Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality issues?

Conservapedia, a small wiki-based enterprise which seems to be a combination of an academic exercise for homeschooled middle-schoolers to learn-by-doing and a dream of becoming an online encyclopedia with a conservative point of view, has associations with Andrew Schlafly, counsel for the AAPS. An edit by user Aschlafly in Conservapedia charges:

Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, consists mostly of a highly biased rant by a British journalist against the group. The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading remarks about the group. There is no reason to think a British television programmer would have the slightest clue about what this American medical group does, and the biased tone of his comments renders them completely unsuitable for an online encyclopedia.

I'm not sure how much water I want to carry for Conservapedia, but I do see problems in the current article. It does seem to me that the particular paragraph he complains about is way too long, and the journalist is quoted at excessive length. I have to wonder whether the positions he says the AAPS has taken couldn't be better( and more fairly) illustrated by quotations from the AAPS itself.

I also think the article would benefit from distinguishing more clearly from a) simple facts (how old it is, etc); b) reasonable objective political facts (Schlafly, above, characterizes the group as "conservative;" the New York Times as "ultra-right-wing" (see below); c) criticism.

Overall the article does look out of balance to me. I'd prefer that others fix it, as I don't want to be Conservapedia's pet Wikipedia-fixer... I suspect that Aschlafly is too close to the subject to have the right delicate touch to fix it himself. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

P. S. The New York Times characterization is:

"New Power in A.M.A. : Milford Owen Rouse," The New York Times, June 30, 1966, p. 19: "Dr. Rouse belongs to the ultra-right-wing Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, made up of A.M.A. members but without any link to the A.M.A. It is a political-economic rather than a medical group, and some of its leaders are members of the John Birch Society."

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that the entry could benefit from an expansion and other improvements. I shortened the Brian Deer quote down to leave the characterization and moved it to the Journal section. The statement from Conservapedia that there is no reason to think a British television programmer would have the slightest clue about what this American medical group does doesn't hold up - that this (according to the entry on his name) award-winning investigative journalist specializing on medical issues is British doesn't give him less credibility.Terjen 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that Conservapedia has cleaned up their own statement based on our discussion:

Until a complaint was lodged, Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, gave undue weight to a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. While the trimming of this rant is a step in the right direction, why is such an unsupported, unpublished diatribe allowed to remain on Wikipedia at all? It is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), and allowing it illustrates bias. This entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago! This bias is no oversight, as a Wikipedia administrator defended leaving this entry as is.[1]

The quote from the investigative reporter was added about two months ago. Since then there was only one insignificant edit (stub sorting) until I added more content less than a week ago. My guess is that the status of the article is due to lack of traffic. The Conservapedia editor could have bothered to look up Brian Deer, and perhaps even taken a moment to turn the name into a link for others benefit, but that may have ruined the story. I understand if editors are reluctant trimming down the entry further as it doesn't have much content. I added the 40 year old "swipe" by mistake while searching the Time database of back issues, believing it was from 2005, and that was an oversight. Editors should find more recent sources that provide insight into the organization from a variety of angles.Terjen 04:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a new entry in Conservpedia on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. It doesn't cite any sources though, in violation of their own rule: "Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain." The entry is authored by Conservapedia's own Andrew Schlafly, which is the attorney for Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, so it likely contains original research as well as possibly opinion, in breach of their sixth rule.Terjen 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I've restored the deleted text as Quackwatch is not simply a vanity organisation as the deleting anon suggested. It's a notable organisation that's done good work rooting out alternative medicine quacks among other things. --Plumbago 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes; also, I've restored the deleted quote from Brian Deer. The briandeer.com website is an acceptable source per Wikipedia's policy on attribution and sourcing, which states that: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications." Brian Deer is a well-known professional journalist writing in his field of expertise (health matters), and his work has been published previously by reliable sources (e.g. the Sunday Times and Channel 4). Please don't delete it again without an explanation or argument here as to why the source fails WP:ATT. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. The quote is not encyclopedic. The journalist concerned is not an expert on medical jounals, has no medical or scientific qualifications and the remark was not made as part of any particular study. It is also defamatory.

This is a "throw-away remark" much like some of this vanity website's other material. Apparently opinions of people who keep goats according to this "journalist" appear to be irrelevant - even if Members of the British Parliament.

You are both experienced editors but if you need the policies cited, please let me know.

As for the other edit "Quackwatch", that will be returned to in due course. It is not a suitable source to cite in an encyclopedia. It is a partisan vanity publishing website, run by an individual with no control over content and not subject to regulation.

There appear to be some good faith issues arising over this editing.

80.4.39.7 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you're willing to cite policy, maybe you could explain how Deer's site doesn't meet WP:RS. The guideline states, "When... a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Deer is a well-known professional journalist. His work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Therefore, his opinion meets criteria for inclusion. If you want to discuss how it should be phrased, that's fine, but claiming a non-existent policy basis for deleting it isn't going to fly. Quackwatch has been the subject of quite a bit of back-and-forth, but it is also generally considered an acceptable source within certain parameters. If your concern is that Deer's comment on "objective medical scientists" avoiding JPandS is somehow defamatory to these unnamed people, we can remove that sentence, but the criticism as a whole is relevant. If you disagree, I'd suggest opening a request for comment. MastCell ^Talk 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The point has been made but not answered. MastCell must demonstrate this journalist is an expert able to critique medical journals. Evidence would be reasoned researched critiques of medical journals by this journalist. There have been none. To justify the inclusioin of the comment MastCell must show the reasoned independent objective research underlying this journalist's opinion. Also none. The journalist is not an expert reviewer of medical journals. User MastCell must also show that the opinion is not defamatory. Also not done.

