Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:28, 8 February 2024

	This non-existent page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Education This page is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation

This is an archive of past discussions about Research fellow. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Merge proposal

Not really! The section Fellow deal with the broad concept of Fellow (i.e. an equal, someone who belongs to college, an "emeritus lecturer", a professional fellow) Research Fellow is very specific and some parts of the section Fellow should be moved to Research Fellow. Merging the two sections would like merging Teacher and Lecturer. Mootros (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest merging the content of Fellow that deals with all meanings of "research fellow" with this article (Research Fellow) and moving the result to Research fellow (uncapitalized "fellow"), which is currently a redirect to Fellow. --Boson (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Boson your suggestion sounds good! http://www.eths.k12.il.us/manual_of_form_and_style/capitalization.html I've now done the section merger from Fellow#Research Fellow into Research Fellow. Could some please shift Research Fellow to Research fellow, remove the redirect and than delete the wrongly capitalised entry. Cheers Mootros (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• We certainly do not delete Research Fellow - it is used (albeit wrongly) in several places: Special:WhatLinksHere/Research Fellow. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

References

76.66.180.225: You can make changes, but not remove references and other links unless you explain.Wilson44691 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ventuas / Wilson: before applying rules on other, please apply rules on yourself first. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead and other section

The lead states that RF differs greatly. So it does not makes sense having a section called "concepts". Contributors should add to each country's section specifc facts and refrain from a gerneric statements in a catch all section. Mootros (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Please sign your contributions by placing ~~~~ after your comments. Many thanks!

'comment'

In fact it makes a perfect sense to have a concept section explaining what is RF, and then pointing out variations among countries.

~~~~

What facts are your revering to? Mootros (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

the fact that for you it doesn't make sense, but for others it makes lot of sense Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What fact (what source?) what are you talking about? 10:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

exactly that is that point, you still don't know what we are talking about, and it is good that you asked.

so you said it doesnt make sense, is there any source that your senses are true ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of abbreviation

What is the point of using an abbreviation (PhD), plus a summary of term (doctoral), plus the fully spelled term (doctor of)? Mootros (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

what is the point of putting an abbreviation without shorty explaining it ?! isn't this an encyclopedia ? Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Next why put MD there at all. While most RFs have a PhD, an MD is a professional degreesin many countries and not a research degree. Mootros (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

here is your problem, that you dont want to consider Doctor of Medicine as Both a graduate and Doctoral degree, consequently you are editing based on your desire and not based on facts. Dear,MD is both graduate and Doctoral.Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) Why not leave it as (PhD or MD)? That way both of you are satisfied. If that doesn't work, I suggest you seek a third opinion. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for sharing the discussion. The main reason is that abbreviation are always decievong and confusing. Like MD in some countries doesn't mean a doctor of medicine. Also in some countries , their universities don't offer PhD, they offer degrees equivalent to it. Hence explanation of abbreviation is essential, and I dont think it is a problem to mention what the abbreviation stands for. However, with Motrooos it seems, like a big big problem to explain abbreviations to give space for confusion! thanks again Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're not ok with abbreviations, and mootros is not ok with the long form, I suggest seeking a third opinion. This should be fairly straightforward and I can help set it up for the two of you if you like. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again thanks for your positive interventions. I don't think we need a third opinion as much as we need more understanding. Here is a simple question: is MD abbreviation when added next to PhD is clear enough for everyone to understnad that it means "Doctor of Medicine" ?! I don't think so. If you are living in india or middle east for instance, you will know that MD there means PhD !

So the golden rule always, when the context of abbreviation might cause confusion then write the whole term next to it, and further down the article, you can use the abbreviation that was already mentioned. That is the ethics in any peer reviewed Journal by the way. The explain abbreviation even for very common terms in the beginning of the article, to avoid potential confusion.Kushsinghmd (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can convince mootros, then fine. But, if you can't, you'll need to go in for some form of dispute resolution. A WP:3O is the easiest. If you don't do that, the likelihood is that you will get into an edit war and then one or both of you will end up blocked. If you or mootros want to go in for a 3O, and would like help setting it up, let me know. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree on two interrelated points. (i) It is superfluous to use abbreviations and fully spelled out terms in addition to the neat summary term "doctoral". Doctoral has a wiki link, leading the those who do not know what it means to a detailed explanation. This get us around (ii) the issues of international variations, such as doctor of medicine. Doctor of medicine in many places is not be a research degree, but a professional qualification. Mootros (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Doctor of Medicine is both a research and professional degree everywhere. It just takes you two minutes to look in the MEDLINE database , to know how doctors everywhere over th planet are leading medical research. User failed to recognize the major difference between clinical and basic science research.Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

also expalining commonly used abbreviation in the begining of an article is standrad by many peer reviewed and scholarly Journals. If further infroamtion is required about the concep, then yes go search other arciles, in this case will be the doctoral link

Are we going to include Doctor of Business Administration and Doctor of Music in this "list" then? Mootros (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

what is the degree title that Doctor of Bussiness adminsteration and Doctor of Music are holding ?! isn't it PhD, which is already included. Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. Doctorate#Professional_doctorates_in_the_United_States Mootros (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I didnt find among the list you lately provided Doctor of Bussiness Adminsteration or Doctor of Music which you specifically asked about previously , and Accordingly I responded. SO please eplain your situation. You provided two examples, yet we didnt find them in the list you are providing, doesn that mean that you are used to provide false information, and then when face, you try to revert to something else in a trial for correction ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Search for Doctor_of_Business_Administration Mootros (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

again there is difficulty understanding. User previously said: Are we going to include Doctor of Business Administration and Doctor of Music in this "list" then?, and then I answered him, so he changed gears, rather than admitting his mistake, diverging to another topic, ], and when asked how is that related to PHD in BA or music, he said Search for Doctor_of_Business_Administration. That's so disturbed way of thinking, to switch from one point to another unrelated point trying to escape faulty thinking and wrong examples. And it is ironic enough that user invites us to search, when he always failed to do so!!. I guess case closed Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you moderate your tone; you may read this: Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, to get some better ideas of how to collaborate. Mootros (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You provided two examples, and when asked about the appropriateness of using these exmples you failed to provided solid information, however you used an irrelevant list. when asked how both are related, you talked about wikipedia etiquette!!! WOW !! Honestly, I am not going to comment on such attitude and behaviour. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Use of summary term, abbreviation of term, and fully spelled out term in same sentence

The wikified term doctoral degree is sufficient in the lead of this article; it does not need be followed by a random list of abbreviations (e.g. PhD, MD, DBA...) plus another list of fully spelled terms (doctors of..., doctors of..., doctors of...) in one and the same sentence. Mootros (talk)

Discussion

User failed to respond appropraiately to his own discussion above, and now started a new one. However still same repition and redundancy of the dsame points. Since I already responded to all these points above, while user wasn't able to rebuttle, but instead preferred to repeat himself over and over again, So once again I would refer him to the my same responses (above) to either respond appropraitelly so we can give him some attention, or he can keep repeeating same points, for which we are not going to listen, it is your choice, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is nothing wrong with explaining abbreviations, this is common practice in explanatory texts such as encyclopedias. On the other hand we do not need a full list of all possible abbreviations and their meanings in this article, because that's not the topic of "Research fellow" and that's what the doctorate wikilink is about. The mentioning of examples of doctoral in the lead should be left as in this edit. The phrase "i.e MD (Doctor of Medicine) or PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), or equivalent work" clearly is meant to be exemplary for some of the most common doctorates. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Doctor of Medicine is not a common research degree; in many countries it is not a research degree but a professional degree. Doctorate#Professional_doctorates_in_the_United_States So MD is not a good example I would say. Mootros (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see a definite problem reading and understanding my comments !!, I have already responded to this point at least 3 times, and user keeps bringing this same point over and over again. Since you are forcing me to do so, here is my response once again, may be you lost track in all these repitionions and redundancy you are commiting to wikipedia:

I have already said to user before and he completely failed to respond:

"Doctor of Medicine is both a research and professional degree everywhere. It just takes you two minutes to look in the MEDLINE database , to know how doctors everywhere over th planet are leading medical research. User failed to recognize the major difference between clinical and basic science research."Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the abbreviations would suffice, if they had the internal links to the relevant articles. Robotpandazombie (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree , the value of providing internal link is to learn more about a topic, and not to search for th meaning of an abbreviation. Articles in any respectful peer reviewed journal should elaborate on the abbreviations used first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you insist to use the fully spelled out term, there is no need to use an abbreviation, as it is not repeated in the text. Mootros (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

puting the abbreviation in the begining of the article not only mandated by using the term down the article, but also used for the redears own knowledge.Kushsinghmd (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Manuel of Style clearly states here abbreviations are used to clarify further usage. In RF there is no further usage; this article is about RF not about MD or PhD. In Misplaced Pages most editors follow the MOS. If you think this need to be changed please start a discussion at the relevant MOS page. Mootros (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

MOS clearly states to use abbreviation on the first occurence, and did not manadate the precense of further usage to justify putting abbreviation in the begining of an artcile. Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To make it clear, I coincide the idea you introduced that doctoral should be explained by one or two fully spelled out terms. I will continue to object to any unnecessary use of an abbreviation in conjunction with a fully spell out term. Mootros (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean unnecssary usage of abbreviation?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations are used to make a sentence shorter, you put it in to make it longer. Mootros (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So I can't understand how this contribution is useful to the discusion. So you want to keep it shhorter or longer on what basis ? Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikified term is sufficient. Examples just spoil the flow of the sentence. Most people interested in this article will know what it means. Those who do not can use the link. Yaris678 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If your statement was true, that examples spoil the flow of sentence, then why the use of " examples" is a common practice, and I can give you many examples here in wikipedia, and in scholary articles and a lot of textbooks as well ?!

