Talk:Veterinarian/Archives/2015

A request that vet students stop using this page to defend the view that vet school is harder than medical school

Every time I come to this page, I remove (or want to but am too lazy) a bunch of irrelevant information that appears to be written by someone who feels that veterinarians/vet students don't get the respect they deserve. This page should not be a comparison to medical school, and there are few instances where it is actually useful to make that comparison. Just a few examples that I have come across today: "Unlike in adult human medicine, vets must rely on clinical signs, as animals are unable to vocalise symptoms as a human would." What encylopedic information does this sentence contain? Are there many people who think that animals can talk? Is it likely that someone reading this article needs to be informed that animals talk and humans don't? The section on "veterinary curriculum comparison to human medicine" contained paragraphs of redundant information, stating that subject A is more complex in veterinary medicine, subject B is more complex in veterinary medicine, subject C is more complex in veterinary medicine... etc. I can see how it might be useful for someone to create a web page, or edit their school's career counseling page, with this information, but this is an encyclopedia. Why not just lay out what the veterinary curriculum is like? If someone wants to compare it to medicine, let them read this, and then read the medicine article.

I myself am a vet student, and I understand where you're coming from... but please, keep in mind that this is an encyclopedic article on the veterinary profession, not a web forum where you can vent your frustration or build your ego. Dr.queso (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The comparisons are apt, it is relevant to discuss the rigor of professional training. Tone or phrasing could be tweaked, but it's reality. Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to discuss the rigor of the training, I don't dispute that. Perhaps we should compare it to nursing school? That is another medical profession, after all. Why are there no comparisons between the veterinary curriculum and the nursing curriculum? That's also a reality. The answer is simply that vet students are hypersensitive to criticism that their jobs aren't as useful/important/difficult as the job that medical doctors do. Wikipedia isn't the place to set the record straight or to defend the value of your career choice. The issue is that many of the things frequently added to this page are not encyclopedic, and thus bog down the article with relatively useless information.Dr.queso (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

SUP PEOPLES!!!!!!!!!!!!

VMD

I know only one state in the United States offers the VMD (Veterinary Medical Doctor title instead of the standard DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine)I know only one state in the United States offers the VMD (Veterinary Medical Doctor) title instead of the standard DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Mediciiǚne) for doctors. What state is that? And should you become a doctor, can you use either title or do you have to use the title they give you? --Admiral Roo 12:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• UPenn, not the State of Pennsylvania, offers the VMD. It is a degree, not a license, so the veterinarian would use the title "Dr" with the degree "VMD" after his or her name. AED 06:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• The above comment is correct, only UPenn issues the VMD. So, as they say "You can always tell a Penn Grad, but you can't tell 'em much!"

As per your question "Can you use either title?". There is no real advantage to using one title over another. DVM and VMD are the same degree. The only difference is that UPenn chose to call their graduates VMD's. The UPenn degree and diploma is written in latin, and this seems to be the logistical reason why those letters get switched around. Ultimately, there is no advantage to having a DVM instead of a VMD or vice versa.

• The degree being written in latin has no bearing on the VMD vs. the DVM. The thinking behind the VMD is that there is "One medicine, many species". I.E. we're all learning the same medicine, we just practice on different species. A VMD is a veterinary medical doctor, just as an MD is a medical doctor (I guess HMD for human medical doctor). The DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine), implies that Veterinary Medicine is a separate 'type' of medicine. It's all semantics really, Penn liked the 'one medicine' idea and thought others would follow, but no one did.

Since I'm categorizing these tonight, I'll add a belated confirmation of the above. Dad (may he RIP) was always Dr. Frank A. Bartus, VMD—an alumni of University of Pennsylvania, stated correctly above. My sister's degree from Penn State University is DVM. I do believe there were several other schools, also Ivy league, IIRC, that awarded the VMD, but recently (well, to me—sometime in the last 30-35 years!) switched over to the DVM like lemmings over a cliff. FrankB 05:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there were other Ivy League schools that offer(ed) the VMD and it is exactly as stated above by FrankB, a latin spelling 'Veterinariae Medicinae Doctoris' and the equivalent of a DVM. The one reason i'd heard cited while in school there was that Penn(U of Penn[1])(also, Penn State does not award DVM's - they do not have a veterinary school)and the other veterinary schools is that Penn is the one school that derived from a school of medicine whereas the other were developed from the school's of agriculture at those universities.

Of course the animals(and farmers) don't care about your degree as long as you help them! Acornembryo 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any reference support for the following statement: "The title and degree name "Doctor" in the US is considered around the world as an honorary one, as the DVM degree does not result in a thesis, publication, or other academic doctorate qualification as in a PhD." This seems an odd statement to make, as MD degrees (human medicine) don't require thesis or publication, either. Kerani (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys, VMD does not mean "Veterinary Medical Doctor," just as an MD does not mean "Medical Doctor." MD is the Latin abbreviation for "Medicinae Doctor," which means and is translated in English as "Doctor of Medicine." The V in VMD is just an adjective specifying that it's veterinary medicine. Thus, VMD, or "Veterinariae Medicinae Doctor" means and is translated into English as "Doctor of Veterinary Medicine." VMD & DVM mean the same thing, one is just the Latin abbreviation of the other!173.76.34.74 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Veterinary Informatics

I have removed the above section which contained the following: "Veterinary Informatics is the application of information technology to healthcare. Most vet clinics now utilize software for Practice Management Systems to control scheduling and billing of clients, tracking of inventory and automation of lab results. Addiitonally, many clinics are working towards becoming computerized for electronic patient records." Veterinary Informatics is much more about practice management than it is about being a veterinarian, plus it has its own article. A link to veterinary informatics is also contained within the article. AED 06:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This page deals almost exclusively with veterinary practice as done in america. Please expand to deal with other countries.

If you have information about such, please add. Elf | Talk 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Applicants: veterinary school vs. medical school

I am a vet student; I'd like to request that we take out all the superfluous comparisons to medical students. None of this is neutral, relevant information on the topic. In my experience, a lot of veterinary students are very emotional about defending the worth and difficulty of their career. I certainly share their view, but I don't believe an encyclopedic entry on the profession is a good place to make persuasive arguments regarding the value or difficulty of the profession.Dr.queso (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The article currently states: "Admission into veterinary medical school is competitive. According to the US Department of Labor, 1 in 3 applicants was accepted into a veterinary program in 2002. (Compare this with human medical school statistics of 1 in 2 applicants accepted, keep in mind however that human medical school acceptances have an average GPA of 3.7 and the acceptance rate per medical school is lower than that of vet schools)." The portion in bold was recently added without reference or citation.