The above response by MastCell is instead trolling. Instead of good faith efforts by MastCell to demonstrate the source is encyclopedic MastCell has failed to answer. Instead MastCell has started Wikilawyering and engaging in argumentative behaviour and POV warring. Not acceptable behaviour. 80.4.39.7 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend you stick to discussing content, rather than contributors. Personal attacks, such as those in your last paragraph above, are truly not acceptable behavior. I did answer your points, citing a Wikipedia guideline (WP:RS) and explaining how Deer's website fits it. Your reading of WP:RS above seems to contain a number of criteria which are not in the actual policy as I've cited it. If you don't agree, I'd suggest pursuing dispute resolution - a reasonable first step here would be a request for comment from outside editors on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Premature for dispute resolution. The point has been made but not answered. MastCell must demonstrate this journalist is an expert able to critique medical journals. Evidence would be reasoned researched critiques of medical journals by this journalist. There have been none. To justify the inclusion of the comment MastCell must show the reasoned independent objective research underlying this journalist's opinion. Also none. The journalist is not an expert reviewer of medical journals. User MastCell must also show that the opinion is not defamatory. Also not done. The quote sought to be included is a frivolous and immature attack - just like the one about members of the British Parliament keeping goats (also clearly unencyclopedic).

Regrettably, you mischaracterise that noting behaviour which contravenes WP:TROLL is not a personal attack. It is addressing behaviour which is not acceptable - that is not attacking the person. Further, the more MastCell does not address the point but instead raises irrelevant ones the less this behaviour is acceptable.

80.4.39.7 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to weigh in: Brian Deer is encyclopedic. This is the man who got sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim taken off the market, and this is the man who claimed to have unmasked Andrew Wakefield. On what grounds is Deer not encyclopedic, other than that his criticism is inconvenient? JFW | T@lk 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably not relevant. If you wish to intervene, albeit yours is an unannounced intervention, appearing from nowhere, it would assist if you might address the point which MastCell seems unable to answer? MastCell must demonstrate this journalist is an expert whose field is critiquing medical journals. See above. MastCell's problem is it is clear the journalist does not have any expertise to be quoted. Sadly, therefore, the point you make is therefore and otherwise not relevant albeit your endeavours to assist are no doubt noble, but misplaced. 80.4.39.7 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be laboring under a series of misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First of all, repeating your same argument endlessly is not going to move us forward. I've already explained how the source meets WP:RS; I don't need to demonstrate that Deer's specialty is critiquing medical journals. You've provided nothing in response, just a nearly word-for-word repetition of your original misplaced objection. Secondly, disputes are resolved by consensus - so repetition of the same arguments without addressing my points and going after people who join the discussion are both counterproductive. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say it worries me when IP address users with a contribution history going back six weeks or so enter the discussion by (mis)quoting policy. Given that you're new to Wikipedia 80.4.39.7, can I suggest you try making a few more positive contributions before laying down the law about what needs to be deleted. I've noticed a bunch of people (mostly new or allegedly new users) trying to use this tack to delete inconvenient information lately, but I'm happy to say I haven't seen many instances where they have been successful.JQ 10:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like wikilawyering. And doesn't look like a new user. Midgley 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source

Is the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons a reliable source for medical information for Wikipedia articles? There's a debate over that issue being held at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States#Recent deletion of Medical Journal entry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New York Times

I'm uneasy about including such a controversial statement as that from the New York Times, particularly when that piece is inaccessible to the public (well, without registration). Is it really necessary to include it? One newspaper piece from 1966 hardly constitutes a reasonable criticism of the society, and this whole wikipeda article is probably brief and simple enough for readers to draw their own conclusions. Feebas factor 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this material?

• A 1966 article in the New York Times described the organization as an "ultra-right-wing... political-economic rather than medical" group, and historically some of its leaders have been members of the John Birch Society.[6]

That's just an eight word quote and a brief summary. Every good library has an NYT archive, so it's unusually accessible. We don't have anything else on the early history of the organization. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. Sadly my own efforts to obtain a copy of the article from local libraries have proved frustrating and ineffective. But since the quote is properly attributed and the association's early history is surprisingly sparce, the material is probably acceptable. Feebas factor 21:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's most relevant in a historical context, if at all possible, I'd suggest moving it down in the article. CopaceticThought (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly historical, but for that reason I'd suggest it probably belongs at the top, with a clear indication of when the Times article was published, followed by a generally chronological description of the course the Association has taken. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see why my removal of the "hidden" NYT citation was reverted. After all, I re-added a link from the JBS website itself that does confirm some JBS members are employed by AAPS.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Here's a ridiculous rant by Conservapedia on their "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" list (item 52):

“ Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included:...the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS ”

When I nosed over to this entry, I noticed at least we mentioned that it was from 1966! Sheesh, I guess Schlafly (a lawyer for AAPS i think) is hunting for any ridiculous but feasable way to criticize WP--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia is Conservapedia. It makes the Web a more entertaining place, at least. MastCell ^Talk 05:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the JBS and "guilt-by-association", I think what CP is trying to assert is that WP is suggesting that the JBS has some sort of ownership of AAPS, while we're really just saying that certain members of the AAPS are from the JBS...we even have a link from JBS' own website that proves this! However, under CP logic, JBS is smearing AAPS by mentioning certain members' AAPS memberships.

Schlafly does bring up an interesting point on the EOBIW talk page:

The accusations have no relevance today. Do you spread the same silly gossip about the Democratic Party, such as claiming that many KKK members were delegates at Democratic Party conventions a hundred years ago? No, Wikipedia only uses this silly smear campaign against conservative organizations. That's called bias.

--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Except, of course, that the Democratic Party has changed significantly since the time that it was a bulwark against "black Republicans" from the north. In fact the Southern strategy is what marked the literal reversal of the two parties in their previous stances, and in their former constituencies. And the racist and KKK connections of many southern Democrats is noted everywhere, from Ben Tillman, to Robert Byrd, to Strom Thurmond (before his switch in affiliation), to George Wallace. So the accusation is not simply unfair, its simply untrue. SiberioS (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is insignificant whether such a historical statement still holds true today, as long as it is clearly presented as historical. I wouldn't object to WP documenting with reliable sources the historical connections between KKK and the Democratic Party. But the way it is currently presented is clearly POV, using a while construct to create a WP:SYNTH. I'll fix it. Terjen (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth it?