How did you make such assertion that most people interested in this article, already know what are the common examples of dcotorates held by RF ?! have you tested the knowledge of the reader or how did you come to such assertion?

thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Yaris678: I'm just adding this here, although I've already made the same points in a section below. The examples are not necessary, because there is a link that has those same examples right in the lead. The list of examples is relevant to the definition of a doctorate not this article. Scholarly articles and textbooks are irrelevant, as they follow a different style and format from an encyclopedia, especially a "wikified" encyclopedia. Perhaps if I thought some consensus could be reached on which examples to include and how to format them, and if the examples didn't overwhelm the rest of the sentence, then possibly they could go here. Since the pages of discussion seem to indicate that consensus cannot be reached, and since the lead is at least as clear if not more clear without the examples, they should not be included at this time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter or not if you agree with another user or not, as it was already said to me before, that WP is not democratic systems depending on voting.

Also if you consider scholarly articles and textbooks as irrlevant to you, I already mentioned that I can bring many WP articles that mentioned examples in their leads. Therefore your rules is not valid.

Even more, in many other articles, there is a trend of talking briefly about another WP article briefly within the context of the former one, yet for people who need more explanaiton there is a hyperlink!. If as you claim that hyperlinks are to be enough, why then summarizing important points ?!

to make my talk more practicle, here are two examples:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Poetry

in the lead of the article Poetry, and discussions of it, have a long history. Early attempts to define poetry, such as Aristotle's Poetics, focused on the uses of speech in rhetoric, drama, song, and comedy. Later attempts concentrated on features such as repetition, verse form and rhyme, and emphasized the aesthetics which distinguish poetry from prose.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Gold

Although primarily used as a store of value, gold has many modern industrial uses including dentistry and electronics.

even more in the same articles, it talked breiefly about production of gold, yet providing a hyperlink to other Main articles: Gold prospecting, Gold mining, and Gold extraction.

and I can keep going - just from WP- providing so many examples than this page can really accomodate

Therefore, on investigating the current status to claimed statements, these claims are just absurd, and are not applied in reality.

And I can also say: Since the pages of discussion seem to indicate that consensus cannot be reached, and since the lead is at not clear without the examples, they should Be included at this time.

thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that as a "vote." I wasn't sure how to phrase my position succinctly. I guess I could have said Comment: Keep the lead as currently written (with no examples). As for your final point, you are currently the only person I've seen (here or on the RFC page) claiming that the lead, as currently written, is unclear. Obviously, it's difficult for me to place myself into the hypothetical position of a reader coming to the page looking for information about research fellows while knowing nothing about what a doctorate is. But my belief (yes, this is my opinion, but I thought the point of an RfC is to gather opinions, to create a consensus about how the article should be written) is that the information is organized best as it is now--on the Doctoral Program page. Since you're the one who keeps asking for evidence, do you have any evidence or argumentation about what is unclear about the way it is written now, particularly given the hyperlink? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No i am not the only one here. If you go accurately over the discussion you find others. But even, if I am the only one, it all depeneds on verifiability. I verified my claims over and over, however still I can't see any backup for the opposing claim. Therefore, we should include examples in the lead. Have you checked the above wikipedia examples I provided ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

beside the above already mentioned two examples, I would like to add this examples, where a wikified term was used, however examples were added right after it !

http://en.wikipedia.org/Charles_I_of_England

whilst simultaneously using his position as head of the English Church to pursue religious policies which generated the antipathy of reformed groups such as the Puritans. Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Therefore Is there still any valid objection for not using examples in the lead ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I still have a valid objection, and my objection was shared by others. I still oppose the inclusion of the examples. They are unnecessary, and including them leads to several other problems. You do not have consensus to add those, and you can't pretend like there is consensus because you've decided all objetions are invalid. An RfC was opened, and this page received comments from several outside editors that the examples were unnecessary. Now, I don't know Misplaced Pages dispute resolution well enough to know what happens next, but I'm fairly certain the next step is not a declaration by fiat by one side that all objecting concerns are invalid and your version stands. As a side note, you never attended to my concern that if you include examples for types of doctoral programs, you should also include examples of what a university is and what similar types of non-university research sites are. Why do you get to decide that one specific term needs examples but others don't? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

so let me address each of your points

"Yes, I still have a valid objection, and my objection was shared by others."

this was already answered as follows

1: WP is not a democartic voting system. therefore beng shared by others is irrelevant

2: and my opnion hass also been shared by others as well !!

3: hope you understadn what is VALID objection, not repeated already addressed objection

"They are unnecessary,"

what makes them unnecessary ?! already showed that using examples is a commmon practice!

"including them leads to several other problems."

WOW you said several. OK, since WP depends on verifiability, so I would assume good faith that you are honest. So please verify this claim and list down just ten out of these several other problems that you mentioned

"You do not have consensus to add those, and you can't pretend like there is consensus because you've decided all objetions are invalid."

1. using same principal I can easily say: "You do not have consensus to remove those

2. Since rules of W is to assume good faith , then Please apologize about the second line. You can't say I am pretending!, that's rude and unacceptable according to WP

"An RfC was opened, and this page received comments from several outside editors that the examples were unnecessary."

and since I am representing one of the opinions, and since I have already added alot to the content on this page, therefore I have the right too as an editor to address such invalid claims since none of such claims "that examples are unnecessary" were verifiable. And Again let me repeat, since it seems that I am having a diffciulty out there to send my message: WP IS NOT A DEMOCRTATIC VOTING SYSTEM. therefore bIeng shared by others is irrelevant. Otherwise I would say, my opinion has already been agreed on by other parties!.