1. The DOL reference regarding veterinary applicants can be found here: [2].
2. Regarding veterinary schools: The lastest report from the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges indicates 2,576 matriculants (mean GPA 3.53)[3][4] - no information on number of total applicants. Another website reported 6,695 applicants (mean GPA 3.42), 2,301 matriculants (mean GPA 3.62)[5] - these are probably 1999 figures. The same website indicated that each applicant files 3.65 applications and veterinary schools receive 10.62 applications per position.
3. Regarding medical schools: The latest report from the Association of American Medical Colleges indicates 35,735 applicants (mean GPA 3.47), 17,662 accepted, 16,648 matriculants (mean GPA 3.62)[6][7].

I found no data to support the recently added assertions that "human medical school acceptances have an average GPA of 3.7" or that "the acceptance rate per medical school is lower than that of vet schools". It does appear that those applying to and entering medical school do have a slightly higher GPA, but that admissions into veterinary school are more competitive (as the article stated in its previous incarnation). AED 06:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[The following is in response to an anonymous poster claiming to be a career counselor for UC Berkeley, who subsequently removed two of his/her posts, as well as one of mine. Full context for these comments may be found here. - AED 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ]

Similar to programs offered by other schools, the Veterinary Medical Opportunity Program is a six-week course in your own UC system that helps the “disadvantaged” get into veterinary school. (As a career counselor, perhaps you should check it out.) The point being, I imagine that the average GPA for veterinary schools would be much higher if we threw out their low-scoring matriculants, too.

Regardless, there seems to be a bit of double standard in this examination of statistics. You suggest that competitiveness is not defined merely by numbers (i.e. “it depends on what defines competitiveness”), but the quality of applicants is defined that way (i.e. the higher the GPA, the higher quality the applicant is). No one disputes that GPA is an extremely important indicator of an applicant’s quality, but obviously it is not the only one. I imagine that someone who ignores what the general public considers “prestigious” and pursues a profession in which they must be able to know, diagnose, and treat many species for a much lower salary than their human medicine counterpart is not merely what you have termed “average in quality”. Furthermore, it is a common misconception that people choose veterinary medicine because they “don’t want to deal with people”. Like human physicians, veterinarians must master the art of communication with other humans. Unlike human physicians, veterinarians must also master the care of patients who cannot complain about their ailments. I hope you counsel your students appropriately on these points in the future. - AED 06:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC) edited 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This looks to be a Dead Horse, but let me put in two bits as the Son of, Brother of, In-Law of, and good friend of Veterinarians.

1. 1. The GPA may seem higher for MD's, but the Vet school entry requires fundamentally higher bars to hurdle in core courses, i.e. Sciences and Math.
   2. Moreover, it usually requires extensive pre-application certified experience in veterinary work.
   3. There are simply far more chairs in Med. Schools than for the many fewer Vet schools. It was a big deal when my alma mater Tufts University started it's vet school up, because it was and still is the only one in all of New England.

Add those up, and the entry bar is far higher — better to liken it to graduate work at MIT or entry into Harvard or Yale Law Schools. That tough. FrankB 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess my point is, why compare it to any of these things? Why not add "vet school is harder to get into than the undergraduate art program at the university of south wabash university in montana?" Who cares? It would be useful to describe how difficult/selective vet school is, but it's not useful to compare it to medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge Veterinary surgeon into Veterinary Medical Doctor

• Strong Oppose — The former article is fine as is, and can be added to some, but more importantly, it is a different career track with different training, albeit, similar. Much like Clinical Psycologists and Psychiatrists, one can script perscriptions, and the other can't. US doctors do not have to graduate the Royal School. Moreover, it is a stated goal that wikipedia have an article for each article title in all other major encyclopedia's regardless of the media type, and this would kill one title that is needed. Overall, a bad idea.

FrankB 05:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, provided that the Veterinary surgeon article includes context for use of the term in the US (i.e. a veterinarian who specializes in surgery; see American College of Veterinary Surgeons).-AED 20:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

= Proposal to merge...

• Strongly disagree. the USA position is significantly different to the UK position, and merging the articles would require significant re-writing. Better to emphasise the differences by editing within existing articles, and possible retitling?

• Agree to merge The title is not important. Most veterinarians are excellent surgeons. There is no need to distinguish between a "vet" and a "vet surgeon". In the US, once you are board certified, then you are free to call yourself a board certified surgeon. If you chose to keep it apart, then perhaps we need to call this article "Veterinarian of the USA" vs. "Veterinarian of UK". I'd say, merge them. And then let the guy who proposed the merger sort out the garbage. Right now, the article is written by veterinarians who are trained in the US.... So if you merge, then you'll have to sort out what to keep and what to dump.--Northerncedar (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"In the US, once you are board certified, then you are free to call yourself a board certified surgeon." This seems inaccurate to me, and seems to contradict the information on the page of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons, which states "Only veterinarians who have successfully completed the certification requirements of the ACVS are Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons and have earned the right to be called specialists in veterinary surgery." It is possible that you may call yourself a "board certified surgeon" as long as you don't call yourself a "specialist" but it seems to me that you would be exposing yourself to legal risk by so doing.Dr.queso (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

CLEAN, COPYEDIT, GCHECK, UNDERCONSTRUCTION TEMPLATES

I'm really too tired this morning to deal with the overall work needed in this article at the moment (4 am) and so I yelled for attention. Awk grammer constructions. Sentences split by sentences that are off point. A poor article introduction... just read it. It needs a good dose of bandaids and a lot of TLC.

The content is ok, but could be expanded without a lot of effort. FrankB 08:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please get rid of the laundry list of veterinary specialities? If we're gonna have a list, I think it should at least be in list or table form, instead of an awkward "heading/sentence" format. If we can't come up with a paragraph of information for something, I don't think it merits its own headline.