I searched Google Books recently and can't seem to find any source other than this obscure 1966 article to support the association with JBS. If there's no other evidence this statement will have to go. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean the article from that obscure small-town newspaper known as the New York Times? :) Seems strong enough to support one sentence; I don't know that something printed in the Times needs to be cross-referenced in Google Books to be useful. MastCell ^Talk 05:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, The Times is so obscure that it ain't really reliable! But seriously though, I suppose that we should just leave it in. After all, the JBS National Council has a few AAPS members in it. But still I doubt it reflects well on us to keep it if Conservapedia keeps criticizing us in "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia".--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, pleasing the good folks at Conservapedia is orthogonal, if not directly counter, to Wikipedia's mission. MastCell ^Talk 08:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Shaken Baby Syndrome

It would seem according to articles such as this one and this one, that AAPS and JPandS take a position that SBS does not exist, and instead seem to be blaming such deaths on vaccines. However, I haven't had a lot of luck finding non-blog third party references. Is there any way SBS denail could be added to the article as one of the AAPS positions? --Kelseigh (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is biased about Geneva, Helsinki, and the UDHR ? Why must the abortion/preterm birth connection be kept secret ? On behalf of who ?

I have made a additions and a few edits to make the page for the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons more accurate and less of a slander page against this community of medical professionals. Now I am receiving messages that my posts do not have a neutral point of view. I'd like an explanation as to what exactly it is about the Declaration of Geneva, Helsinki, and the UDHR that is somehow biased. I am in contact with the leadership of the AAPS, and they gladly confirm this is their point of reference regarding their position on abortion and related issues. Why is their organization's foundational views based on human rights law irrelevant, whereas the very negative views by the current authors - with laughable sources like "Quackwarch" so worthy ? The AMA has made mistakes and published iffy articles over the last 50 years also. But their page is not simply a list of their previous embarrassments presented as the whole story. If you present only the negative or those since proven wrong - none of which I deleted - then how is that a neutral point of view? Should the AMA's article deal entirely with their original embrace of Thalidomide and Fe-Fen?

The abortion/breast cancer link is still being DEBATED. The American Canvcer institutes reject it, but in other countries it is accepted as fact. Even here, there are dissenting views shown right on their website that I sourced. How is it that only some doctors voices are heard, and others have to be squelched? And look at the breast cancer numbers in countries that allow abortion vs. those that never did shows a very obvious trend. In the USA, breast cancer once affected 1 in 25 women (1960). Now it affects 1 in 8.

Additionally, I'd like to know on what grounds the proven fact that abortion causes preterm birth later in life - and thus a host of needless birth defects for future children - must be kept secret on behalf of the very partisan and biased preferences of the current author's clear hatred of this organization? Why can't both sides be presented and we let people decide for themselves? Which of my sources are bad? The United Nations ? Wikipedia ? The Journal of Reproductive Medicine ? Oxford Journals ? Or is it just sources like "Quackwatch" that deserve publication ? YourHumanRights (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here are the most recent reverted edits by YourHumanRights (talk · contribs).

It may be worth starting out by taking a look at Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, original research, and the neutral point of view. I'll try to take things one at a time, but please understand that some of your objections ("Why can't both sides be presented and let people decide?") are addressed by our policies on undue weight. We represent views in proportion to their acceptance among experts in the field. We don't create false equality, and we recognize the difference between minority or tiny-minority views and widely accepted scientific and medical understanding. I suspect most serious, respectable reference works do the same.

It's not particularly useful to accuse people of "keeping things secret on behalf of partisan and biased preferences" and "clear hatred". Which sources to use, how to present them, and how to weight various viewpoints are all editorial decisions. Sometimes they're not easy - the goal is to give the reader an honest picture which doesn't censor minority or fringe views, but also does not mislead by pretending they have greater validity or acceptance than is widely understood. When a decision is made not to include a factoid, then it's best to approach that as an editorial matter - what is its relevance? its context? its sourcing? - rather than an attempt to keep secret the horrible truth about abortion. After all, this is a collaborative project nominally governed by a belief in civil interaction.

This is not the place for an in-depth debate about the abortion-breast cancer claims. We note the articles published in JPandS on the subject. By way of context and basic honesty to the reader, it seems relevant to note that every major medical body in the world has rejected the idea that abortions cause breast cancer (this includes the NCI, but also the WHO, ACOG, RCOG, and the American Cancer Society. No major medical organization considers abortion to be a cause of breast cancer. Some pro-life groups and individual advocates do continue to advance this hypothesis, but it would be misleading to pretend that it's "hotly debated" among scientists when it's clearly considered a largely settled matter. You don't really help your case by citing statistics in a manner that seems unsophisticated at best. Yes, the incidence of breast cancer has increased since 1960. So has the incidence of cell phone use. Is it logical to conclude that cell phones cause breast cancer? Are you aware of the evolution of screening procedures for breast cancer between 1960 and the present day, and the effect of universal mammographic screening on the diagnosed incidence of breast cancer? I could go on, but this isn't really the place.

If it is a "proven fact" that abortion "causes preterm birth" and "a host of needless birth defects", then it should be easy to cite statements from major medical and scientific organizations to that effect. I am not aware of any, but perhaps you are. It might be more accurate to say that some studies have linked abortion (both induced and spontaneous, that is, miscarriage) to a higher risk of preterm birth. Others have failed to find such a link; and furthermore, where an association exists, it often appears to be due to the fact that risk factors that lead someone to have an abortion overlap with risk factors for preterm birth (see, for example, PMID 16621599). This is best characterized as an area of uncertainty; rather than cherry-pick a study supporting your point of view and assuming we're unaware of others rebutting it, the best approach might be to look to major medical and scientific organizations to see how they're parsed and synthesized the available evidence. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell, I see that you are all over wikipedia as a pro abortion censor who regularly edits and deletes contributions from many contributors that present information that I can only presume that you do not want people to see because of your bias on this issue. So it's not surprising that you have come here to keep what at present is a slander page against a professional medical organization and pretend that you know better than all their doctors and all their research. You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts. It seems that "major" is a very subjective thing to you. If a source agrees with your pro abortion stance, then it is a "major source." The WHO and the AMA have given up the ghost with regard to medical ethics where elective abortions are concerned. But if another organization of doctors refuses to do so, they are treated with disdain and thus we have this VERY biased article - tilted heavily your way.