"Now, I don't know Misplaced Pages dispute resolution well enough to know what happens next, but I'm fairly certain the next step is not a declaration by fiat by one side that all objecting concerns are invalid and your version stands."

It is good that you said that you dont know, because it is clear that you didn't differentiate between summarizing, and putting a decision. Sir, You and others added objection, and all of them were address. Please check of the page, You will find after each one, I already have responded to. However NONE was able to defend his claims against my objections (please reread carefully), therefore I was summarizing what happened, to see if it is really the situation or not. However, Again you objected, but unfortuantely you added nothing to the content. All what you presented is that you are unhappy with examples all the reasons that were provided were subjective, which makes same inherently weak. And that is why I said VALID.

"As a side note, you never attended to my concern that if you include examples for types of doctoral programs, you should also include examples of what a university is and what similar types of non-university research sites are."

First I havent seen this concern, however this concern is irrelevant to me, and so unimportant to discuss since we already are having another issue to discuss here. And I always prefer to focus on one point.

"Why do you get to decide that one specific term needs examples but others don't? "

Again, Since WP depends on virfialbitly, please verify your claim. To make it clear I never addressed such a point, therefore I never decided that other term need or does not need examples. Please either apologize that you put a false claim here, or provide me with my statment that I claimed so. You can't state that I asserted something that I didn't, and think you will go with it.

Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you're right that I was wrong to use the word "pretend;" my apologies. I should accept that you do believe that the article is better with the examples. Let me try to address each of your points, and I apologize if I don't hit all of them.

Apologies accepted. Just hope for more accuracy and respect afterwards, without repetitions for similar behavior, Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

   "1: WP is not a democartic voting system. therefore beng shared by others is irrelevant
   2: and my opnion hass also been shared by others as well !!
   3: hope you understadn what is VALID objection, not repeated already addressed objection"

I agree with points 1 and 2--you are not alone in this, and, as you point out, it's not a voting system. However editing does require consensus. At this point, you do not have consensus, as there are several editors who do not agree that the examples are necessary. So we need to keep working towards consensus/compromise. That's what I meant when I said that you can't just declare that there were no valid objections. I felt like you were trying to say that the process was finished because you had decided our objections were invalid. I understand that you believe the objections to be invalid in good faith, but we do not yet have consensus that all objections have been met.

That's the key for the problems I have been encountring here over and over, statements being made depending on subjective feeling rather on objective evidence. Kushsinghmd (talk)

 what makes  unnecessary ?! already showed that using examples is a commmon practice!

You showed that they are included on some pages, in some situations. You have not shown that they are universally necessary. In this very lead, there are many terms for which you do not give examples. If you really do believe examples are the key, then consider, chosen off of the top of my head, the following leads: Political Party does not give examples of parties themselves, or of ideologies, or of goals. Couch does not contain examples of the types textiles used to make them. Whaling does not list examples of countries that do whaling. Yes, many, many leads contain examples, and many many do not. I would believe that, in each article, a consensus was reached (explicitly or implicitly) about whether or not to include examples, based on what was necessary for that article. I, and others, hold that for this article, using examples does not improve the article, especially since the exact term you want to use examples for is wikified and thus can be easily understood with a single click.

Agreeing that many leads contain examples, is enough to eleminate other statements made here and falsify other statement that examples affect the integrity of an article being concise, spoiling the flow of the article. Since it didn't affect the flow of other articles therefore, but it rather helped reader understand. Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"so please verify this claim and list down just ten out of these several other problems that you mentioned."

Several means two or three, not more than ten. The three most pressing problems I can think of are which examples to choose, which order to put them in, and whether or not to spell those examples out. Yes, I know that you (all) have been debating those very points elsewhere on the page; however, consensus was not reached on those issues, which I believe even lead to a temporary page protection. If we agree to include examples, we're going to have to go back to that debate.

Actually if you went over the discussion carefully, You would have noticed that those other problems were almost solved. The speeled out version should be included according to WP manual style guide. And the order will go alphabetically. So were there really several other problems , or you meant problem that already been solved ?!

"It is good that you said that you dont know, because it is clear that you didn't differentiate between summarizing, and putting a decision. Sir, You and others added objection, and all of them were address. Please check of the page, You will find after each one, I already have responded to. However NONE was able to defend his claims against my objections (please reread carefully), therefore I was summarizing what happened, to see if it is really the situation or not. However, Again you objected, but unfortuantely you added nothing to the content. All what you presented is that you are unhappy with examples all the reasons that were provided were subjective, which makes same inherently weak. And that is why I said VALID."

I do not believe that you validly met my objections. I do not consider the examples necessary. In order for an example to be necessary, it must be needed to help the typical reader understand. I believe that people researching what a research fellow is will know what a doctoral degree is; and I believe that if they don't, they would be better off getting that info from the Doctorate page. You have not yet, as far as I have seen, given any evidence that they are necessary, just that you think they are better, and that some (but not all) leads have examples in some situations. In any event, the whole idea of reaching consensus is that it does not end when one person says "All objections have been met, I/we are still correct, the other side's points are wrong, therefore, we have consensus." In fact, we are still at a stalemate.

Again, Sir, all what you providing is just subjective claims. I can easily say the opposite I do not believe that you validly met my objections. I Do consider the examples important. In order for an example to be necessary, it must be needed to help the typical reader understand. I believe that people researching what a research fellow is will NOT know what a doctoral degree is; and I believe that if they do, they would be better let others know. You have not yet, as far as I have seen, given any evidence that they are unnecessary, just that you think they are worse, and that some (but not all) leads don't have examples in some situations.

Therefore, just your narrative subjective comments, didn't really add much!

"First I havent seen this concern, however this concern is irrelevant to me, and so unimportant to discuss since we already are having another issue to discuss here. And I always prefer to focus on one point."

My point is that you seem to believe, as far as I can tell, that examples are necessary for the type of degrees, but not for what a university or research institution is. I honestly don't understand why you think the one needs examples but the other does not, because I would argue that they are at about an equal level of knowledge (not identical, but not equivalent). That is, I can't imagine a person who is aware of what a university is but not what a doctoral degree is.

If you can't imagine of such person, this is again SUBJECTIVE. And if you really approve subjective claims, I can easily state that there are many who don't know what would doctorate degree encompass! Further more, I didn't argue using other examples, I don't know why do I have to repeat myself and state again: That Now I am focsuing on one topic: use of the examples next to doctorates. If you want to argue other points, I hope to make sure you are in the right sections, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Again, Since WP depends on virfialbitly, please verify your claim. To make it clear I never addressed such a point, therefore I never decided that other term need or does not need examples. Please either apologize that you put a false claim here, or provide me with my statment that I claimed so. You can't state that I asserted something that I didn't, and think you will go with it."

Sorry, you didn't explicitly state that, but that's the point I just raised above.

