy is usefull in emergency care.,in long run it is bad for health. Health insure (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello, please read WP:FORUM. Make sure you use those pages only to propose specific changes to the article. And make sure you provide sources. --McSly (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

English Medicine
I am not a native English Men. We call allopathy as English Medicine generally, I don't know, whether I am making a right sense, when we say Allopathy, it means I get an immediate effect in my body, so, in short, we used say that it as a English Medicine.

But in the article I am not finding the term English at all.

HOWEVER SO, it gives the immediate resoultion to the specific problem that we have in our body by making inference to the problem by Physiology & Anatomy, the English Medicine leads to lot of side effects, so the continous intake leads to adverse effects and even it leads to the DEATH OF a MAN.

Rather, saying it as a Allopathic medicine saying it as English Medicine is the right fit, however so, the Article cannot be named like English Medicine, please use the term English in the Article. IT MEANS a LOT!

–AtTEngima (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is not about medicine, also called "scientific medicine" (both are the correct terms for it), and called "allopathic medicine" by quacks. It is about the term "allopathic medicine". It makes no sense to rename it.
 * If you want an article about the term "English medicine", you should make a new one. But only if you have reliable sources, which you do not seem to have. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @AtTEngima, could you tell us some of the countries that use the name "English medicine"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Continent - Africa—AtTEngima (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just less than Homeopathy not greater than Unani—AtTEngima (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Still no sources. Please read WP:RS to find out what you need to add something to a Wikipedia article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Allopathic medicine


text:
HMS Inflexible (1907)

HMS Inflexible  was one of three Invincible-class battlecruisers built for the Royal Navy before World War I and had an active career during the war. She tried to hunt down the German battlecruiser SMS Goeben and the light cruiser SMS Breslau in the Mediterranean Sea when war broke out and she and her sister ship HMS Invincible (1907) sank the German armoured cruisers SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau during the Battle of the Falkland Islands. Inflexible bombarded Turkish forts in the Dardanelles in 1915, but was damaged by return fire and struck a mine while maneuvering. She had to be beached to prevent her from sinking, but she was patched up and sent to Malta, and then Gibraltar for more permanent repairs. Transferred to the Grand Fleet afterwards, she damaged the German battlecruiser SMS Lützow during the Battle of Jutland in 1916 and watched Invincible explode. She was deemed obsolete after the war and was sold for scrap in 1921.

Design
The Invincible-class ships were formally known as armoured cruisers until 1911 when they were redesignated as battlecruisers by an Admiralty order of 24 November 1911. Unofficially a number of designations were used until then, including cruiser-battleship, dreadnought cruiser and battle-cruiser.

General characteristics
Inflexible was significantly larger than her armoured cruiser predecessors of the Minotaur-class cruiser (1906). She had an overall length of 567 ft, a beam of 78 ft, and a draught of 29 ft at deep load. She displaced 17290 LT at load and 20700 LT at deep load, nearly 3000 LT more than the earlier ships.

Propulsion
Inflexible had two paired sets of Parsons direct-drive turbines, each of which was housed in a separate engine-room and drove an outboard and inboard shaft. The high-pressure ahead and astern turbines were coupled to the outboard shafts and the low-pressure turbines to the inner shafts. A cruising turbine was also coupled to each inner shaft; these were not used often and were eventually disconnected. The turbines were powered by thirty-one Yarrow water-tube boilers in four boiler rooms. The turbines were designed to produce a total of 41000 shp, but reached nearly 47000 shp during her trials in 1908. She was designed for 25 kn, but reached 26.48 kn during trials. She carried 3084 LT of coal, and an additional 725 LT of fuel oil that was to be sprayed on the coal to increase its burn rate. At full fuel capacity, she could steam for 3090 nmi at a speed of 10 kn.

Armament
Inflexible mounted eight BL 12 in Mk X guns in four twin hydraulically powered turrets. Her secondary armament consisted of sixteen 4 in QF Mk III guns. In 1915, the turret roof guns were transferred to the superstructure, and the total number of guns was reduced to twelve. All of the remaining guns were enclosed in casemates and given blast shields at that time to better protect the gun crews from weather and enemy action. These guns were replaced by twelve 4-inch BL MK IX guns on CPI mountings during 1917.