--Dr.queso (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This laudry list of verinary specialities should be displayed inside a table, intead of "heading-sentence" format. To write a specific paragraph is not appropriate in my opinion. This article have a poor introduction, and must be improved.--Chris Cohen (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like alot of talk but no one is doing ..... about it. What's the matter with you guys. All talk and no action.--69.14.219.108 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Caption

"An open castration being performed on a horse by a veterinarian under ketamine anaesthesia."
Is an image caption, and I would like to suggest that it be changed to something more along the lines of:
"A veterinarian performing an open castration on a horse under ketamine anaesthesia."
The original sentence suggests the veterinarian is under ketamine anaesthesia, and I assume that was not the intended meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.180.230 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC).women get 75% of the money

Template:Veterinary medicine overhaul

I've overhauled Template:Veterinary medicine (formerly {{Veterinary Practitioners}}) to include all the related "See also" links, from various veterinary articles. Please feel free to correct/improve anything in it (ordering, subheaders, additions, etc), and add it to appropriate articles. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Did Alf Wight (James Herriot) receive a doctorate as implied in the article? It's not mentioned in any other source that I know of.Zagubov 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

High Cost

Vets charge a lot because there is no health funding for animals. They also have to financially justify having so many assistant staff as employees. So a $200 charge for a seemingly minor medical procedure is commonplace. Jivesucka 17:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for "vets charge a lot?" For example, can you provide an example of a routine/minor medical procedure for which veterinarians charge more than a similar procedure in humans? Maybe you could factor out malpractice costs, since those are much lower for veterinarians, but in my experience veterinary procedures are comparable to human medical procedures. (The value of an animal may be lower than the value of a human, but that doesn't change the cost of medical equipment and treatment.) I'd also be interested in a citation for "they have so many assistant staff"-- do veterinarians tend to have more staff than is necessary or normal for their field of work? --Dr.queso (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Owning your own practice can bring in a much larger income typically anywhere from $200,000 - $300,000 and up."

Is there a citation to support these figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.215.198 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Vets have to take an oath to aid animals. You pay for the services that they do to help your animal. Sure they can over charge sometimes, but not generally. If you are being charged too much call around for a more reasonably priced vet. Vets, unlike human doctors, do not have health insurances and the government insurances that cover the costs of those who cannot afford care. (This is a great point that must be said in the article). When one go to the doctor, he or she only pay the co-pay for the visit, and a co-pay for your medication (usually about $20-30) and insurance pays the rest of the $$$ bill for you. The Veterinarians does not have this opulence. The money we get goes to rent or mortgage for the buliding, techs, and receptionists, paying someone to clean kennels, local taxes, medication and etc. In my opinion, to add in the article that the vets cost more than human medical care, it is not appropriate.--Chris Cohen (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Vets don't have to take an oath. And neither do doctors. Some medical school request that their student take a modified oath. Most don't. When I was a vet, we charged between $40 to $200 for a spay. But you do get what you pay for, to a certain point. In the same way, in human medicine, you can get a skin cancer removed for $100 with curettage, or $5000 if you wanted general anesthesia, frozen section histology, and a plastic surgeon for the closure. Again, you get what you pay for. A human hysterectomy is 40 times more risky than a spay operation in the dog. So the price is about 200 x greater. I just wanted to clear up the misconception that either a vet or a human doctor has to take or obey any oaths.

SALARIES: This section desperately needs some citation. Salaries for veterinarians, just like any other profession, vary by country/region and experience. To broadly say that "the average veterinarian" makes $X is inaccurate at best, and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.115.225 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Help

I need help. I'm writing a science career paper for class and I chose a vet. I can not find ANY info on what degrees you need to become a vet. Can someone please help me find info?? Lulugirl12 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Go to this link: http://www.aavmc.org/ Look at the map at the bottom. Click on the state of concern. Then read the requirement. No degree requirement. You can be in ANY college majors. The main requirement is noted in the body of this article. Some school requires additional prevet classes, but most don't. Examples of additional classes: embryology, poultry science, live stock judging, dairy science, etc. Many schools now have dropped these requirements to increase the size of potential candidates. --Northerncedar (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Veterinarian

"... is a physician for animals"

Technically, wouldn't that include humans as well? Perhaps a more precise definition should be used for a higher accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.230.223 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would also apply to humans. If you need a spay or neuter cheap, I am sure your local vet can do it. Now bend over and say Ahhh.... Mr. Nitpickyness....--69.14.219.108 (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

veterinarians must have a lot of courage do they get paid a good amount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.222.10 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Veterinarians are encouraged to take an oath"- It is my understanding that it is a requirement of obtaining membership to the RCVS and thus being able to practice as veterinarians that vets must accept the oath. Perhaps this is wrong? Silkiesttie (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What's all this talk of oaths? What's the significance? Do you really think that's an assurance of quality? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

A cursory search reveals lots of copyrighted sites have either borrowed content from this page or vice versa. Will start removing later today. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are all Veterinarians Doctors?

Veterinarians and?or Veterinary Surgeons often call themselves "Doctor" when they have only a Bachelor or Master Degree. Is it correct to call yourself "Doctor" when you do not possess a Doctor's Degree? Johncoborn (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the UK (and maybe other parts of Europe), just like human physisions (spelling), they don't get a doctorate's degree after medical school, but can go further to get a doc degree if they wish, while in North America, you have to get a Bachelor degree to go into a med school which terminates with a doctorate's degree. Shadow Android (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Move?

It seems odd that this article was moved from "Veterinarian." I see no discussion on the topic, and here we seem to be increasing confusion. Just wondering. Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I also thought it was odd there was no discussion. Jesanj (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, happy to discuss, but I decided to go for the WP:BOLD approach. In a nutshell, this was to satisfy WP:COMMONALITY, which says that where possible an international term should be used in preference to a term used in only one variant of English (and hence we have articles on fixed wing aircraft, not on airplanes or aeroplanes) and the AmE and BrE terms of veterinarian and veterinary surgeon respectively sound out of place to the speakers of the other dialect, whereas they both shorten to vet (also the wp:commonname it would appear).