Again Apologies are accepted this time, However I am calling for more honesty next time, and not to repeat such behaviour please, Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) So rather than going tit for tat even further and getting bogged down in details, maybe you could help me. We've been trading many words on many different points, but I'm afraid that I may have lost track of the most basic issue. Could you try to state, as simply and clearly as possible, why you believe those examples are necessary for the lead? I still don't understand why they are necessary. I don't need examples (because there are both examples for and against), but would like to hear you say just why we need examples for one and only one term in the lead. Maybe if I hear it again from you distinctly we can find a way to compromise. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I already added this section before your comments http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Research_fellow#Using_Examples

I understand that you may missed it unitentionally. And I objectively presented a case about the importance of having examples

Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick note here to say that I'm continuing this discussion at the bottom of the current Talk page (in Section 18, Using Examples), because I think that's where you have already written your clearest explanation of your points. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Appropriateness of MD as example of degree of Research Fellow

The phrase "i.e MD (Doctor of Medicine) or PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), or equivalent work" clearly is meant to be exemplary for some of the most common doctorates. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Doctor of Medicine is not a common research degree; in many countries it is not a research degree but a professional degree. Doctorate#Professional_doctorates_in_the_United_States So MD is not a good example I would say. Mootros (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment What Countries exactly are you talking about here sir ?! I hope you don't mean a third world country that's already not participating in research and consequently they don't have positions similar to RF Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

From Doctor of Medicine: "Following the awarding of the MD, physicians who wish to practice in the United States are required to complete at least one internship year (PGY-1) and pass the USMLE Step 3. In order to receive Board Eligible or Board Accredited status in a specialty of medicine such as general surgery or internal medicine, then undergo additional specialized training in the form of a residency. Those who wish to further specialize in areas such as cardiology or interventional radiology then complete a fellowship." See also Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center's roster of current research fellows for infectious diseases. All of them are M.D.

This makes it look like the qualification of MD is indeed sufficient for entering a research fellowship in the U.S. and that no additional title is required for a fellowship. That aside, there are in fact many other countries where the Doctor of Medicine is a full academic title, so that alone justifies its inclusion in the lead for the Research fellow article. De728631 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Nobody has said that an MD is not sufficient for becoming a RF; I say it is not a degree that is most commonly held by RFs. You are mistaking a Fellowship_(medicine) as part of a medical training, which is distinct from an appointment as RF, who who does not embark on a higher career as a practitioner of something, but as a researcher of something. These intricate details make it hard to put some specific degree in the intro; that's the whole reason why I say doctoral degree (level) is a sufficient description. Mootros (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: That's inconsistency. Since you already admitted here that MD is totally sufficent degree to become and RF, then how come you are asking to delete as a common example ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I will also add what I have already said to user before and he completely failed to respond:

"Doctor of Medicine is both a research and professional degree everywhere. It just takes you two minutes to look in the MEDLINE database , to know how doctors everywhere over th planet are leading medical research. User failed to recognize the major difference between clinical and basic science research."Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Good example here: Medical_school#Thailand MD is a first degree in Thailand (six years duration). So far I know there is know specfic research element to it, but a broad practical element, including emergency surgery. Mootros (talk)

That article doesn't say anything at all about research, only about how to become an MD in Thailand. Anyhow, it doesn't matter at all for this article which specific country allows which title for entering a research fellowship, it is sufficient if examples of common titles in some countries are given in the lead. And this does include the Doctor of Medicine in a lot of countries. I would really advise you to accept this solution, but if you feel that it is needed you may ask the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee for assistance. I for one have stated my opinion on the matter and won't comment any further on it. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: How is thailand as an example ? example for what sir ?! and what brought up the issue f Emergency medicine here ?!! this contribution is totally confusing !! Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A good example where people after six years MD training have almost no research methodology training, but instead an extremely broad training, including compulsory training how to perform certain types of surgery, even they qualify as medical practitioners. I'll try to find some sources in English, if you want; hope it's not going to shock you again. Mootros (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Are we not trying to give an example of a degree that has a sufficient component of research training, because RF is a research position, not a training. The Thai case is a good (though extreme) example (I'll look for some sources in English). An MD usually does not have the research component to the extent a PhD would have, because it focuses on the solution of practical problems. As you said it should be a common example; it is questionable in my opinion to what extent a Fellow --who is undertaken medical training-- is a research fellow. These are normally refereed to as fellows; see the link you provided. If there really needs to be an example it should only be PhD. Furthermore, there is no need for both an abbreviation and the fully spelled out term, because the abbreviation is not used again in the text. Lets wait until the 30 days are over before moving further. Mootros (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you showed some understanding of how the medical system works, then you should have known that during years of residency, Postgraduate training, and also during fellowship years, most training programs, dedicates a period of time ranges from few months to years embarking on a research study. An example is here http://people.ucalgary.ca/~psyctree/resident.htm. And I would like to provide this clear example to you about medical research fellowships: http://med.stanford.edu/anesthesia/education/residentresearch.html . And to end this discussion, here is an announcment about research fellowship it requires either MD or Phd degree or equivalent work: http://www.hhwf.org/HTMLSrc/ResearchFellowships.html

I guess now that case is closed Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note the way Ph.D. is listed first, before M.D in this US specific example Mootros (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So what ?! "or" in language does not necessirly mean order, I think that is very basic!

anyways: MDs like PhDs, both are eligible to become research fellows Not like you hav been falsely claiming and have been calling to delete it wrongly from the examples section !Kushsinghmd (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you may understand that we are trying to reach a compromise. You may also have noticed that I have shifted my position about the MD as a possible example, upon the previous conversation. I will not move on the issue to place MD first, because it is misleading. Faculties of medicine are only one of many faculties in most universities; members of all the other faculties have mostly PhDs and not MDs. Even within faculties of medicine there is a good mixture of PhDs and MDs. This article is not about RF in medical sciences. Mootros (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you please clearly state what you are asking for now ?! it seems that since your objections failed, so you are trying to be Not clear to avoid clear discussion.

Also are you tryin to exclude medical sciences from this topic ?! then what sciences specifically is this topic dealing with ? please let me know if you heard about a research fellow in Bussiness adminsteration or RF of music; the examples you previously mentioned. thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting not to put doctor of medicine first, but doctor of philosophy, because most RFs have a PhD -> because medical sciences is only one area within a University. Most people have a PhD in something, but not a PhD in medicine. Hence Phd is more prominent and should be in the order of precedent the first (most prominent) example followed by MD, because in contrast to PhDs across the University there are less MDs. You are right doctor of medicine is useful to list, because of the historical development that there is not PhD in medicine.

1. Please reference you speech, and show some statisitics about number of research fellows and their qulaificaions and degrees.

2. Does order here should be ascending , descending or random ?! why do you consider order as a represent of prominency ?

Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re, PhD in Business Admin. Here is a good example of a (senior) RF post where the candidate would be mostly like to have a PhD in Business Admin or in Management studies. Some applicants might even have a DBA, but it tends to be the exception because they got their doctorate in order to "go out" to be executives or business leaders, and not researchers. The difference between these two degrees is that the later often focuses on the solution of more practical problems. In terms of becoming an RF it does not make a difference, because an RF in this sense (unlike in medicine in the US) is not a training programme, but a job. I hope this makes sense. Mootros (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you are reading stuff after you google it and before you put it here. Sir, in the example you mentioned the first selection criteria is "Doctorate in the physical, mathematical, engineering, computer, or analytic social sciences from a major research university." and not PhD in business admintsteration. Further more it is a RF position in networking. So wouldyou please justify how is this an appropriate reponse to my question. Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Guess what analytic social sciences is. Try to think outside the box of North America. Do you not see the point? It is almost irrelevant in the UK what the PhD is in. Most institutions don't even give a PhD in something, but have PhD attained at a specific faculty. Mootros (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I already know what analytic social sciences . But enough for you to know it is neither related to Doctor of Music or Doctor of Bussiness adminsteration Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific points relevant to UK, I think you already know that there is a specific section devoted for UK in our RF article that you can add to it specific issues. ThanksKushsinghmd (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is UK specific, but common to many European countries and commonwealth countries. Business administration, not an analytical social science? What? Where is the Music mentioned in the job ad? Mootros (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is specific to UK and commonwealth, then you can add it to the UK section and write that is is specific to this region.