Her anti-aircraft armament consisted of a single QF 3 in 20 cwt AA gun on a high-angle MKII mount at the aft end of the superstructure that was carried from July 1915. A 3-pounder Hotchkiss gun on a high-angle MkIc mounting with a maximum elevation of 60° was fitted in November 1914 and used until August 1917. A 4-inch BL MK VII on a HA MkII mount was added in April 1917. Five 18 in submerged torpedo tubes were fitted on the Invincibles, two on each side and one in the stern. Fourteen torpedoes were carried for them.

Armour
The armour protection given to the Invincibles was heavier than that of the Minotaurs; their waterline belt measured 6 in amidships in contrast to the 4 in belt of their predecessors. The belt was 6 inches thick roughly between the fore and aft 12-inch gun turrets, but was reduced to four inches from the fore turret to the bow, but did not extend aft of the rear turret. The gun turrets and barbettes were protected by 7 in of armour, except for the turret roofs which used 3 in of Krupp non-cemented armour (KNC). The thickness of the main deck was 1 - 2 in and the lower deck armour was 1.5 - 2.5 in. Mild steel torpedo bulkheads of 2.5-inch thickness were fitted abreast the magazines and shell rooms.

After the Battle of Jutland revealed her vulnerability to plunging shellfire, additional armour was added in the area of the magazines and to the turret roofs. The exact thickness is not known, but it was unlikely to be thick as the total amount was less than 100 LT.

Construction and career
She was authorized in the naval expansion program of 1905, and built at the John Brown & Company shipyard on the Clyde. She was laid down on 5 February 1906, launched on 26 June 1907, and commissioned on 20 October 1908. Inflexible was initially assigned to the Nore Division of the British Home Fleet. She was the temporary flagship of Admiral of the Fleet Sir Edward Hobart Seymour while in New York for the Hudson–Fulton Celebration in September 1909. On 26 May 1911, she was in a collision with the battleship HMS Bellerophon (1907) that damaged her bow. She was refitted in October–November 1911, where her fore funnel was also raised by 6 ft to reduce smoke interference with the bridge.

Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau
On the outbreak of the First World War, Inflexible was flagship of the Mediterranean Fleet. Accompanied by HMS Indefatigable (1909), under the command of Admiral Sir Archibald Berkeley Milne she encountered the German battlecruiser SMS Goeben and the light cruiser SMS Breslau on the morning of 4 August 1914 headed east after a cursory bombardment of the French Algerian port of Philippeville, but Britain and Germany were not yet at war so Milne turned to shadow the Germans as they headed back to Messina to recoal. All three battlecruisers had problems with their boilers, but Goeben and Breslau were able to break contact and reached Messina by the morning of the 5th. By this time, war had been declared, after the German invasion of Belgium, but an Admiralty order to respect Italian neutrality and stay outside a 6 nmi limit from the Italian coast precluded entrance into the passage of the Strait of Messina where they could observe the port directly. Therefore, Milne stationed Inflexible and Indefatigable at the northern exit of the Strait of Messina, still expecting the Germans to break out to the west where they could attack French troop transports, the light cruiser HMS Gloucester (1909) at the southern exit and sent Indomitable to recoal at Bizerte where she was better positioned to react to a German sortie into the Western Mediterranean.

The Germans sortied from Messina on 6 August and headed east, towards Constantinople, trailed by Gloucester. Milne, still expecting Rear Admiral Wilhelm Souchon to turn west, kept the battlecruisers at Malta until shortly after midnight on 8 August when he set sail for Cape Matapan at a leisurely 12 kn, where Goeben had been spotted eight hours earlier. At 14:30, he received an incorrect signal from the Admiralty stating that Britain was at war with Austria; war would not be declared until 12 August and the order was countermanded four hours later, but Milne followed his standing orders to guard the Adriatic against an Austrian breakout attempt, rather than seek Goeben. Finally on 9 August, Milne was given clear orders to "chase Goeben which had passed Cape Matapan on the 7th steering north-east". Milne still did not believe that Souchon was heading for the Dardanelles, and so he resolved to guard the exit from the Aegean, unaware that the Goeben did not intend to come out. Indomitable remained in the Mediterranean to blockade the Dardanelles, but Inflexible was ordered home on 18 August.