First of all, you did not respond at all to the first question. What is "biased" about Geneva, Nuremberg, Helsinki, and the UDHR ? Please answer the question and tell us all why these laws must not show up in this article when the leaders of the organization themselves say these are the guidelines they follow, and that guide their group's charter? If you can't answer this question, then the logical presumption is that you just don't want anyone to see any of it based on your own personal opinions on the topic of medical ethics. Again, you have a right to any and all of your opinions. But on the basis of what do you delete any comments and references to human rights laws with sources from the United Nations and wikipedia?

In the same way, the addition of three sources - including one from the group's journal - proving the very common sense link between preterm birth and a history of abortion were also removed altogether. Please explain how it is that Oxford Journals and teh Journal of reproductive medicine suddenly become bad sources of incorrect peer reviewed meta analysis when they just so happen to reveal some facts that you clearly don't want people to know about. Are these two sources to be removed from wikipedia altogethr and everywhere ? Or only when they back up a VERY important finding that the AAPS is not afraid of printing. Why are only the embarrassing and flawed articles that the Journal has printed included - and all of the ones that were ground breaking and verified since deleted? This article at present does not in any way, shape or form have a neutral point of view as defined in the guidelines. Not even close. I am not attempting to remove anything other than the "Quackwatch" source. Yet you insist in including Quackwatch, and deleting the National Cancer Institute's own page describing dissent, the Oxford Journals, The Journal oF Reproductive Medicine, the United Nations website - and so on. That is ridiculous.

As for the abortion/breast cancer link, there are actually two links. The first is the proven fact that if a young woman delays her first birth with an abortion - or even with abstinence - then she is increasing her breast cancer risk. The second is the independent risk cause by type 3 breast lobule deformation when a pregnancy is unnaturally ended and breast cells maturing to produce milk are suddenly interrupted. There is much more info to be found here: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html including quotes from many doctors. There is a lot of money and politics surrounding these issues, of course. I am not attempting to squelch or delete or even deny that there are other doctors and people who disagree with the AAPS on this. But to not include the other side at all in this article and keep it the slanderous, biased one it is now says a lot about wikipedia. And why there is now a conservapedia. There is no liberal-apedia, is there?

Your claim that "every major medical body" has rejected the link is wrong. Throughout Latin America and the Muslim Countries, there are plenty. But here again you want only the ones that agree with you in the Unites States to be considered "major." And you also make the error for excluding the pro life group within ACOG - who has a very detailed list of links here: http://www.aaplog.org/abortioncomplications.aspx. Again, I can only presume that the dissent on the NCI website that they clearly acknowledge, and of this large group of doctors in ACOG - and well as the dissent as voiced by Thomas Stuttaford, M.D. in the London Times is not "major" simply because you do not want it to be. But there is clearly a debate among medical professionals worldwide. The preterm birth connection is a slam dunk, the breast cancer connection has one slam dunk, and one debate. None of which can show up on wikipedia? Really? And this is somehow "neutral point of view?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourHumanRights (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you might find it more productive to focus on content rather than attacking specific contributors. If you can rephrase your post to focus, with at least minimal civility, on specific content issues, I'd be happy to respond. As a matter of general Wikipedia policy, and in particular given your demonstrated conception of "proven facts", it would be useful to cite specific sources rather than relying on force of rhetoric. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked you some very simple questions regarding content, and responded to your accusations of my bias with a counter accusation of my own that was based - in my view - on much more than you offered. If you won't answer my specific and simple questions regarding why you delete my additions, simply explain why. Why are you ignoring them? This article at present is very biased as any rational person can see. Why is only one side of this being presented ? Does the organization itself have no say in how it is defined and presented? Or just the people who clearly want to slander it by allowing only negative info and keeping positive info deleted and unseen? I'll keep asking the obvious questions until they are answered. I have resubmitted the preterm birth link and three sources only. If you delete that again, please explain exactly why Oxford Journals and the Journal of Reproductive Medicine have suddenly become terrible sources.YourHumanRights (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer the questions posed by the title of this section, the purpose of this encyclopedia article is to explain the positions of the AAPS and detail what effects they have had on the wider community. Actually arguing the positions themselves is left to the organization in question.

Some detailed comments on this edit:

1. in contrast to the AMA is off-topic and WP:original research. If AAPS itself makes such assertions, it may be appropriate to record them here.
2. Abbreviations should be defined at the first instance. Example: The AAPS position on the American Medical Association (AMA) ...
3. Wikipedia articles are not WP:reliable sources, as editing is open to anyone. That page currently contains a link to the Declaration text, which I think is what was intended.
4. Ditto for the rest of that sentence - cite the stated positions of AAPS without interpretation or editorial gloss.
5. The Nuremberg sentence serves no purpose but to obliquely accuse the AMA of Nazism.
6. Cite and rephrase the elective abortion text in a way that materially adds to the extant article. Example: AAPS considers provision of elective abortion at any point after conception to be in violation of the Declaration of Geneva.
7. The status of AAPS as politically conservative relative to the US political spectrum is not seriously debated by outside sources. Their self-description is also given.
8. Emergency contraception is more standard terminology than morning after pill.
9. Standard boilerplate disclosure. Might be appropriate for this article, though I would argue that the description as a peer-review journal rather than an official mouthpiece makes this evident.
10. The statement published in JPandS have argued that abortion causes ... is supported by the citation to an article arguing such. The other articles do not support that sentence, and belong at Abortion and health (if anywhere, I have not checked the articles in detail).
11. This is not the place to argue the Abortion breast cancer hypothesis.
12. The style of this last paragraph could certainly be improved, but the statements are properly attributed and relevant to a full treatment of the topic.

- 2/0 (cont.) 04:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am new to this, so bear with me please. Then by presenting only those positions that have turned out wrong or embarrassing to the AAPS - and none of the many good articles and research they have done - that presents a VERY biased view of the group. No ?

1. Refusing to cash in on abortion and female steroids and instead uphold Geneva and Nuremberg is what the AAPS is pretty much all about, as well as being against socialized medicine. I don't agree with them on everything, but that doesn't matter. So yes, the competition with the AMA - who have embraced the abortion and pharmaceutical industries, is a valid one.