This http://www.qass.org.uk/ should help you understand analytical social science

Music wasnt mentioned in the job ad. But it was mentioned by you earlier as an example of Doctorate. yet I asked you for an example of RF in music. But it looks that it is hard for you to provide reliable sources for statements you are making

Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth = UK? European countries = UK? Mootros (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

you are confused again!!. where did I ever that they are the same. i said use the UK section and mention that this system is applied in whatever countries relatd to. Let me know if you are still confused Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias -- Conflict of interest

I am arguing to put PhD first in a list of two examples to elaborate on the term doctoral, because most RFs have a PhD. A user called Kushsinghmd --I guess-- wants to put MD first because this user's username ends with MD. I consider this would be a form of bias in form of a conflict of interest. Mootros (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Please reference you speech, and show some statisitics about number of research fellows and their qulaificaions and degrees.

2. Does order here should be ascending , descending or random ?! what do you consider order as a represent of prominency

3. No my name is not representative of anything. Should we consider your name representative of anything?

it is clear that the bias is on your side, since you have been delginetly trying to undermine the MD degree as not doctoral, not graduate, not having reasearch work, and not qualifying to RF. And you have been trying to compare it with Doctor of Music. And also you tried to avoid speeling out the whole speeling in a trial to hide what it really represnts. SO yes I agree there is a bias in this whole dispute, but it is from your side. Thanks

Kushsinghmd (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Do you have any statistics to support the opposite? The very logic that a faculty of medicine is only one of many faculties might give you an indication. Have a quick look here www.jobs.ac.uk and search for Research Fellows almost all of the require a PhD.

You are the one who made the statement. And according to that statement you are making a dispute. So it is your role to provide a reference before making statement like this, then claiming that I am biased !!!!

Also I hope that you understand the difference between take a quick look, and between statistics. Sir, you made a claim, and also convicted me of bias, So Please would you put down your proofs on the table. please show us some sreliable information.

Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

2. Yes, in English if you list examples you normally tend to start with the most common example.

May be that is your way of using English. But is their relibale sources ?!

aslo where is the prove that PhD is the most common example ?!

Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

3. Please kindly consider my name.

consider your name in what ?!

you took two letter of my name trying to make a case. WOW !! is this how you make a case ?!Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on; nobody is to undermine the MD degree. There is just the fact if you look at www.jobs.ac.uk that MD is not as common as a PhD, because this two year degree (MD) focuses more on the solving practical problems, whereas a PhD (3-4 years) has a strong research methodology component. Mootros (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey , you again repeating yourself over and over!!! So let me quote this again for you "Also I hope that you understand the difference between take a quick look, and between statistics. Sir, you made a claim, and convicted med of bias, then put your proofs on the table. Would you please show us some sreliable information."

And yes discussion moved on, but you have already showed your strong position fighting MD being put in all several ways. hence you requistion now is itself a BIAS. and not me. Hope that this is clear enough.

And you are saying MD is a 2 years degree. Please show me one prgoram over the Planet that offers MD in 2 years.

And again you are repeating this false information that MD lack "research methodology component" in their curriculum. Since I have already answered this repeatedly over and over in this discussion page, and everytime I answer you always fail to repsond but you Just repat yourself, So I am really sorry but You forcing me to say: Please, ENOUGH IGNORANCE . (full stop)

Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Check this out: University of Leeds, MD 3 years part-time, University of St-Andrews 2 years full time, University of Nottingham "sometimes shorter then PhD, University of Sheffield 2 years full-time, University of Manchester 2 years full-time. Nobody said lack of "research methodology component" in MD, I said focus on practical problems in MD programme. Mootros (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

in fact I am shcoked by the references you are using. You showed complete lack of understanding of what we are talking about, yet you confirmed the importance of spelling out MD. it is clear from the many exmaples you provided, that you have complete confusion about what MD we are talking about, and how it is used differently in other countries. Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! That's the whole reason why we not going to put MD in the intro, because all these six example universities conferee to the successful student after their two year course a Doctor of Medicine. Mootros (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No dear, in fact the MD degree you mentioned here is equivalent to PhD. But in these universities that you mentioned they don't have a PhD degree in Medicine, it is Just MD. Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How are you going to put into writing which Doctor of Medicine (MD) you mean? The one from a European University, the Thai one, the UK one, a Commonwealth Doctor of Medicine (MD)? The Doctor of Medicine (MD) for real doctors? Mootros (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So again You missed the point. To become an RF you have to have MD or PhD. if you are in North America then the American MD is enough to make you a RF. If you are in UK, then the UK MD will get you in. it is simple. But you dont have to get a PhD to become an RF if you are having an MD in either cases.

so it to put it the other way, if you just want to keep PhD and exclude MD as a requirment for RF, that is false assertion. 19:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. Most RF have a PhD, because the likelihood to be based in a medical faculty is considerably lower. Those who are not based at a faculty of medicine will normally not have an MD. Mootros (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Where ?! prove it !! why to you usually intend to ignore the whole discussion point to repeat you false assertion ?! Didn I fully respond to all these claims and you failed to repsond appropraitely ?!!!! Please refer to point number 1 in this section , and please stop this kind of vicious cycles , I would urge you to respect he time of others and their discussion as part of the ettiquette you previously mentioned 20:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have agreed to included MD in the list, because of its historical development, but it should not be on first place: first which in English normally indicated most common. That's all. Mootros (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Didnt I discuss the issue of order above, and you failed to respond. I dont understand where is the problem exactly. is it understandig ? or visual ? or do you get lost in discussion ? Please refer to point number 2, ans please stop getting into vicious cycles. 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is my proof "the likelihood to be based in a medical faculty is considerably lower, because a university is made up of many faculties (i.e. more than two)." You can read more about this here University#Organization! Ipso facto the likelihood to have an MD is considerably lower. What is your evidence? Mootros (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So this maeans you failed to provide reliable statistics to back up your claim, So please either take it back or provide a reference. Your approache of counting faculties is a complete failure and totally biased, cause by this you assumed that number of RF positions offered by each faculty is the same. Also you assumed that numbers of graduate student are the same. And your forget to take into counts RF positions offered by labs, Research institutions, and research fellowships offered by profesional organizations and societies. Therefore: your approach is a complete Bias Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I provided a reasonable logical proof. Where is you evidence? Mootros (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets say the average university has five faculties. In order for a medial faculty to outweigh all other four faculties, it needs to "produce" almost as three times as many MDs as each faculty on average produces PhDs. I'd say that is a dubious claim you are making. As for non-university based research, there are many government agencies, charitable orgs, pharmaceutical companies, IT companies, and what not, where there are no mostly MDs in RF positions. Check out the s give you some idea . 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I already told you that your logical proof is no longer valid cause it is biased unless you controlled the variables I meantioned.

second You provided examples, and they are related in physics, OK so what ?! I know that PhD are eligible for RF. I am not disputing that. But As I already told you previously and it seems that it was difficult for you to undestand, unless you provide solid statisitics, then all your trials providing few examples are invalid. You can't make such claim that there more RF holding PhD than there are RF holding MD with just few examples and googling job.uk !!!, That's absurd. unless you are able to back it up, then I would consider you joking, and nor higher than delusions. Hope you will able to make it this time and provide some reliable statistics.

You gave examples of five faculties, so what ?! still you didnt answer the question how mny RF positions are filled with PhD compared to those RF positions filled with MD ?! if it is difficult for you to answer, then please don't make such assertions as you did.

23:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you read what I said, four times as many PhDs as MDs. Mootros (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No I did read what you have said several time that why I have been questioning it. Didnt you read what I have been writing to you all day ?! Please provide reliable references to back up your claim. And i already pointed out the flaws in your way of thinking, but it seem that you always miss what I say. I am wondering why is that ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel we are not getting anywhere you should take this to an abitration commitee or the likes. I thought we have made some progress today. Mootros (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly with your approach repeating alrady addressed poitns over and over, with your several trials to get us into vicious circles, in addition to your major lack of basic knowledge about medical system either in US or even in UK, and just depending on copying information that you google , makes me very desperate. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Check this out: http://www.durham.hsrd.research.va.gov/fellowmd.asp if needs explanation please let me know, I would be happy explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the position Research Fellow not about some form of sponsorship called fellowship as a part of a training programme. Nobody doubts that MDs do research and work as RF. I highly doubt that most RFs across the board have MDs. Mootros (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Does not look like any RFs with MDs are here outside academia Mootros (talk)

Again you missed the point, previously you told me to note the PhD are mentioned first., Did you notice here that MD are mentioned first. So your claim is just absurd!

also, you previously disputed the fact that MDs are engaged in research, so clearly this proves you wrong.

You say you highly doubt, good for you. Unless you provide solid information, then your doubts will stay as such.

one more point is that you clearly seem to have confusion about fellowship and sponsorship, cause they share great similarities, but anyway, doesn't matter, since you showed already much confsuin in the whole rest.

thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad you point this out yourself they share similarities, but they are not the same; therefore not should not be used as an example. 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

please sign you comment first Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Explaining common abbreviations

I asked the expansion of abbreviation question on the manual of style talk page. The relevant discussion is here. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That how I made it first. I I didnt spell out PhD, but I spelled out MD. However user Mootros deleted the spelled out version saying it is a bias either all spelled out or all abbreviated. So he forced me to put PhD in a speeled out version. Yet he changed this to keep the abbreviated version claiming that links would be sufficeient. However when faced with guidlines of Peer reviewed Journals in sppeling out abbreviations in the begining of articles, he took back his word. And now he was trying not to put any abbreviations. I am really confused with his positions. He just trying to say no to any change! Kushsinghmd (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: "MD maybe..." Doctoral degree might itself be sufficient. Mootros (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No doctoral is not sufficient. MD in abbreviated form only is not sufficeint as well. Kushsinghmd (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal for more discussion

I've just had to protect this for an hour. The discussions above, that I admit I skimmed through, looked like they where making some progress but that seemed to fall by the way. Can I urge all parties to back away a little, and not edit war, as that will just result in further protection or worse still account blocks. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. I added relevant citations accordingly, but this immediately rejected. Mootros (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm off-line shortly but can I please ask that we don't head back to a revert war - if that happens then editors can use WP:RFPP or at worst WP:ANI but let's all try to avoid that ! Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

user Motroos has shown total disrespect, and very unethical behaviour.He claimed several times falsely that I am vanadlizing the article, warning me on my profile!!. He also switched positions of the degrees delibretaly after he failed to respond to his own discussion and after being exposed of making Hoxus claims, especially when he was asked about a source and he completley showed a total misunderstanding of the topic (as clearly shown in the discussion). He twistwd facts,showed total incosistency, biased methodology and horribly flaw arguments!! Accordingly his recent edits to the topic (specially switching positions) are COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE, and he should be warned against such disruptive behaviours.Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kushsinghmd. I'd ask that you comment on content not contributors. It's fairly clear you're not happy with the article but you need to understand that it is simply not about what you think or Motroos thinks. It's about gaining consensus. I declined the report to WP:AIV to block your account, and frankly don't care at all about this article - which ironically makes me an ideal neutral party. We don't want recrimination or soap-boxing - we need honest debate on how to make the article better without reference to warnings, blocks et.al. I'm just keen to see the article progress without disruption if possible. Pedro :  Chat  22:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pedro: First I have to thank you very much for your prompt and effective intervention. Second , Yes I am dealing with content. I don't know user's real name, however I mentioned his username for identification of the provided content. And I think that my whole comment was directed about the content, and yes the content has been horribly flawed, irrational, off topic sometimes. but anyways: My question Now is clear: Why were the positions of degree switched where it is still under discussion !!!!!!!!!!!! thats absolutely unethical , and compeletly unacceptable. We can't be disccuing an issue, and then because you fail to complete the discussion and fail to provide a solid argument, so you go take the action you liked that you have been trying to do several times. And to cover such unethical actions, he added few citations in a trial to make it look as if it is a constructive edit. However, If intentions were really adding citations, why then switching positions and changing the orders??????????. Yet claiming Vandalism on my side, yea right !! Again Thanks pedro, for you positive actions. Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(copied in from talkpage: Where next? Research Fellow) Hi, Thanks for intervening. I noticed you protected the article. What happens next? What would be the best do with when user persists that no changes (i.e. addition of 9 citations) are possible, during an RfC? Mootros (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Commented on talk, appealing for calm (optimistically!). It's a one hour protection. I don't want to see anyone blocked over this. The RFC may give a good outcome, and I urge you to stick with it if possible. I think the position is clear that now the page has had to be fully locked down, further edit wars will result in account blocks. As an aside I'd ask you not to use WP:AIV for stuff like this as it's simply to complex for that board - use WP:ANI if the edit war re-occurs but hopefully a middle ground can be struck. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive approach. We had discussion input from the MOS notice board (on some issues of the disagreement), but unfortunately this has not help to resolve the issue. Neither has the introduction of references. I will stay back for the moment; hope we don't have to take this RfC further. Mootros (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just forgot to add the reason first time when I undid the vanadalizing edits. Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he is the one who started reverting all my edits and labelling most of them vanadalism, and I haven't seen any notice given to him that he should not do so !!! second, yes he is vandalizing , cause he is intentionally compromising the integrity of the article by all his recent edits. Again Thanks for your effective intervention and thanks for following the article. Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Overwhelming evidence

There is overwhelming evidence indicating that most Research Fellow positions require a PhD. To support this I will include the following eight (8) citations:

• from several different countries on four (4) continents,
• from a range of different academic disciplines (include medical type of research),
• which will also include research conducted outside academia.

1. Medical Science example Australia>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
2. Social Science example USA>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
3. Bio-medical science example USA>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
4. Humanities example UK>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
5. Engineering example Singapore>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
6. Biology example Denmark>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
7. Outside academia example EU>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010
8. Outside academia example Singapore>>>--> Retrieved 24 May 2010

Next, I will use the abbreviation PhD and not the fully spelled out term, as suggested in an answer to a question on the manual of style talk page. Please see here.

Finally, I will remove from the introduction the term doctor of medicine (MD) as an example of a qualification a research fellow has. There is no evidence that is widely the case throughout the world. The scarce evidence relating to MD on this talk page, is limited to the USA/ Canada and tends to be mostly referring to medical training programmes called Fellow (medicine).

Mootros (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

as I already pointed out previously, Just providing few examples with out providing solid statisitcs is not scientific to make a claim that more RF are holding PhD than MD. That means user can easily be deceived by ads and similar stuff without taking a rigorous scientific approach. Simply I can provide far more examples !