Battle of the Falklands
The West Indies Squadron of Rear Admiral Christopher Cradock was destroyed by the German East Asia Squadron commanded by Admiral Graf von Spee during the Battle of Coronel on 1 November 1914. In response, the Admiralty ordered that a squadron be sent to destroy the Germans. The squadron, under the command of Admiral Sir Doveton Sturdee, consisted of Invincible (flag) and Inflexible. They departed on 11 November and rendezvoused with several other cruisers under Rear Admiral Stoddard at Abrolhos Rocks, off the coast of Brazil on the 26th. They departed the following day and reached Port Stanley on the morning of 7 December.

Spee – making a leisurely voyage back to the Atlantic – wished to destroy the radio station at Port Stanley, so he sent the armoured cruiser SMS Gneisenau and the light cruiser SMS Nürnberg (1906) to see if the harbor was clear of British warships on the morning of 8 December. They were spotted at 07:30, although the pre-dreadnought HMS Canopus (1897), grounded in Stanley Harbor to defend the town and its wireless station, did not receive the signal until 07:45. It mattered little because Sturdee was not expecting an engagement and most of his ships were coaling. Furthermore, the armoured cruiser HMS Cornwall (1902) and the light cruiser HMS Bristol (1910) had one or both of their engines under repair. The armed merchant cruiser Macedonian was patrolling the outer harbor entrance while the armoured cruiser HMS Kent (1901) was anchored in the outer harbor, scheduled to relieve the Macedonian at 08:00. The Germans were not expecting any resistance and the first salvo from Canopus's guns at 09:20 caused them to sheer off from their planned bombardment of the wireless station and fall back on Spee's main body.

Sturdee's ships did not sortie from the harbor until 09:50, but they could see the retreating German ships on the southwest horizon. The Invincibles, fresh out of dry dock, had a 5 kn advantage over Spee's ships which all had fouled bottoms that limited their speeds to 20 kn at best. The light cruiser SMS Leipzig (1905) was lagging behind the other ships and Inflexible opened fire on her when the range dropped to 17500 yd at 12:55. Invincible opened fire shortly afterwards and both ships began straddling Leipzig as the range closed to 13000 yd. At 13:20, Spee ordered his squadron to separate and ordered his light cruisers to turn to the southwest while his armoured cruisers turned to the north east to cover their retreat. The German ships opened fire first at 13:30 and scored their first hit at 13:44 when SMS Scharnhorst hit Invincible, although the shell burst harmlessly on the belt armour. Both sides fired rapidly during the first half-hour of the engagement before Sturdee opened up the range a little to put his ships outside the effective range of the German guns. British gunnery was very poor during this period, scoring only four hits out of 210 rounds fired. The primary cause was the smoke from the guns and funnels as the British were downwind of the Germans.

Spee turned to the south in the hope of disengaging while the British had their vision obscured, but only opened the range to 17000 yd before the British saw his course change. This was futile as the British battlecruisers gave chase at 24 kn. Forty minutes later, the British opened fire again at 15000 yd. Eight minutes later, Spee turned again to the east to give battle; this time, his strategy was to close the range on the British ships so he could bring his 15 cm secondary armament to bear. He was successful, and they were able to open fire at 15:00 at maximum elevation. On this course, the smoke bothered both sides, but multiple hits were made regardless. Those made by the Germans either failed to detonate or hit in some insignificant area. On the contrary, Gneisenau had her starboard engine room put out of action. Sturdee ordered his ships at 15:15 back across their own wakes to gain the windward advantage. Spee turned to the northwest, as if to attempt to cross the British T, but actually to bring Scharnhorst's undamaged starboard guns to bear as most of those on his port side were out of action. The British continued to hit Scharnhorst and Gneisenau regularly during this time and Scharnhorst ceased fire at 16:00 before capsizing at 16:17 with no survivors. Gneisenau had been slowed by earlier damage and was battered for another hour and a half by Inflexible and Invincible at ranges down to 4000 yd. Despite the damage her crew continued to fire back until she ceased firing at 16:47. Sturdee was ready to order 'Cease fire' at 17:15 when an ammunition hoist was freed up and she made her last shot. The British continued to pound her until 17:50, after her captain had given the order to scuttle her at 17:40. She slowly capsized at 18:00 and the British were able to rescue 176 men. She had fired 661 twelve-inch shells during the battle and had only been hit three times because she was often obscured by Invincible's smoke. Only one man was killed and five wounded aboard the battlecruisers during the battle.