2. Agreed. thanks.

3. I;ll try and find the UN links, which are not surprisingly tough to find given that the WHO have also given up on Geneva and edited it. (not the band) Thanks again.

4. the human rights laws, including Nuremberg, say what they say. The AMA just want speople to forget about them. Not everyone agrees. the thousands of doctors in the AAPs do not agree. This IS a dispute, and by deleting the foundational human rights laws that the group bases itself on - that is bias and unfair. Some people just don't like to be reminded what they say. Too bad.

5. If Nuremberg doesn't have to do with Nazism, then what exactly does it have to do with? I'm afraid that the connection back to Auschwitz is direct. Mengele was an abortion pioneer in Germany and then Argentina. You can't erase history because you don't like parts of it.

6. SOunds good to me.

7. that spectrum shifts and changes year to year. A few years ago, they were inline with a second term president and all of congress 100%. Should we now call the AMA the liberal doctors group ?

8. WRONG. That term was dreamt up BY THE MANUFACTURERS so as to deliberately confuse women into thinking it was contraception only and worked before conception. The words they were FORCED to put right on the package admit that they work both before and AFTER conception, and can disrupt implantation also. Big Pharma and Planned Parenthood do NOT make the rules and should not be allowed to tell us that suddenly the first two weeks of human development no longer exist - much as they would like to.

9. Not sure what you mean here.

10. Then you should read the conclusions of the articles and meta analysis cited. It is a slam dunk. Compromised cervix and damaged uterus cause peterm birth later. An abortion is not a haircut. This group was the first to come forward with this fact, and others have followed it. I never suggested that the leprosy or other embarrassments be removed - only that their successes and talent be displayed along with their failures. Should the AMA article be about nothing other than Fen-Fen and Thalidomide ?

11. that hypothesis was not confirmed nor denied by my edits. i simply added the dissent which the NCI shows on their own website. there are LOTS of others who dissent also. And the numbers back them up. Money, big pharma, and political pressure DO affect scientists. it's who pay them. Thinking otherwise is very naive. If this debate doesn't belong here, then lets remove the paragraph altogether! Why is it that the one proven and not debated mode is not mentioned at all ?

12. If the Oxford Journals has to go, then certainly so does Quackwatch! That is really a big joke!YourHumanRights (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

1 The actual validity of the comparison is irrelevant for writing this article. Find where AAPS describes itself as such or some other notable description makes the comparison. Contrasting AAPS with the dominate medical association is actually fairly important to encyclopedic coverage of this topic. The AAPS stance on Medicare and Medicaid is treated at Association of American Physicians and Surgeons#Positions; adding to this description with a source stating that their opposition is based on a philosophical distaste for what they see as socialized medicine would be fine.

4 The cited statements on human rights do not mention AAPS. If they themselves state we base our opposition to abortion on our reading of the Geneva Conventions, then it is appropriate to make such a statement. Without such a source, this is original research; in arguing a position, original research is to be commended, but writing an encyclopedia article is somewhat different.

5 Nuremberg←Nazism is fine; it is Nuremberg→AMA that needs to be presented with a source or omitted from this encyclopedia article.

7 A reliable source is presented for describing AAPS's place on the American political spectrum. Is there a comparable source offering a differing description?

8 Irrespectively, the most commonly used terminology is that which is most in service of helping our readers understand the AAPS. An extended discussion of the naming of the pill would be off-topic here.

9 I removed in the edit under discussion the text: Page two of the journal states that "The articles published in the JAAPS represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the AAPS or the Journal." JPandS is described as a peer reviewed journal published by the association, making it unneccesary to repeat in this article that it is not a mouthpiece for the organization. It is important for them to make the distinction explicit, but it is redundant here. For the sake of comparison, the article on Physical Review makes no mention of not representing the official stance of the APS.

10 The removed articles are not about AAPS, and do not belong in an encyclopedia article describing the AAPS.

Hope that helps, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The AAPS has on it's website currently a form entitled "Is it time for doctors to dump the AMA?" There are several other articles and webpages describing how the AMA has given up on medical ethics in pursuit of money and political correctness. This is very clear.

4. They likewise have the Hippocratic oath and several articles that mention it's corruption and editing on their website.

5. The source is the Declaration of Geneva itself. It was written in response to the Nuremberg trials - and afterward, when the AMA and the WHO decided to embrace abortion, it was edited. The folks that don't want anyone to know about this history and wrote this hate article about an organization simple want to keep it from public view. Geneva, the UDHR, Helsinki, and Nuremberg say what they say. And the AMA has contravened all of them. The AAPS has not. WHere else on wikipedia are such tyhings kept hidden? If a country who signed the non proliferation treaty is developing nuclear weapons, is that hidden on wikipedia?? Again, the documents say what they say - and the AAPS does not accept the modern edits on behalf of the abortion industry. Nor do a majority of countries worldwide. This article is being edited by people who want to keep one side of a political and ethical dispute silenced.

7. Citing the New York Times or the Washington Post as independent, unbiased sources is, with all due respect, a laugh out loud joke. These are accepted by at least half of America as being way to the left bias wise. Everyone from presidents to overseas world leaders have viewed them as such. This is as ridiculous a policy as claiming that Fox News in unbiased. This is one of the kernels which permits wikipedia's bias towards all things liberal when it comes to social issues. This is why there is a conservapedia and no liberalpedia. Wikipedia IS liberalpedia.

8. You are naming the pills what the manufacturer wants you to name them, but that is a name which opponents strongly disagree with because it is a fact that they work both before and after conception. The Morning After Pills are an unbiased name you could give them respecting both sides - but this entry brings you to your page on "emergency contraception" instead. I wonder who gets paid for this from Barr Pharmaceutical.. Again, political correctness trumping scientific reality.

