User talk:NRPanikker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 04:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Heathfield Hospital

I dispute that Heathfield was the main hospital for the area until the construction of the present Ayr Hospital. In Ayr you had Seafield (childrens hospital), Heathfield, and Ayr County. Ayr County sat near the railway station and had a working A&E unit until it was closed. I'm not totally sure of what function Heathfield served, perhaps it had a lot of day clinics in the same way that Irvine Central did. Douglasnicol 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I just remember that years back, my mum was in a car accident and she was taken to Ayr County and that would have been about 1981. The seperate villas of Heathfield seems to suggest a fever hospital originally, Irvine Central was like that, with a lot of seperate lodge type buildings. I think that although Irvine has scaled down, many of the small buildings are still there. I'll confess to not knowing very much about Ballochmyle. Incidentally, there were plans to close the A&E at Ayr hospital and make Crosshouse the sole one for the area and build 'cottage hospitals'. This seems for now to have been stopped. Douglasnicol 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeleted Rorschach sample pic

Actually, in graduate school and post graduate school, psychologists are taught that it is ethically wrong to publish psychological tests. It is not a question of copyright. It invalidates the test. That is the problem. But, of course, I do not expect wikipedia to respect this sort of thing. But it is unethical for a psychologist to publish a Rorschack card. And that is an actual card, one out of ten. So 10% of the test is invalid for all who see that card. Is it worth it, do you think? I know wikipedia is not concerned with ethics, but.....? --Mattisse 01:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters very much, but all ten Rorschach cards are already available on-line on a Spanish website linked to the Wikipedia Rorschach article. I have seen them on the web before, many times. Clinical secrets like these have brief lives. NRPanikker 01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't expect you to understand. It has to do with the ethically standards of a professional, licensed psychologist. Perhaps you belong to a profession that has ethical standards, that although violating them is not against the law, you as a professional could not ethically condone. It is an ethical question for psychologists so it will make any psychologist queasy to see that done. I know what you are saying is true. It is easily available in unauthorized places, so is pornography and I guess wikipedia has no standards about that either. People differ. --Mattisse 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hopping/OsteopathicFreak

In the name of full disclosure, I added links to the official name change / ursurpation process to my userpage. I hope this further relieves any concern about this name change. Cheers! User:Hopping T 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osteopathic medicine/osteopathy in the U.K

I moved your new content to the osteopathy article. I gave an explanation here. User:Hopping T 03:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your latest concern on Talk:Osteopathic medicine (U.S.). I wondering what solution you would find satisfactory. User:Hopping T 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The is the hatnote from the top of the Osteopathic medicine (U.S.) article.

This article is about a branch of the medical profession in the United States. For the form of complementary medicine practiced worldwide, see Osteopathy.

I would think this would address the concerns you are making. Do you feel this statement is misleading or inadequate? User:Hopping T 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen to have separate U.S.- specific articles about everything, but where the U.S. does things so very differently I agree that it makes sense to split the topic that way. NRPanikker (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panicker

That is true, but Panikar is closer to the original Malayalam than Panicker, especially the "ck" which is not the standard translation for "ka" or even "kka". The "er" is also incorrect since it is supposed to be "ar". The only problem is with the hard "n" sound, which can be shown as a either a double "nn" or the "n subscript dot" (as in Pāṇini). Transliteration is also Wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28people_of_India_and_Sri_Lanka%29#Naming_and_transliterationHijjins (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has a policy of transliterating foreign names, that must be "a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance." It would be a licence to vandalise for every opinionated ignoramus, of which we have not a few already. NRPanikker (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Allopathic"

I really agree with your statement "The contradiction seems to lie in the American DOs' idea of themselves and their position in relation to the rest. I have suggested before that there are elements of self-hatred and cultural cringe involved."

You can see this played out in the very robust debate seen within the osteopathic physician community today, as in this recent publication discussing eliminating the MD/DO split in the US altogether, which is hardly a new idea.

Though I agree with your analysis, I don't see an easy way to represent these elements (self-hatred and cultural cringe) into any specific article, without violating WP:OR. I don't agree however, that these facts obviate the need to eliminate the term "allopathic" from Wikipedia. We are not resurrecting an outdated term, the term is in active usage in the US.

Thoughts? Bryan Hopping T 18:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing that we should eliminate "allopathic," and merely assert that it is being grossly overused. It is perhaps not coincidental that this term has become more prominent at a time when integation versus separation has become a live issue in American medicine. Regarding the debate within the American DO community, it will no doubt take place mainly in the osteopathic journals and their on-line counterparts, and I doubt very much whether anything would be gained by encouraging everybody and his uncle to contribute their two cents-worth in a forum such as Wikipedia. NRPanikker (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)