Dardanelles Campaign
After the Battle of the Falklands Inflexible was repaired and refitted at Gibraltar. She arrived at the Dardanelles on 24 January 1915 where she replaced Indefatigable as the flagship of the Mediterranean Fleet. She bombarded Turkish fortifications on 19 February, the start of the Battle of Gallipoli, to little effect, and again on 15 March, with the same results. She was part of the first line of British ships on 18 March as they attempted to suppress the Turkish guns so the minefields could be swept. Turkish return fire was heavy and she was hit a number of times. A 15 cm howitzer shell knocked out the left gun of 'P' turret, a 105 mm shell hit the yard above the foretop and killed or wounded everybody within. A heavy shell of unknown size hit her on the port side 6 ft below the waterline, but only dished in the side plating. A 240 mm shell hit the foremast at the same level as the flying bridge and set fire to the navigator's sea cabin. The hit destroyed all the cables and voice pipes running through the foremast to the fire control director. The smoke from the fire was choking the wounded so she withdrew to turn her head into the wind and the fire was then quickly put out. She returned to reengage the Turkish forts and was hit once more with little effect. Later, as she was turning in Eren Keui Bay, she was seriously damaged by a mine – probably about 100 kg in size – that blew a large hole in her starboard bow and flooded the forward torpedo flat, drowning 39 men. She had to be beached at the island of Bozcaada (Tenedos) to prevent her sinking, as she had taken in some 1600 LT of water, but she was temporarily repaired with a cofferdam over the 30 x hole. She sailed to Malta, escorted by HMS Canopus (1897) and HMS Talbot (1895) on 6 April. She nearly foundered when her cofferdam worked loose in heavy weather en route and had to be towed stern-first by Canopus for six hours while the cofferdam was repaired. She was under repair at Malta until early June before she sailed for home. She reached the U.K. on 19 June, where she joined the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron (BCS) of the Grand Fleet under the command of Rear Admiral H.L.A. Hood.

Battle of Jutland
At the end of May 1916, the 3rd BCS was temporarily assigned to the Grand Fleet for gunnery practice. On 30 May, the entire Grand Fleet, along with Admiral Beatty's battlecruisers, was ordered to sea to prepare for an excursion by the German High Seas Fleet. In order to support Beatty, Admiral Hood took his three battlecruisers ahead of the Grand Fleet. At about 14:30, Invincible intercepted a radio message from the light cruiser HMS Galatea (1914), attached to Beatty's Battlecruiser Force, reporting the sighting of two enemy cruisers. This was amplified by other reports of seven enemy ships steering north. Hood interpreted this as an attempt to escape through the Skagerrak and ordered an increase in speed to 22 kn at 15:11 and steered East-Southeast to cut off the fleeing ships. Twenty minutes later, Invincible intercepted a message from Beatty reporting five enemy battlecruisers in sight and later signals reporting that he was engaging the enemy on a south-easterly course. At 16:06, Hood ordered full speed and a course of south-southeast in an attempt to converge on Beatty. At 16:56, with no British ships in sight, Hood requested Beatty's course, position and speed, but he never received a reply.

Hood continued on course until 17:40, when gunfire was spotted in the direction to which his light cruiser HMS Chester (1915) had been dispatched to investigate other gunfire flashes. Chester encountered four light cruisers of Hipper's 2nd Scouting Group and was badly damaged before Hood turned to investigate and was able to drive the German cruisers away. At 17:53, Invincible opened fire on SMS Wiesbaden; the other two Invincibles followed two minutes later. The German ships turned for the south after fruitlessly firing torpedoes at 18:00 and attempted to find shelter in the mist. As they turned, Invincible hit Wiesbaden in the engine room and knocked out her engines while Inflexible hit SMS Pillau once. The 2nd Scouting Group was escorted by the light cruiser SMS Regensburg and 31 destroyers of the 2nd and 9th Flotillas and the 12th Half-Flotilla which attacked the 3rd BCS in succession. They were driven off by Hood's remaining light cruiser HMS Canterbury (1915) and the five destroyers of his escort. In a confused action, the Germans only launched 12 torpedoes and disabled the destroyer HMS Shark (1912) with gunfire. Having turned due west to close on Beatty's ships, the Invincibles were broadside to the oncoming torpedoes, but Invincible turned north, while Inflexible and Indomitable turned south to present their narrowest profile to the torpedoes. All the torpedoes missed, although one passed underneath Inflexible without detonating. As Invincible turned north, her helm jammed and she had to come to a stop to fix the problem, but this was quickly done and the squadron reformed heading west.