9. Why is the Wikipedia on the AMA article so bereft of similar critical analysis then?

10. Appearing as it does amidst a hate article trashing an organization, it makes the abortion preterm birth connection seem unsupported by several other met analses. It is not. I get your point, but in an article with so much negative and no positives in it, it looks like a silly, unsubstantiated claim. This is just one fact the AMA is busy keeping quiet. YourHumanRights —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourHumanRights (talk • contribs)

It might be more productive to make an argument based on Wikipedia policy, rather than conspiracism and partisan politics. The New York Times and Washington Post are generally accepted as reliable sources, as Wikipedia defines the term. If your argument relies on dismissing articles from these newspapers, then it's unlikely to gain much traction in this venue since you're arguing against this site's most basic content policies. The article can of course cite the AAPS website as a description of how the organization presents itself, but the article should be based primarily on independent, reliable secondary sources, like all Wikipedia articles. Since this doesn't appear to be going anywhere, it might be worth either making an argument more based on Wikipedia policy, or considering the pathways outlined in our dispute resolution pathway. MastCell ^Talk 05:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not attempt to remove any articles from the NYT or the Post, even though Wikipedia's presumption that these sources are valid and the conservative ones are not is a laugh out loud joke. Additionally, I did not include any sources from the other side of the biased journalistic sources such as Fox News or the Washington Times. It is hilarious, though, to see the partisan politicos at Wikipedia STILL pretending to be unbiased when only "generally accepting" sources from their favorite far left sources. Nor did I try and remove any of the admittedly embarrassing articles that the AAPS journal has printed over the years. All I did was remove "quackwatch" - a joke of a source if ever there was one - and try and make it clear that one article that the AAPS deserves a lot of credit for (the abortion/preterm birth link) needs to be presented in such a way that does not make it seem like it is another crazy, unverified article with no merit. But after all, this is a hate article whose specific purpose from the start was and is to bash a group of thousands of doctors because they don't march lockstep with what the far left people who run Wikipedia want people to know about - and not know about. Thus, the "quackwatch," website is accepted as a reliable source - but the British Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The Journal of Reproductive medicine, and The Oxford Journals are not. Wikipedia is a very pro abortion website from it's dishonest description of the morning after pills, to this very clear suppression of the preterm birth link science. IF this were an honest and complete article of this groups good and bad points - and it is not - it would present the group's achievements alongside it's embarrassments with honest descriptions of both. But a quick comparison of this article with the one about the AMA will leave no honest or reasonable person with any doubts as to Wikipedia's extreme bias when it comes to their core partisan bias and fixed sources. As a result, women will continue to be kept in the dark about the preterm birth link, and there will many more children born with a needless lifetime of cerebral palsy to join all the others already born preterm with this and other birth defects. The state of Texas now mandates that women be warned of this risk - who knows if they are in real life - but Wikipedia won't even let news of the link be presented in this article as the link was reported by a medical journal they hate. This is politics over science at its very worst. And it's worth saying once more that Geneva, the UDHR, Helsinki, and Nuremberg are not partisan. Indeed, they are not political at all. They say what they say. Wikipedia just doesn't want anyone to see what they say in relation to their beloved abortions.YourHumanRights (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think most of your posts cross the line from arguments to rants, which may be one reason that you're not getting the desired effect. Let me try to pick out the concerns and address them.

• Quackwatch is obviously not gospel by any means. However, its opinion of the relevant journal is conceivably worth a single sentence of text here.
• The goal of the article is not to "bash" AAPS. However, it would be impossible to write a thorough, neutral, honest, encyclopedic article without noting that AAPS/JPandS have been bashed by a range of medical and scientific authorities.
• The link between induced abortion and preterm birth is controversial, and not a clear-cut case as you make it out to be. The meta-analysis to which you refer did find induced abortion to be a risk factor; other recent analyses (e.g. PMID 16621599) have not. If we choose to editorialize on the acceptance of this link, then we should do so honestly and with reference to reliable secondary sources, not by cherry-picking sources which conform to our agenda and declaring the link "confirmed" when I suspect few, if any, medical organizations consider it so.
• So-called "scripting laws", which mandate language to be used in informed consent, are often viewed as political tools wielded by one side of the abortion debate, as well as a politically driven infringement on a physician's medical judgment (in fact, I'm curious whether AAPS opposes them, given their stated commitment to complete physician autonomy...) But hey, that's just Wikipedia and our crazy left-wing sources like the New England Journal of Medicine talking...
• The AMA article could certainly stand to be improved. I would encourage you to do so, although you may wish to modify your rhetorical style.

Maybe we could try again, with less conspiracism and more civil language? MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

First, you can call what I am saying ranting all you want. When you accept only liberal websites and newspapers as valid sources, but reject all the conservative ones, the fix is in from the start and we end up with hate articles like this one put up for the specific reason to trash an organization rather than present an unbiased review of their good and bad points. Again, i did not attempt to remove any points or sources from the Times or other liberal newspaper sources. I am simply trying to add some positive aspects of this group and explain where they get their medical ethics from - but it is me who is being censored. This group accepts the declaration of geneva of 1948 to be valid and does not accept the edits thereto since then. They also insist the the protection of the child in utero as clearly outlined in the UDHR has never been changed and should still be respected by doctors of good conscience. But Wikipedia does not want people to know what this organization stands for - or why it does. There is no other reasonable conclusion as to why this is other than political bias from the top at Wikipedia.

1. If "Quackwatch" is not gospel - in your words, why does it keep getting put back in? You certainly would not allow the inclusion of the Gospels themselves - see: Immaculate CONCEPTION. But explain why the opinion of a group with a clear bias against this group is quoted while a quote that I put in from the group itself printed in it's own journal has been repeatedly deleted. Only critics can be heard here? Really? And why would that be?