So let me take same approach:

UK

http://science.cancerresearchuk.org/gapp/personalfund/fellowships/tcd_rfc

http://www.obgyn.net/meet.asp?page=/all_advisors/T_Ind

http://www1.aston.ac.uk/lhs/staff/az-index/gherghed/

http://www.stephenhamilton.org.uk/plastic_surgeon_london.html

Belgium:

http://www.usc.edu/programs/pibbs/site/faculty/declerck_y.htm

USA:

http://www.stephenhamilton.org.uk/plastic_surgeon_london.html

http://info.med.yale.edu/pharm/hermen/alumni/alumni.html

http://www.hss.edu/cartilage-biology-lab-staff.asp

http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/staff/gloviczki_p.cfm

http://healthcare.utah.edu/dermatology/about/residents.html

http://www.houseearclinic.com/Fayad_CV.htm

http://www.childrensmemorial.org/findadoc/bios.aspx?id=1268

http://pulmonary.duke.edu/modules/pulmfellowship/index.php?id=2

http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/staff/suarez_ga.cfm

http://www.cmki.org/fellowship/faculty.cfm

Canada:

http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/jobs/141054-Research-Fellow

Russia:

http://pulmonary.duke.edu/modules/pulmfellowship/index.php?id=2

New Zealand:

Dr Cara Wasywich, MBChB, FRACP: http://www.heartgroup.co.nz/

5 MD, 7PhD http://www.eyeinstitute.co.nz/pdfs/news/nznec-celebrate-success.pdf

Australia:

http://www.surgeons.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research/Scholarshipprogram/Scholarshipandfellowshipopportunities/Research_Scholarship2.htm

Iran:

http://www.me.sc.edu/CV/Kheradvar_cv.pdf

South Africa:

http://www.fogartyscholars.org/fellows/2008-2009-fellows

Argentina

http://www.fmed.uba.ar/infica/integrantes/cv_morales_ing.pdf

Courtesy break

So To Conclude:

1: the approach of just seeking few examples is completely biased approach, otheriwse I can make such a claim by providing more examples!

2: the claim that it is limited to North america, was completley false as already shown from the SIX continents

Final word : I would advice the dear user Motroos, to refrain from making claims and assertions that showed us his complete ignorance regarding MD and RF over and over again, and please stop acting childishly like a trouble maker. If there is topic under discussion behave maturely and wait till the end of discussion.

accordingly, I will revert the users edits and I consider them Vandalism, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Useful examples that confirm that MD in relation to fellowships mostly refers to medical training programmes as discussed in Fellow (medicine). Above all, all these example are strictly related to medical research and do not bear any connection soever to any research conducted elsewhere. Highly specific; highly localised; utterly unsuitable to provide a nice example in the WP:LEAD. Mootros (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

what is wrong with medical research ?! Do you know what fields fields does medical research encompass ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a research position at a university or similar institution NOT about medical research. Mootros (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

do you mean that "university" and "similar insititution" don carry out medical research throught research fellows ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No I mean that universities and similar institutions have many other research activities in addition to medical research. Therefore pointing to medical research is highly specific, highly localised, which makes it an unsuitable example for the WP:LEAD. Mootros (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to read more about the point of the WP:LEAD. All this talking here; you could have written a nice section about Canada and about research fellows who do medical research. Mootros (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

1: what does canada has to do with my question ?! switching topics again, please focus a bit with me.

Are you not based at a McGill University? I thought that's in Canada. Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

NON OF YOUR BUSSINESS ! hope you can read it clear dear. Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

2: how do you consider this "highly localized highyl specific" when we didnt mention medical research at all. the article is talking about degrees that RF are holding, and it could be MD, PhD, or equivalent work. Where is medical research here ?! or where even other research fields been mentioned here ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What kind of research do people with MDs normally do, if not research relevant medical areas? Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

is there a specific kind of research that the RF article is dealing with ?!!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No that's the whole point, the WP:LEAD is about RFs in general, NOT about RF's who specialise in research relevant to medical areas. Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

" In general" includes medical research or not on what basis ?! does " in general" includes the research in music and bussiness adminsteration ( the examples you prviously used) or you would consider Muscia nd BA as " too specific too localized" ? Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does all include these areas. That's why have all the way I been saying to use PhD. It is a sufficient example if you want an example, because it includes all areas where RF positions are: even medical areas. PhDs (in/ at ...) you find everywhere, alongside Doctors of ... Mootros (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

since you said it does include all even medical research, then why exclude MD , when it is totally sufficenet to hold RF position ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because we like to write in a non-repetitious way, without burdening the reader with long lists stating all the other doctorates for each area. It's not very useful for a WP:LEAD to write in such a way. Mootros (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry , but where is the so called "LONG LIST" ?! why you are exagerating ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because once you add MD you open the possibility of an argument to included other doctors of something. In the end we find ourselves with list like this: Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S), Doctor of Dental Medicine (D.M.D.), Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) and Veterinariae Medicinae Doctoris (V.M.D.), Doctor of Nursing Practice, Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (D.P.M.), Doctor of Optometry (O.D.), Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.), Doctor of Public Health (Dr.PH.), Doctor of Physical Therapy (D.P.T.), Doctor of Occupational Therapy (O.T.D.), Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) or Doctor of Practical Theology (D.P.T. or D.Th.P.), Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.), Doctor of Musical Arts (D.M.A./A.Mus.D./D.Mus.A.) or Doctor of Music (D.M./D.Mus/Mus.D), Doctor of Business Administration.

This would result in such a sentence: A research fellow may act as independent investigator, or under the supervision of a principal investigator. In contrast to a research assistant or research officer, the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a MD (Doctor of Medicine) or PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S), Doctor of Dental Medicine (D.M.D.), Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) and Veterinariae Medicinae Doctoris (V.M.D.), Doctor of Nursing Practice , Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (D.P.M.), Doctor of Optometry (O.D.), Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.), Doctor of Public Health (Dr.PH.), Doctor of Physical Therapy (D.P.T.), Doctor of Occupational Therapy (O.T.D.), Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) or Doctor of Practical Theology (D.P.T. or D.Th.P.), Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.), Doctor of Musical Arts (D.M.A./A.Mus.D./D.Mus.A.) or Doctor of Music (D.M./D.Mus/Mus.D), Doctor of Business Administration, or equivalent work.

Who wants this? Mootros (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do all of these in the list hold RF positions ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Y; es, I have seen people in RF positions with these degrees. Some of them are very common. Mootros (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WOW, sinc you consider what you are saying as scientific, then listen: All the RF i have seen are MDs. how is that ?! is that scientifc enough to eleminate PhD from the list ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelvant whether is its scientific or not. What matters are secondary citations. Have you got any? Mootros (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

may be it doesnt matter to you , but it matters for others. You want citation for what ?! arent you the one who put the above long list and said that all of them hold RF positions ?! please see the signature again, and if you find it yours, please provide a reliable source or take it back, thanks. Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In Doctor of Business Administration it clearly says DBA is a "research doctorate" . The above list is a hypothetical example. I object to the use of this list in the strongest possible terms. Mootros (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

and why you used Hypothetical examples ?! Please dont waste our time more than this, please try to just deal with facts now, so we can finish this whole thing soon, try to show more respect for our time.

So now you saying that we have in the examples, MD, PhD, and DBA ?! I wouldn't mind if you want to include the DBA , just provide enough evidence that there is enough RF holding DBA. Kushsinghmd (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly that is the way long lists start. Next we move to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, you can read there "DOs undergo a similar curriculum as MDs, with the addition of osteopathic manipulative medicine techniques." Now we already have MD, PhD, DBA, DO. Do you still "wouldn't mind"? What next? Mootros (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DO and DBA are not common examples, since the number of people holding these degree is much less. DO is a degree only offered in the US. But MD is a world wide degree and the number of grads are far more than all other all together . Please enought ignoranvce, you already showed us enough silly argument, cause of your clear position tht you ar e not willing to include MD, so your using the most silly arguments now, looking for degrees that never do RF and just througfhing them here.Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your evidence about the number of DOs and DBAs? DO is the most common degree I may assert. Mootros (talk)

evidence for what ?!! First you are the one who brought the DO, and now you are asserting , so if you are not the one who is willing to support your speech with evidence, how come you ask others?