At 18:21, with both Beatty and the Grand Fleet converging on him, Hood turned south to lead Beatty's battlecruisers. Hipper's battlecruisers were 9000 yd away and the Invincibles almost immediately opened fire on Hipper's flagship, SMS Lützow, and SMS Derfflinger. Lützow quickly took ten hits from HMS Lion (1910), Inflexible and Invincible, including two hits below the waterline forward by Invincible that would ultimately doom her. But at 18:30, Invincible abruptly appeared as a clear target before Lützow and Derfflinger. The two German ships then fired three salvoes each at Invincible, and sank her in 90 seconds. A 305 mm (12-inch) shell from the third salvo struck the roof of Invincible's midships 'Q' turret, flash detonated the magazines below, and the ship blew up and broke in two, killing all but six of her crew of 1,032 officers and men, including Rear-Admiral Hood.

Inflexible and Indomitable remained in company with Beatty for the rest of the battle. They encountered Hipper's battlecruisers only 10000 yd away as the sun was setting about 8:19 and opened fire. Seydlitz was hit five times before the German battlecruisers were rescued by the appearance of the pre-dreadnought battleships of Rear Admiral Mauve and the British shifted fire to the new threat. Three of the predreadnoughts were hit before they too were able to turn into the gloom.

Post-Jutland career
The loss of three battlecruisers at Jutland (the others were HMS Queen Mary and HMS Indefatigable (1909)) led to the force being reorganised into two squadrons, with Inflexible and Indomitable in the 2nd BCS. However, after Jutland there was little significant naval activity for the Invincibles, other than routine patrolling, thanks to the Kaiser's order that his ships should not be allowed to go to sea unless assured of victory. Two torpedoes fired by the German U-boat SMU U-65 (Germany) during one of these patrols on 19 August 1916 missed astern. On 1 February 1918, she collided with the British submarine HMS K22 off the Isle of May with minor damage. This was during a night exercise in the Firth of Forth involving the Flotilla, eight capital ships, and numerous cruisers and destroyers. It was a series of collisions which led to the loss of two K boats, serious damage to three others, including K22, and a cruiser, and the deaths of 104 submariners, with no enemy involved. She was fitted with two flying off ramps fitted above her midships turrets in early 1918. On 21 November she was present at Scapa Flow for the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet.

The end of the war saw the end for many of the older vessels, not least the two remaining Invincible-class ships. Inflexible was paid off to the Reserve Fleet in January 1919 before being decommissioned on 31 March 1920. Chile briefly considered purchasing the ship in 1920, however the sale did not materialise. She was sold for scrap on 1 December 1921, and scrapped in Germany the following year. Mount Inflexible in the Canadian Rockies was named after the battlecruiser in 1917.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: HMS Inflexible (1907)


text:
Middleton, Ohio

Middleton may refer to:

 * Middleton, Columbiana County, Ohio
 * Middleton Township, Wood County, Ohio

title: Middleton, Ohio


text:
User talk:Ktotam

[ Archive 1]

File:Alexander h stephens illustration.3.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alexander h stephens illustration.3.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 01:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops
I was going to move all these pages due to their similarity and the fact they will never happen to something like Propose dark energy telescopes but never did it. I merged some and then realised they were different, so undid it, without replacing the tags. Well noticed. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kandala for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kandala is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kandala until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ktotam


text:
Líneas Aéreas Privadas Argentinas

Líneas Aéreas Privadas Argentinas (Private Argentine Air Lines), more commonly known by the acronym LAPA (and known as ARG Argentina Línea Privada and AIRG from 2001 to 2002), was an airline based in Buenos Aires, Argentina. At its heyday, the carrier operated international services to the United States and Uruguay, as well as an extensive domestic network within Argentina. Additionally, the company also operated charter services. Domestic and regional flights were operated from downtown's Aeroparque Jorge Newbery, whereas an international service to Atlanta was operated from Ministro Pistarini International Airport. LAPA was the first carrier to break a monopolistic market controlled by Aerolíneas Argentinas and its sister company Austral Líneas Aéreas, offering competitive prices.