2. Calling the science you don't like controversial, but the science you like as unquestionable is as old as the hills. Reminicent of the tobacco industry back in the 70's who came up with plenty of studies of their own that individually suggested there was no correlation of smoking to lung cancer and that nicotine was not addictive. The British Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The Journal of Reproductive medicine, and The Oxford Journals are not "cherry picked" sources. These are META analyses. Even the ONE single source you presented showed a very clear numerical preponderance of preterm birth to mothers with a history of abortion. They just tried to suggest that their own numbers didn't matter because women who've had abortions tend to have lees schooling and be fatter. Even "pro choice" scientist Dr. Caroline Moreau had to give up the ghost recently and admit that “Women with a history of abortion were 1.5 times more likely to give birth very prematurely, and 1.7 times more likely to have a baby born extremely pre term.” The causality is a slam dunk via all 4 traditional definitions. The numbers are what the numbers are, and they are at least as conclusive as the numbers that made us put warning labels on packs of cigarettes. It's just that this science is politically incorrect to some people at present. The biology of a compromised cervix and damaged uterus does not conform to any human ideology. This also comes into play with the abortion/breast cancer connection where the majority of studies show the link, the numbers have increased in "pro choice" countries" and it makes perfect sense. But the powers that be do not budge easily. Thus, my post referring to the absence of a vote when the theory was rejected and the dissenting view were likewise deleted. this is politics over science at its very worst. meanwhile, preterm births have INCREASED since 1973, and we have become the world' leader in breast cancer incidence.

3. I agree with regard to how politics gets involved on some issues. This article is also a good example of that. But that does not make the science invalid. it is what it is. I included this Texas law not to suggest that only Texans know what is best (as a socialist who supports national health care and protested against the Iraq invasion, I certainly hope not). But rather that the medical science of abortion and it's aftermath is not looney tunes theories that should be kept hidden. it is a stark reality that at the very least one side of the blue/red divide has accepted with gusto. Thus, including it as it it shown now as a descredited crazy idea amongst so many others defies the very notion of being bias free. Conservatives have their faults, like Liberals have. But one side should not be silenced while the other is given free reign here. Again, I have tried to delete nothing other than the silly quackwatch quote.

4. I hear you. Indeed, if there were 85 hours in the day I probably would be having at the AMA article now. But alas, if this article is going to be so biased and only one side is going to be allowed to be presented regarding this organization - and the organization itself will not even be allowed to defend itself from this hate article - why should anyone waste their time getting deleted and silenced on another page? As for my style, too bad. This is a revoltingly biased article - and I have kept all such comments strictly to this discussion board. I have said no such things in the article itself. I have just committed the Wikipedia crimes of sourcing medical journals and quoting human rights laws trying to bring a more balanced outlook to this article.YourHumanRights (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think the best approach is probably this one. I'm not interested in providing any further reinforcement for you to continue in your current vein. If you want to make a civil argument proposing concrete content changes based on Wikipedia policy, I'll listen. If you're just here to ignore the talk page guidelines and abuse this talk page as a soapbox, then I'm done responding to your dubious claims. MastCell ^Talk 05:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have not used this page as a soapbox, but rather to point out the very obvious bias is this article that is holding firm in stark contrast to Wikipedia's policy for fairness and against bias. If quackwatch and Brian deer are reliable sources to speak about this organization of thousands of medical doctors - but the doctors themselves are deleted and silenced in regards to their own organization, then exactly how is that fair by any stretch of the imagination? Brian Deer is described on Wikipedia as having belonged to the campaign for nuclear disarmament and a member of The Leveller, which Wikipedia describes as a "coalition of radicals, socialists, marxists, feminists, and others of the British left" SO this a reliable source who should be quoted in this article? Do you allow quotes from radically conservative journalists to be taken as an authority in articles dealing with liberal professional groupings? The slightest dissent from this hate article has been deleted repeatedly. The preterm birth line has only been allowed if it is included amongst a number of other refuted positions printed in the Journal. I have made concrete content changes and only attempted to remove the partisan, biased ones. Yet someone keeps removing new info and keeping the old biased ones. I have only ever attempted to remove one line, although the Brian Deer one should be removed also. If not, another paragraph should be added next to it where someone in or out of the group defends it against these partisan attacks. Does someone at Wikipedia REALLY know that much better than ALL these doctors? Does Brian Deer? I think any rational person could see my arguments as just simply too valid and this article way too biased. Brian Deer can be heard here, but the Oxford Journals and such cannot? Really? On behalf of who? What Wikipedia policies did my edits really violate? Or is the bias just fixed into the system?YourHumanRights (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Pediatrics study critique

This is a search of the American Academy of Pediatrics web site that might indicate that the article claiming that the May 16 2003 "Study Fails to Show a Connection Between Thimerosal and Autism" perhaps has been withdrawn by that organization. If this is so, then the unnamed author of the critique or the publishing organization no longer fully supports what it was saying? Could the article have been renamed to use mercury in its title? Is this article cached elsewhere by a web site that advocates fascists interests? Oldspammer (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what does fascism have to do with anything? MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee, what does the article say? What does Ron Paul supposedly stand for? Perhaps those who are critical of AAPS violently oppose Ron Paul's policies and the US constitution? Who might they be? Oldspammer (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee....now let's see. That Ron Paul character....was he the Nazi or the Fascist? Either way an extremist. Oldspammer, just leave politics out of it. No one is benefitted by such extremism. -- BullRangifer 07:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

<--- Uhmmm, the whole reason this issue even sees the light of day is null and void, some might say with prejudice. I would question the sanity of the AAP to keep up stuff like that in the same way I would question NASA for linking to flat earth papers. Executive summary: Get Over It. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Still everyone, the American Academy of Pediatrics article May 16, 2003 "Study Fails to Show a Connection Between Thimerosal and Autism" with no given authors is still gone. What archived copy exists / can be used instead? Oldspammer (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't gone; it's just no longer at the original URL. Perhaps the AAP reorganised their archives and this piece fell through the cracks. There's ample evidence that the article exists and was widely read; heck, Mark Geier even wrote a response to it. The insinuation that the AAP has somehow changed its mind on the issue just because someone can't find an Internet copy on a fascist website is pure speculation. Not to mention null and void, as Yak! stated. Especially following the Wakefield incidents, there does not appear to be much support at all for the thimerosal-autism theory. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep reading. If Mark Geier responded, did his responses make sense? Still, if archived, or whatever, what link can replace the missing one that I asked about? Wakefield incident coverage. Oldspammer (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not discuss whether or not fringe beliefs make sense, as this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. We may note, however, that the beliefs of the Geiers and Wakefields of the world are far removed from the current scientific knowledge about vaccines. If the article is no longer available under its former URL, simply remove the URL and/or leave a note in the reference asking for a new URL. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but what does any of this have to do with the Wikipedia article on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons? Oldspammer has made another odd diatribe at Talk:Mark Geier. Yobol (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I had initially asked that a broken link (404 error) reference be fixed, that is all. Check.Oldspammer (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