if you just did a little effort reading the link you provided, you would have know that yourself, that DO is a US degree, and it is much less in quantity than MD. I already told you before try to read vfore you through links.

Please enough wasting time brining up issues that you dont know how to support. If you wanna add something to the list provide references, if not then Keep silent.

thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Positions

If I'm not mistaken, the dispute is mainly over what the lead should contain in terms of who can be a research fellow and who cannot. I'm going to lay out your positions below and, hopefully, that will help focus the discussion. (Also, please try to use neutral words in your edit summaries - labeling each others edits as vandalism is not helpful.)

1. Are examples of doctoral degrees needed.
2. Do the abbreviations need to be spelled out. This seems to be resolved as follows: MD needs to be clarified but PhD doesn't.
3. Should Doctor of Medicine be included in the examples of qualifications for research fellows. Mootros thinks not but khushsingmd thinks yes.
4. What should the order of the examples be. Khushsingmd thinks that MD should come first while Mootros thinks it should come second.

Is that a reasonable summary? Or are there other points that are also contentious?--RegentsPark (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Excellent summary. Mootros (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, then why don't we do the following , the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) or an MD (Doctor of Medicine) , or equivalent work. That way both of you get something. Khushsingmd gets examples of doctoral degrees, gets MD included, gets the abbreviations spelled out, and Mootros gets PhD listed first. Something's gotta give somewhere. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

but why do we need to change positions ?! thanks for you positive interventions Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess the point is that something has to give. Since, apparently, both of you agree that some research fellows need to have a PhD. Mootros feels that an MD is not necessary. It seems a natural compromise to say 'let's include MD but list them with the PhD first' and it is certainly not incorrect. You don't have to agree with the compromise but both of you are on a slippery edit warring slope here. I'd like to hear what each of you think below.--RegentsPark (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I will refrain from inappropriate revert action. Mootros (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate your intervention to the highest possible degree. All I need now is to understand , why user would like to switch positions now ?! after I see his reasoning then I will give you my desicion. thanks a lot. Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this section to summaries positions, not to argue. Mootros (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

But I would urge RegentsPark to continue his interventions, in any section you like, thanks. Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my preferred version: , the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD, or equivalent work I will concede to Kushsinghmd and include the MD in the following way , the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD or an Doctor of Medicine, or equivalent work I object to the use of abbreviations if not used later in the text and insist to follow the WP:MOS by putting abbreviations in brackets and not the other way around. Mootros (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And this is my preferred version: the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a MD (Doctor of Medicine) , PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) , or equivalent work. about the abreviation issue: at first Mootros, insited on using aabreviated version and prohibited me from speeling out Doctor of Medicine on the basis of incosistency: either to spell it out all or keep it abbreviated, and he convinced me and I agreed, so I put both of them in abbreviated and spelled out version. Mootros prefered to keep both of them abbreviated and he kept his position till other users intervened trying to confirm what I said that in peer reviewed Journals and scholarly articles, they mention both the abbreviation and spelled out version in the very first of the article. But, now Mootros is calling for what he previously called "inconsistency" !!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What "inconsistency"? This is called finding a solution to the article. This is not a game here, called World of Encyclopediacraft. Mootros (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen, WATCH you tone .

The above link leads to a page that is considered to be humorous. I suggest you focus on the article and not on me in your argument. Mootros (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you are a serious man who understand that I dont have time for Joking. Wise men only know when to be humorous. Anyways, I am not focusing on you, but I am focusing on your unacceptable edits to the RF article. Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Second: Previously here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Research_fellow#Use_of_abbreviation we were trying to fins solution, or were you trying to find dsomething else ?!. And user (Mootros) himself called his current version as Incosnsitency, for combining between a speeled out version and an abbreviated one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) So, if I understand this correctly, kushsinghmd is ok with the suggested , the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) or an MD (Doctor of Medicine) , or equivalent work but mootros is not. Correct? --RegentsPark (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am against the order. MD should be first alphabetaically, unless he can provide solid reasons with references not to do so. Kushsinghmd (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you are against the order. But can you live with it or must you absolutely see MD before PhD? The crux of the matter is whether you are willing to compromise or not. The compromise is necessary because mootros believes that MD is not usually a qualification for a research fellow. I'm hoping that he/she will agree to including MD provided you agree to the order suggested above. The fact of the matter is that, whaverer your beliefs, the statement is unsourced - in which case the preferred alternative will be to drop the sentence in its entirety. Let me know if that is ok with you. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that an MD is not usually a qualification for a research fellow in general. Mootros (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "general " ?!!! is there a new field called general research ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Trust me I am very willing to compromise, but only infront of two things, 1: solid reliable reference, 2: strong logical argument. So the matter is not what I like, or what other users would like, it is about laying down facts with references. So the matter of order now depends: is there any reason to put PhD first ?! if not, then will keep it as it is alphabetically, if yes he has to back it up with solid data. Kushsinghmd (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The logical argument that you find (i) PhDs everywhere (ii) MDs not everywhere but only in one place, has been spelled out numerous times above. I have not seen any sound justification as to why MD first. Mootros (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Again using "gernal and everywhre" term. PhD is not essential to become RF, already proven. PhD is a specific degree in a specific field, holding a PhD in music doesnt get you a RF in Bussiness adminsteration !!! (if there is one) . you saying MD is not everywhere ?!!! I dont know where do you live exactly, but try to go to nearby hospital and clinic and you will see a lot of them Kushsinghmd (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations and the MOS again

The above suggested use of abbreviations is a complete violation of the WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations policy. Mootros (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyperlink is coonecting to wrong page, check you link first please. Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Mootros (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the terms but would you please elaborate on which term exactly that I violated ?! thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

01:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you really understand what you are quoting. Cause under this term, your version is a complete violation. You havent included the spelled out term of PhD , that is not me who did that. Read the term again lest you understand. thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Explaining_common_abbreviations! There is an agreement that common abbreviations should not be spelled out. What are you going to do about the blatant violation of the MOS you have (re)introduced to this article ? Mootros (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope you know the differen between a "term" and a "discussion". Or do you consider my discussion here as terms that you are vilating ?! the term is clear, to spell it out in the begining of article, any way around i called violation. Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your use of (round) brackets (i.e. parentheses in US English) in the article blatantly violates the MOS. Mootros (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok so the format should be Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), not a problem. On the other hand , you version is a complete violation, cause you dont want to mention the speeled out version! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! This looks fine now in terms of the MOS. It might also be worth considering whether to have consistency of form of the listed examples or a mix of spelled out terms and common abbreviations not spelled out. You may find this page helpful WP:Adopt-a-User. Mootros (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you agreed that it is "Good" and that it lokks fine, then there is no reason to discuss further. Discussion Closed Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The high significance of the MD qualification for RFs in general

We haven't heard any sound argument from Kushsinghmd as to why the MD is of higher significance to RFs in general than the PhD, in order to be listed first in the WP:LEAD. Will we ever? Mootros (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Prove it first then ask. Prove that I claimed so. I am leaving it alphabetically. If you wanna change it, please tell us why, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not engaging in the discussion. What is the basis of the changes you introduced. What evidence do you have to support your statement that most RFs have MDs? It defines common sense. You are trying to create a further deadlock by reverting to alphabetical order excuse. Mootros (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean I am not engaging in the discussion ?!

What change I am introducing ?! you are the one who is switching positions !!

Please show me where my statement is ?

alphabetical order is more logical and more common in life and can easily be understood, but you claim need clarifications.

Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)