It ceased operations in April 2003 after declaring bankruptcy.

History
The airline was formed in 1977, initially aimed at providing internal services within the Buenos Aires Province. In May 1978, it was authorised to operate charter services to cities in the Americas, and scheduled services began the following year. By July 1980, the major shareholder of the company was Claudio Zichy-Thyssen; the fleet comprised three YS-11As and a Piper Cheyenne that worked on a domestic passenger and cargo network serving Concordia, Ezeiza Airport, Gualeguaychu, La Plata, Necochea, Olavarria, Parana, Pehuajo, San Nicolas and Tres Arroyos. Gustavo Deutsch acquired the company in 1984, when it had a network consisting of two domestic routes served with a single propeller aircraft.

In January 1987, the airline became the first South American operator of the Saab 340. The carrier started a period of major growth in 1993 when it gained permissions to fly to Bariloche, Córdoba, Iguazú and Mar del Plata. A year later, the route network included 17 destinations, served with three aircraft. At March 1995, LAPA had 60 employees; the fleet consisted of one Beech B-58 Baron, one Beech King Air 500, two Boeing 737s and two Saab 340s that worked on routes to Bariloche, Colonia, Córdoba, Iguazú, Mar del Plata, Mendoza, Montevideo and Villa Gessel. LAPA became a Boeing 757 operator in September 1995 when it took possession of its first aircraft of the type. By late 1996, LAPA had a 30% of domestic market share.

Change of ownership and name

On 27 September 2001 the airline changed its name to ARG Argentina Línea Privada following the acquisition of the company by Eduardo Eurnekian. Aircraft were painted in a new livery, displaying the acronym ARG on both sides of the fuselage. This situation prompted an issue with the airline's name, as ARG is the ICAO airline code for Aerolíneas Argentinas. In mid-2002 the name of the airline was changed to AIRG. Bolivian airline AeroSur and four Argentine investors acquired the airline on 29 August 2002, and the original name LAPA was restored.

Downfall and ceased operations
The company filed for bankruptcy protection in May 2001, and ceased operations in April 2003, after three of its five aircraft were repossessed by the lessors.

Destinations
The airline had its heyday following the deregulation of the Argentine air market in 1994; it operated an extensive domestic network, as well as international services to Atlanta, Montevideo and Punta del Este.

The list of destinations served at the time of closure in 2003 were Buenos Aires, Comodoro Rivadavia, Córdoba, El Calafate, Florianópolis, Iguazú, Mendoza, Puerto Madryn, Puerto Montt, Salta, San Carlos de Bariloche, San Juan, San Luis, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Santiago de Chile, São Paulo, Trelew, Tucumán, and Ushuaia. During the course of its history, LAPA served the following destinations:

Fleet
Prior to its bankruptcy in April 2003, the most modern aircraft in the fleet, such as the brand-new Boeing 737-700s, Boeing 757-200s, as well as a single Boeing 767-300ER the company flew the Buenos Aires–Atlanta route with, were gradually returned to their lessors throughout 2001 and 2002, as their leases proved too expensive. When LAPA ceased operations in April 2003, only three of its remaining five Boeing 737-200 Advanced were operational.

The company operated the following aircraft throughout its history:

 * BAC 1-11 400
 * Boeing 737-200
 * Boeing 737-200 Advanced
 * Boeing 737-200C
 * Boeing 737-700
 * Boeing 757-200
 * Boeing 767-300ER
 * Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante
 * Piper Cheyenne
 * Piper Cheyenne II
 * Saab 340
 * Short 330
 * YS-11A-300

Accidents and incidents

 * 31 August 1999: Flight 3142, a Boeing 737-200C, registration LV-WRZ, that operated a scheduled Buenos Aires–Córdoba passenger service, crashed during takeoff from Aeroparque Jorge Newbery after it failed to get airborne. Unable to stop, the aircraft overshot the runway, hit the perimeter fence at a speed greater than 250 km/h, hit a car while crossing an avenue, collided with a wall and heavy construction machinery, came to rest on a golf course, and burst into flames less than a minute later. Out of 103 occupants of the plane, 63 died in the accident, plus two ground casualties. The accident remains the third deadliest one in the Argentine aviation history, behind Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 644 and Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 2553.

title: Líneas Aéreas Privadas Argentinas