So, all that being the case, this internationalises the article, and makes it less jarring for readers outside north america. Hope that makes sense. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. I don't have an objection at the moment, but I haven't thought much about it either. Let's see if anyone else has anything. Thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see Veterinary medicine in the United Kingdom suggests that the term "veterinary surgeon" is used. Over here in the USA, "vet" is very common for the animal doctor, but it's a slang term (like "cop" for a police officer). But "vet" appears to be an informal form in the UK too (?) This really jumped out at me because in this day and age, the term "vet" is most often heard here to refer to a military veteran, creating some minor potential for worse confusion (while "military veteran" isn't exactly a profession, a lot of them consider it their primary identity). Seems the more formal term should be used, one or the other with the other anglosphere terms also noted, as in: "A veterinarian' (US) or veterinary surgeon (UK) is a person who..." Not a moral issue with me, but it seemed a bit awkward. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It does say that, but that's only because I wrote it prior to tackling this article! Vet would be the far more common term in the UK. The formal term is used less frequently. As the full AmE and BrE terms sound unnatural to users of the other, I think this is clearly a case where we need a dialect neutral term. So we could have gone for something which no-one uses like "veterinary practitioner" (which is the method favoured in the example for fixed-wing aircraft), but it seemed simplest to use what is probably the more common term in both dialects, which both would understand, and avoids the need for an artificial construct, and is disambiguated immediately in the first line of the article. And the chance of it being found by accident is pretty small, with the main vet page being a pointing list, veterinarian being redirected and veterinary surgeon being a DAB also (to separate the BrE usage of any old vet against the AmE usage of a vet with a surgery speciality). We could still go for the artificial construct, but it seems more elegant to go with the shortened version, as it is naturally understandable for all dialects.

I'm not sure why this is "clearly a case where we need a dialect neutral term". There are many other articles that take a non-dialect neutral term. Why is this one different? Simply because there is a common abbreviated term "vet"? I'm not sure that's part of Wikipedia:Article titles. I think the page should be moved back as it was overly-bold to move without discussion, in my opinion, but if consensus is for Vet (profession) then fine. Jesanj (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that "vet" is probably the most common term here as well, (I don't think I've said, "I'm calling the veterinarian" I say "I'm calling the vet") but that still doesn't make it not informal slang. (Just like so many people say "stud" for "stallion" but we shouldn't do so in writing, it's a verb form and slang as a noun, plus a "stud" is also a piece of wood that supports a wall! LOL) I guess I cannot support this form and would prefer a revert to veterianarian, but then, I'm a Yank, so I'm biased. If consensus goes the other way, I will get over it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesanj - this is a clear case because the AmE term is never used in BrE, so as per policy as wp:commonality we should seek an alternative. I don't want to move back to veterianarian, but would be happy to move it to a third neutral term. I think vet is perfectly acceptable, its in the dictionary and in common corpus (dozens of books with it in the title, for instance). OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm of mixed feelings. I've been a really good sport and lived with UK English for Muster, Cattle crush and Cattle grid instead of roundup, stock chute and cattle guard for years. I really don't have a problem with some article using the US or UK forms. Sometimes, as in the above examples, it may be unavoidable. I wonder if WP:commonality is the highest and purest form here. ("Fixed wing aircraft" sounds just silly when the only difference is in spelling, IMHO). But I suppose we could use something equally nonsensical, such as "veterinary doctor" (Given that even the titles are not universal -- DVM AND VMD in the USA, MRCVS and others in the UK). I don't know the answer. Montanabw^(talk) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed wing aircraft can sound a little unnatural, but it helps avoid the sort of fights that ensue between variants of English (and it is policy). As for the other three, i would be happy to see them at a neutral term if they're not already (and of course muster is an in Australasian english, not British :-) ). In this case, we have both the shortened term, which meets WP:COMMONNAME and has a massive amount of corpus to support the short version being a word in its own right, and we have a number of options for longer neutral terms. Its only really the States that grants doctor status to their vets (a bit like opticians really, who aren't dr in most places), so I think veterinary doctor probably isn't right either, but veterinary physician might be, as would veterinary practitioner. I'm not saying it shouldn't be at one of those, just that it shouldn't be at veterinarian. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) Actually, while I appreciate the attempt to find a common term, this is not a reasonable one. I've reverted your bold action, and moved it back to its perfectly reasonable original title. "Veterinarian" has been the precedented title for more than eight years (i.e. always), and I hope you can be open to the reversion for now.

"Vet" is an informal term[8][9][10], and using slang instead of formal wording for article titles arguably goes against what WP:COMMONNAME clearly states ("article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic"). More importantly, though, it goes against common sense. At the end of the day, we're an encyclopedia (ideally a high-quality one), and encyclopedias are use formal wording, not slang. No, they do not favor commonly-used slang over regional English. I would be perfectly open to a common term if you can think of one, but I can't, and I don't think the argument for changing the title to a slang term is strong enough. Regards, Swarm 02:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, US Vet(erinarian)s do complete a total of 8 years of higher education and, as they often point out, learn to work on more species than an MD, who only studies one! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that for wikipedia, the fact that its always been called something is no guide to its suitability. If the consensus is against vet then i'd like to suggest either 'veterinary physician' or 'veterinary practitioner', with the latter probably being the most versatile. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with either term. I lean toward "physician" as do we not call vets "doctor" in most places, even the UK? I could be wrong (it HAS been known to happen--grin), I just want to be sure to distinguish from, say, a vet tech, which at least in the USA, is a person less-than-bachelor's level certificate. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Veterinary practitioner" might be unnecessarily pedantic, IMO, so I'm kind of on the fence. Swarm 00:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of major objection, I will move this article to Veterinary physician shortly. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy now. Thanks for a good, cooperative discussion! Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What he said. :) Best regards, Swarm 23:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems, i don't set out to create the problems! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL! That's what I always say too! Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge article with veterinary medicine

The veterinary medicine article is in very rough shape. The best of it could be brought here and the subsequent article could be properly called veterinary medicine. Any thoughts DVMt (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say it would be much better to improve veterinary medicine, which actually includes a range of material, including vets, veterinary nurses/techs, plus the other paraprofessions (farrier, dental technicians etc etc.), and should also include (in the right shape) material which does not relate to the specifics of vets. So, oppose, on the basis of improving the other article. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a big project and a lot of good content is already here. I can try rewording things a bit, but it's going to be a long haul. Let's see what others think and see if we can come up with consensus. DVMt (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a merge is the solution. The solution is to expand and strengthen the article, not to force an artificial merge of slightly different articles. If there is stuff in this article that can ALSO be added to the other one, I see that done all the time. As they say, don't tear down the house while it's being built (What IS the shortcut to that saying, anyway?) Montanabw^(talk) 06:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Problems

This article has a number of major problems:

• The title of the article is inaccurate. The term veterinary physician is rarely, if ever, used, but, if it is, it refers to a specific veterinary specialist: one who practises medicine and not surgery (see, for example, Physician). It is not simply a catchall for veterinarian, veterinary practitioner and veterinary surgeon, and leads to such absurdities as "Veterinary medicine is led by veterinary physicians, termed 'veterinary surgeons'..." found in Veterinary medicine in the United Kingdom.
• The subject of the article is, in fact, the veterinarian, with a few sops to British practice thrown in. For example, the regulatory body of the profession in Britain (the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) is not mentioned once in the body of the article, whereas the American Veterinary Medical Association, which is not even a regulatory body (the individual states do that), is mentioned repeatedly.
• Both veterinary surgeon and veterinary practitioner have specific (and distinct) legal meanings in Britain, very different from those in the US. Trying to shoe-horn them into the same article can only cause confusion. Again, veterinary assistant means something completely different in Britain from what it does in the US.
• Indeed, the inescapable fact is that the differences between the British and US professions are so great (in pre-veterinary educational requirements, the educational system itself, qualification and registration, licensing, governance and terminology, to name but a few) that trying to combine them will lead to a dog's dinner. Examples:
  • There is no debate on declawing, tail docking, ear cropping or debarking in Britain—they are all illegal.
  • The United Kingdom does not "tend to use the term veterinary surgeon". That is the term that is used, both de facto and de jure.
  • The Registration and licensing section is wholly inapplicable to the United Kingdom.
  • Curriculum comparison with human medicine is, again, inapplicable to the UK as written.

The solution? Go back to the way things were in September. Rename this article back to Veterinarian, remove the few nods to internationalism and revive the Veterinary Surgeon article in its original form. Wally Wiglet (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

fundamentally disagree. The professions are not different between the UK and US, just the naming protocols. WEikipedia policy is very clear that articles should be international. Veterinary physician was a compromise name, and my preference was for the article to be called 'Vet'. I don't disagree with a bit more internationalisation around sections such as registration and licensing, but actually I think this is better covered in articles like veterinary medicine in the United Kingdom and the creation of equivalent articles for the US etc. On your other points - there is a debate on procedures such as docking internationally - there are, or at least were last time i checked, more than two countries in the world. This article is signficantly better than it was before the merge, and a few improvements would make it even better, but please try and avoid the insularity of having one article for the world, and one just for the UK. Incidentally, this is improving in veterinary medicine OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 21:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to address some of the issues I have raised? Wally Wiglet (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, you did some of them. Sorry. I was just a little annoyed by the 'insularity' jibe, particularly when this article almost entirely reflects US practice. Wally Wiglet (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, it wasn't meant as a jibe but a descriptor, but i see your point. More than happy for the article to be more international, and at some point, some of this should move to Veterinary medicine in the United States in line with the UK article, which keeps this to the international profession of medical treatment of animals (whatever you might want to call it). OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 22:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I do see your point of not wanting to have innumerable articles on essentially the same subject. My problems with the article as it stands are (1) The name Veterinary physician, which rings horribly false to British ears, since, as I have said, the distinction between physician and surgeon is still maintained in the UK. (I do realize it hasn't been in the US.) Clicking on a link for Veterinary Surgeon and being sent to Veterinary Physician made me think 'WTF???' (2) American veterinarians and British veterinary surgeons are like lions and tigers—they end up doing very much the same thing, but are very different in background. The educational, administrative, registration and virtually all other systems are entirely different, as they are for the French and Germans also (and, presumably, for those of all other nations, about which I know nothing). It would be really messy to try to combine them all into one article. (3) Terminology really is a problem. A British veterinary practitioner is a completely different bird from a veterinary surgeon, but is an entirely generic term in the US. Combining these usages might be problematic. I see you have used the term vet, which is entirely unexceptionable in Britain, but might annoy the VFW crowd in the US. All that said, if you fold this article into Veterinary medicine in the United States, all these difficulties disappear. Wally Wiglet (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Willy: As an American, I was part of this discussion and supported the move to "veterinary physician" as a compromise between the two nations, there is really no need for two articles on the same profession. We did have a move to "Vet" a nickname used in both nations, but that title created disambiguation problems with the Veterans crowd, so was best avoided. Veterinarian is a US term, so if we want to be as international as possible -- and I favor this -- then a compromise title is acceptable. Maybe Veterinary Surgeon needs its own article, now. Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see what value a veterinary surgeon article has on its own over this article (albeit with improvements) and the veterinary workers in the United Kingdom article. As for naming, it is almost deliberately 'false' in the same way as fixed-wing aircraft doesn't really have people who go "oh great, that's much better than calling it an airplane/aeroplane/mechanical bird", and may lead to the odd WTF moment when people first go to it, but it helps meet the standards of WP:COMMONALITY. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 05:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the fixed-wing aircraft analogy is false. Aircraft, airplane and aeroplane mean the same thing in the different languages, and aircraft is common to both, so is the obvious choice. However, veterinary physician is not a common term, but has a very specific meaning, viz. one who is engaged in the medical treatment of animals. It thus specifically excludes veterinary surgeons (in the US sense), veterinary pathologists, veterinary anaesthetists (or anesthesiologists, another troublesome area), veterinary epidemiologists, all government workers, those engaged in veterinary research, etc, etc. It is analogous to trying to fix the airplane/aeroplane problem by calling the article fixed-wing gliders. I accept that many readers may not know this, but relying on the ignorance of the readership is probably not the best way to go. Furthermore, on re-reading the article, it is clear that the subject is not some universal veterinary professional, but is very specifically the North-American veterinarian (with, as I said, some sops to internationalism thrown in). Not, I hasten to add, that this is a bad thing: many people will want information on the education, qualifications, career prospects, licensing requirements, salary, etc, of the North-American veterinarian. Many people will want the same information on the British veterinary surgeon. The US and British professions may do the same thing, but they are deeply different, and deserve their individual articles. Let us call a spoon a spoon and a fork a fork and not try to combine them in an article on the spork (and, to boot, refer to that as a fish knife). If we want an article on the generic universal veterinary professional, that would be fine, but this article is not it. Wally Wiglet (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Montanabw: My objections are as follows:

• The article was moved without discussion, and in the face of previous strong opposition (at least to merging Veterinarian and Veterinary Surgeon, which is effectively what has been done).
• The title is inaccurate, as I have explained at interminable length.
• The use of the informal vet is a problem to me. Imagine articles that used cop or doc throughout.
• The article does not present an international viewpoint, but a solidly US-centric one. This is no problem, as long as it is acknowledged. The easiest way of doing this is to move it back to Veterinarian, which is the term used in the US.
• Is there a need for articles on the equivalent of US veterinarians in other countries? Why not? At the moment, the only candidate is the British Veterinary Surgeon. Hopefully, others will arrive. Anyone from Alfort, Bern or Gießen out there?
• I would resurrect the Veterinary Surgeon article, although perhaps entitled Veterinary Surgeon (United Kingdom) to avoid confusion. Although not even this is accurate: there are Veterinary Surgeons thorough the world, outside the UK. OK, maybe Veterinary Surgeon (British Commonwealth). But what about those Veterinary Surgeons in countries of the late British Empire that are now outside the Commonwealth? (Throws arms in air.) Just go back to Veterinary Surgeon. It was so much easier. And accurate.

Wally Wiglet (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The key point is not changing articles around to reflect the content you have, but rather what article should be here. There is little substantive difference in purpose and scope of practice between a US veterinarian and a UK veterinary surgeon or an AUS vet and what this article should be is an international article about all of those things, as per the policies on international focus and commonality. Regional peculiarities can then be mentioned in the main article where relevant, and talked about in depth in an article specfic to the country but i would strongly urge that these follow the pattern of the veterinary medicine in the United Kingdom article as this gives a more holistic view of treatment including other professionals, so a specific veterinary surgeon article is an unecessary repetitive fork.

The naming problem is thorny, and previously debated, to reach this as a consensus. I fully understand your issue with physician vis a vis medical and surgical divide, but it was the consensus at the time. I'm not particularly attached to it and would be happy if you were to suggest a sensible name for the international article on the profession which leads the treatment of disease, disorder and injury in animals. Veterinary professional could be considered, although would also include the like of nurses/technicians. Any other suggestions welcome, but WP needs a global article on this topic, so we may have to go with the least bad naming convention. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article WAS moved to this current name after considerable discussion and consensus. "Physician" works well enough and acknowledges the Doctoral nature of the professions with the job we are discussing. There IS a need for a global article, and if the article is too US-focused, then the solution is to add more worldwide material, not make it a content fork that will eventually lead to a WP:PRIMARY fight. The USA also has a "veterinary surgeon" title (a veterinarian who specialized in doing surgery), and it is different from that of the UK, where the title is more or less synonymous with "Veterinarian" in the US. I am with Owain that we need a "least bad" name here. I thought "fixed wing aircraft" is a rather absurd title, but it was a compromise too. (I mean, whassup with you Brits adding all those extra vowels anyway? Grin...) The other alternative is to have a big fight over WP:PRIMARY claims that "Veterinarian" is the more often used term, blah, blah, blah, and it's not a fight I feel is necessary or needed. We could invent something wholesale, like "veterinary doctor" but that is an even weirder solution. Montanabw^(talk) 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not that the name is "least bad"; it is simply wrong. A veterinary physician is not what is described in the article. However, I accept that we are presented with a fait accompli and will let it go, along with welsh rarebit and Derry. Wally Wiglet (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention (1) The previous opposition to merging that was ignored was back in 2009. (2) The article contains 35 uses of the word veterinarian (in addition to when it is defined). Veterinary physician? Not one. I think my point is made. (And simply changing all instances of veterinarian to veterinary physician will, at this point, not alter it.) I am, now, done. Until I think of something else. Wally Wiglet (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I admit the article is far from GA, but that's a different problem. Probably one solution is the clunky "practitioner of veterinary medicine" or referencing the field more than the job. Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this while driving around today. I wonder whether what a veterinarian/veterinary surgeon/Tierarzt/vétérinaire actually does might not go better in the Veterinary medicine article. After all, is not what these people do by definition veterinary medicine? That would avoid having to try to find a suitable generic term (which, as far as I can see does not exist) and allow the useful information in this article, which is specific to the North American animal, to be retained. Anyway, no panic. It can wait. Wally Wiglet (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a simple title of "veterinarian" would suffice to describe all vets and this might be better suited in the vet medicine article. Perhaps a merger is in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVMt (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename, MEDMOS

I have renamed the article to 'Veterinarian' which is a generic descriptor used globally. Also, the article is not being edited according to the proper manual of style. Please read WP:PSMED to familiarize yourselves with the process. As such, we are missing, incredibly, the very first section which is scope of practice. I think we should start here first. DVMt (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your change. The title was the subject of discussion and consensus on this talk page, largely because veterinarian fails WP:COMMONALITY. If you'd like to make a change, you need to gain consensus here. Also, your POV edits about DVM are unwelcome - that only applies to a couple of countries, not to the whole world. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not POV if it's factual. We can always insert the British equivalent. Veterinarian is the common global term. I had proposed it in January and no one opposed. We must be careful of not beeing too attached to articles and preventing other editors from contributing, especially in subjects in which they are competent. Also, you musn't confuse factual editing (DVM which is verifiable) and a synonym for 'veterinarian' and carelessly stating POV accusations. Similar to Doctor of Medicine, which lists second-entry degrees (M.D.), there are also Bachelors degrees in medicine, especially in the U.K which is verifiable. Tell me why specifically that the article shouldn't be called Veterinarian (generic term). We we state 'also known as 'veterinary physician, veterinary surgeon and doctor of veterinary medicine' which is factual and then uses sources to support the statement. DVMt (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a long, long discussion about this, at least a couple of times. Owain, wasn't part of the problem that "veterinarian" in the UK is not a graduate degree, but a lesser skill? I think what we have here, DVMt, is a fixed-wing aircraft situation where there is no real way to resolve the UK-English versus US-English problem. After all, there are not only DVMs, but also VMD in the USA, plus other terms in other nations. Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Montanabwl. It's not only a UK vs US problem; it's a global problem. And, colloquially, the most common term is 'Veterinarian'. Equivalence can be given by stating the terms in North America (DVM, VMD) or veterinary surgeon/physical (the UK equivalent). The current title is needlessly wordy and not even the most common term. This debate was also held at Chiropractic where they are earn a DC degree and are considered to be "Doctors of Chiropractic" in several countries, but earn a different degree such as Bachelors and Masters and therefore cannot legally be called a 'doctor'. Simplifying it to 'Veterinarian' is a no brainer IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVMt (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually not, as I said, it's a "fixed wing aircraft" problem -- I'm sure that "airplane" gets way more Google hits than "aeroplane" but they picked a neutral, descriptive term, even if on one I know says "I'm going to travel by fixed-wing aircraft." But WP:COMMONALITY does say "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, fixed-wing aircraft is preferred to the national varieties aeroplane (British English) and airplane (American English)." And I see they are fighting over that very issue - again - at the article in question. Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this up for a RfC; to me it seems like a slam-dunk case while arguing the semantics instead of commonality. I can think of no vet who would ever find the term 'Veterinarian' pejorative. DVMt (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the title Veterinary Physician is that it utterly fails WP:COMMONALITY because the word physician means different things inside and outside North America. Inside North America, it has become a formalism for doctor, commonly used in the more grandiose type of general practice title. Outside North America, it has retained its specific meaning of a person who practices medicine rather than surgery, in other words someone who, in North America, would be described as an internist. (Incidentally, this latter meaning is that used by the American College of Physicians.) The current article title, therefore, means to a non-North American what the title Veterinary Internist would to a North American, which is clearly not what is meant. In addition, it leads to such nonsense as 'Veterinary medicine is led by veterinary physicians, termed 'veterinary surgeons'...' (in the article on Veterinary medicine in the United Kingdom), which is, in British English, a complete contradiction in terms. Although the term veterinarian does have a North American flavor, it is widely understood, it is used by the RCVS as a generic term for people qualified to practice veterinary medicine (but who are not necessarily MsRCVS), and it is not actively misleading, as is the current title. Changing the title back to what it was before this ill-advised change would, as you say, seem to be the best solution. Wally Wiglet (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree Wally. Let's get a RfC tomorrow and see if there's any other arguments we haven't considered. Veterinarian is a good compromise and it's inherently logical. Hopefully the emotions don't run too high; it clouds our judgments. DVMt (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An RfC is overkill, how about just putting in a simple move request? Still will bring in third parties to break the deadlock, but with less time-consuming "drahmahz" Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that RfC is overkill. I've been away for a couple of days, but think that commenting here is the most practical solution for the meantime. OK, so the positions have already been pretty much set out, but to recap, there are different views here. I have always opposed veterinarian as it is by no means universal and so fails WP:COMMONALITY, and consequently why we've ended up where we have. My preference at the time was for "vet" - which is clearly the best COMMONNAME fit, being the most used in colloquial language near worldwide. My compromise preference was for "veterinary practitioner" as it avoided the problems that physician has.

Veterinarian is not a good compromise - it's one of the opposite points we were trying to avoid as it doesn't appear in many english variants. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I do think that the only way to meet all the WP policies is to use a neutral language term - the question on this basis should be "what term is acceptable in all language variants", not "lets use the one used in my country". OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And that was the view I came around to the last time we debated this. (I would live with "practitioner") And since this issue arose, I have only found one case in a British English source where the word "veerinarian" appeared -- it's always "veterinary surgeon" or "veterinary this" or "veterinary that" in the UK. (The concern with the shortened form "vet", though pretty universal, was confusion with veteran and my desire to avoid confrontation with WikiProject military history). Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't about the US and UK. Are they the only countries with vets? Why is this a debate about US/UK terminology when we're supposed to representing the global view. Veterinarian is a global term not a veterinary physical nor a veterinary surgeon. DVMt (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If we can get Britain and the US sorted out, the rest of the English-speaking countries may well follow. If you go to the RCVS site and search for 'veterinarian' you will find numerous instances of its use by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Furthermore, The Veterinarian was the title of a journal on veterinary science published for many years in London in the 19th and early 20th centuries (various volumes can be found in Google books). The use of the word in Britain is, therefore, both long-established and current. It is probably not used much because the normal term is veterinary surgeon, but there is nothing incorrect or inferior about it (at least, that I know of). The problem with Veterinary Practitioner is that, in Britain, the term is usually used in a specific sense, namely someone who is entered in the Supplementary Veterinary Register (who is permitted to practise veterinary medicine, with some restrictions, but is not permitted to call themselves a Veterinary Surgeon). Wally Wiglet (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And a little more searching reveals that DEFRA now refers to what used to be known as Local Veterinary Inspectors (vets in private practice who do official work for the government, such as export certification, etc) as Official Veterinarians. Wally Wiglet (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The UK and US aren't the only places with vets, but they are the two largest English variants, and this debate is about common name and commonality between variants of English. I'm not going to dispute that veterinarian has been used in BrE, but it is largely archaic, or in a few specific examples like that Defra one, and far from being common. The third largest variant of English is Indian English, and as if to make a point they use veterinary physician / practitioner. So, for the purposes of commonality, we need to find a term which is suitable across all those variants. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 11:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as a world focus goes, we are talking about WP:USEENGLISH, so we are looking at what English-speaking nations say. So, to that end, if someone wants to look at the national government regulations (not press stuff) for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and, arguably, India, we probably would have the bulk of the examples. That said, all of these nations generally stick to either the US or UK forms. But personally, I don't see this as a "let's take a vote" issue, I see it as a perfect example of WP:COMMONALITY, just like "fixed wing aircraft" (a term virtually no one uses in practice, but that encompasses both airplanes and aeroplanes!). I want us to be respectful of people the world 'round and be careful to not be too US-Centric. So sources, please. Montanabw^(talk) 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (which, if you are not aware, is the regulating body in the UK) uses the word repeatedly. Go its site and search for 'veterinarian'. The term Official Veterinarian is that used by the British government for vets acting on its behalf, see here. The British Veterinary Association likewise uses it when referring to the Official Veterinarian Reform Programme. Also see the entry for veterinarian in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary ( I don't have a link: I have the books). I agree that is is not a word commonly used since veterinary surgeon or vet are the terms employed in everyday usage. But Veterinary Physician is not used at all since, as I have tried to explain, it has a specific meaning in British English. I must confess that I am unfamiliar with Indian practice, so I called my accountant (who is Indian), who told me that veterinarian is the normal term. This appears to be borne out by trade lists, the Mumbai Yellow Pages and the Constitution and By-Laws of the Indian Society for Veterinary Medicine, amongst others. Where Veterinary Physician is used, it appears to be usually in its British sense, sc. a specialist in medicine rather than surgery, and one frequently finds Veterinary Physician and Surgeon. This makes sense since the English used in India is based on British English. A Handbook for Veterinary Physician gets a lot of hits, and this seems to be a book on medicine rather than surgery. So, veterinarian seems to be the common term in all countries so far. Wally Wiglet (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The research seems convincing. The burden is on dissenting editors to prove their suggestions are more common than Veterinarian. DVMt (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I also note that veterinarian is the word used by the Veterinary Council of India, the regulating body in that country. The fact that the word is used by the regulating bodies of both Great Britain and India clearly indicates that its use is acceptable in those countries. Wally Wiglet (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You both are missing the point, which is not the number of votes, but respect for other forms of English per WP:COMMONALITY. Neither of you have addressed my "airplane/aeroplane = fixed wing aircraft" argument. I'm sure there are more uses of "airplane" than "aeroplane" too. That's not the point, the point is if we misuse the term in a way that UK readers will think we are NOT referring to the people they call "veterinary surgeons" when, in fact, we are. At this point, we seem to have a 2-2 stalemate and no consensus at present. Can those of you promoting "veterinarian" PLEASE address the argument I have now made multiple times? Montanabw^(talk) 02:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. And the notion that this is a matter of simply US vs UK is myopic and doesn't represent the world view. Fixed wing aircraft is a reach comparing Veterinarian to veterinary physician. If it were indeed that close, it wouldn't be an issue. The easiest way is to call the article "Veterinarian" and then state "also known as veterinary surgeon" etc. To ignore the "number of votes" would be a disservice and this is not about appeasing American or British vets. Its finding a colloquial term that is used commonly in the majority of countries. And I have not seen veterinary physician used at all. DVMt (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just the same people debating this. Maybe we should do a simple move request and see what shakes out, but first, why don't we take this to WikiProject Veterinary Medicine and see if they can or will offer any further opinion? The arguments are simple, "more people say "veterinarian" so let's use the most common term" (and by they way I am an American, so it's what I say, just FWIW), versus WP:COMMONALITY's suggestion that a term, even if not a "common" one, that everyone can agree on is better in some situations (I'm sure NO ONE says "I'm going to take a trip to Hawaii on a fixed wing aircraft"). At WP Vet Med we may get a consensus in a couple weeks, if we do a move request, then we will have two months of endless debate on the broader across-all-of-wiki issue where we will all be beating our heads against the wall wondering why we ever brought in third parties... Want to do the post at WP Vet or shall I? Montanabw^(talk) 20:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is fair idea. Go ahead to initiate, we're at a stalemate here!

Pubmed search: Veterinarian 8399 hits [11]. Google scholar: 163 000 hits [12] Veterinary physician 484 hits [13], GS: 48 800 hits [14], Veterinary surgeon 434 hits [15], GS = 42 400 [16]. This will provide useful evidence for a potential page move. DVMt (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not useful at all, because you are ignoring the main reason for using veterinary physician which is commonality, not common use. 06:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Providing prevalence of use of terminology isn't useful at all? Vet phys is not common according to the sources. DVMt (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

We are clearly still making the same circular argument. NO ONE is arguing the numbers, we are debating if a neutral term is superior to either the most common UK or US English term, and that neutral phrase will undoubtably have fewer hits than the others. The point is fixed-wing aircraft, and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure WP:IAR applies ;) DVMt (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why COMMONALITY (part of a guideline) should triumph WP:COMMONNAME (part of a policy). Fixed-wing aircruft is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTing. --Dodo bird (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

BINGO! From Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#National_varieties_of_English: "Very occasionally a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, Fixed-wing aircraft was selected to avoid the choice between Aeroplane and Airplane." Thank you for proving my point, Dodo bird! My point that I have been making all along is right there! Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what point you think it proves.--Dodo bird (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That there does exist a good argument for "Veterinary physician" as a "less common but non-nation-specific term" right there in WP:COMMONNAME policy. My point all along. I realize that we are discussing whether to change the title, but everyone seems to think I'm off on a tangent, when clearly my position aligns with policy - it's just that there is more than one way to implement policy, (mass numbers versus neutral name) and we are debating which way to apply it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Nobody has ever made the argument that VP is the common name, BUT WP:COMMONNAME does contain the position that sometimes a term which is not the most common should be used - in line with WP:COMMONALITY which is the guide to applying that policy. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Do all parties still feel this issue is consensus or resolved? There was a similar issue regarding Doctor of Chiropractic and renaming the page to Chiropractor. Neuraxis (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the last post, this issue has been dead for a year, please don't resurrect it like the walking dead. Montanabw^(talk) 23:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Just asking. Good show, btw... ;) Neuraxis (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio problem

The entire history section had been blanked [17] since January 18 due to the addition of extensive copy paste from http://scienceray.com/biology/a-brief-history-of-veterinary-medicine/. The temporary re-write page at Talk:Veterinary physician/Temp is basically unusable, as it copied the entire article, not simply the offending section, and thus creates attribution problems. The re-written text is also still quite close paraphrasing from the above source and from http://www.veterinaryhistorysociety.org.uk/press.htm (neither of which are ideal sources in the first place). It was also way too skewed to the British veterinary profession. I have consequently re-written the section in situ with text adapted and shortened from the equivalent section in Veterinary medicine, which I also had to re-write using better references because that section had likewise been a copyvio. Other editors should now take it from here, or you might possibly decide that the section here is superfluous. Note that it was OK for me to remove the copyvio blanking template and re-write, as I'm a Copyright problems clerk. Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

__________ I am deleting "This compares with acceptance rates of well under 25% for most PhD and MD degrees" because there is no source cited. I checked the source regarding overall veterinary school admission, and it does not mention that statistic. This might be relevant with 2007 data, but at the moment does not make sense in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityneededwiki (talk • contribs) 13:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I am also deleting "The likelihood of acceptance is not in favor of the applicant, though is higher than acceptance rates in most academic PhD programs and medical schools" for similar reasons. There is no source, this is not a comparison page, and overall acceptance rate of an applicant to any school is different than acceptance rates at individual programs. If comparison is warranted, which it does not appear to be so, there should be data from the same year and overall acceptance rate to any PhD or MD program.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Veterinary physician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060926152609/http://aavmc.org/students_admissions/vet_schools.htm to http://www.aavmc.org/students_admissions/vet_schools.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)