New article on group

NY Times has a new article on this group if anyone wants to include information from this article [2]. Remember (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look into including material from that source. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research and SYNTH completely overwhelming this article

Medical databases

"not listed in major academic literature databases": you cannot form conclusions from database searches. This is WP:OR. A reliable source must evaluate the databases and state a conclusion. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's supported by the New York Times article and the Chemical & Engineering News piece. MastCell ^Talk 07:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-mainstream claims

"Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims": according to whom? Only a reliable source may evaluate JPandS and conclude that their articles are non-mainstream/discredited. You may not add 1 and 1 to get 2. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• The questionable nature of the Journal's material is mentioned in numerous secondary sources. The New York Times article discusses a few of them. Chemical & Engineering News called the Journal a "purveyor of utter nonsense". Their work on vaccines and autism has been criticized by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The infamous leprosy paper speaks for itself, although numerous sources have discussed it as discredited. Brian Deer called the Journal "barely credible" and the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group." I'm not sure what you're looking for here - it's evident that independent, reliable sources have been critical of the Journal's quality and scientific rigor. MastCell ^Talk 07:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

PubMed listings

Hi, Plumbago what is "inaccurate" about this edit please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&diff=258544798&oldid=255972834

86.11.86.4 (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is inaccurate because the figure given for journals in PubMed is out by a factor of about 10. It is also misleading in the use of the phrase "like the majority of medical journals". Denotation is OK, but connotation (implication) is entirely unjustified. While it is strictly accurate to say that the majority of the world's medical journals are not listed in MEDLINE/PubMed, it would be more informative to say that the majority of high-quality English-language peer-reviewed journals are included, and that JPandS is not among them. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

SNALWIBMA is correct. I should perhaps have said "misleading" since that was my primary objection to the edit. Any journal worth its academic salt appears in PubMed or in Web of Knowledge (unless it's a new journal, in which case it may not immediately be added). That a long-established (and ostensibly serious) journal like JPandS does not appear in either PubMed or Web of Knowledge is highly pertinent in an encyclopaedia article about it. Anyway, my apologies for not being clear enough in my edit summary. --PLUMBAGO 13:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation.

• The words "major literature databases" in the existing text deal with the suggestion it is not a leading journal like NEJM or BMJ but it does provide a more rounded context to explain that the majority of journals are not cited.

• The number of journals cited in PubMed was correct at 520. The link to Pubmed was to a .csv listing of all cited journals and there are 520. That is easily confirmed by importing into Excel where they are readable and listed alphabetically.

• There are many reasons why journals are not listed including technical compliance with electronic format technical standards for inclusion of electronic material. This particular journal appears to be only available online in .pdf format, which does not appear to comply with the technical requirements. That alone is reason for the exclusion.

For all the above reasons it is somewhat misleading for Wikipedia to imply the Journal is not listed because it is rejected on quality of publications just as that would be inappropriate to suggest the same about the 80 percent or so of journals which are not listed. It would be helpful to ensure accuracy that this was recognised by Wikipedia, I am sure you can only agree.

Thanks again for taking the time for your considered explanations and it would be nice to see the edit restored for the sake of accuracy and balance. Wikepedia is intended to be factual and indirect innuendos to imply something that may not be the case is best avoided in all the circumstances. 86.11.86.4 (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think most of these points are, well, misleading. It's not just NEJM and the BMJ that appear on PubMed. It's actually a very low bar - many fringe and questionable publications are indexed on PubMed. Indexing is notable and important for a very simple reason: these databases are used by researchers to find information. Articles published in non-indexed journals are unlikely to be seen, cited, or built upon by other researchers, and so have far less scientific meaning or impact.

Of course there are many reasons a journal may not appear on PubMed. We make no claim as to why JPandS isn't indexed there, but simply state the notable, relevant, and encyclopedic fact that it's not indexed. As a side note, I find some of your assertions about formatting as a reason for exclusion unlikely, but that's neither here nor there as the article itself makes no claim as to the reason for the lack of indexing.

Your final point about innuendo is interesting. I believe that your proposed edit misleadingly implies that a lack of PubMed indexing is no big deal. In fact, it's a fairly big deal for a journal that lays claim to some sort of scientific credibility. In any case, your edit seeks to "spin" the lack of PubMed indexing in a favorable (and, I believe, misleading) light, while the current text simply states it as a fact and allows the reader to draw whatever conclusions they feel are appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification. The number of journals indexed in PubMed is 5,200, not 520. See the Medline factsheet. The figure of 520 refers to the number of full-text journals in PubMed Central, which is something entirely different. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the further information. Please allow me to make a number of observations

• The overall issue is being factual [for an encyclopedia] and accuracy rather than relying on innuendo. Regrettably, the above is based on personal opinion, argument and factual inaccuracies.

- If you have an authoritative citation from PubMed to the effect that this journal or any of the large number of others is not listed because it is worthless rather than any other reason [such a technical listing reasons, or it has only existed as a peer reviewed publication for a few years, or it covers too wide a subject-matter, including academic content on socio-medical issues], then that would be helpful.

- When the large majority of journals is not included in PubMed it is inaccurate to imply by innuendo and personal opinion that a journal is worthless because it is not either. Accordingly, it is balanced to put the lack of listing in context.

• Clarification PubMed cites and abstracts 520 journals {see link previously provided}. Medline holds citations. These are for 5,200 publications across a spectrum of life sciences [[What's the Difference Between MEDLINE® and PubMed®?]|[3]].

• A good illustration of this being personal opinion is the statement that "It's actually a very low bar - many fringe and questionable publications are indexed on PubMed" when there are only 520 and many thousands not included. That is a very high bar, I am sure you can agree on reflection.

86.11.86.4 (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(←) You are still confusing PubMed and PubMed Central. Read the source you have yourself provided. "MEDLINE is the largest component of PubMed ... Approximately 5,200 journals ... have been selected and are currently indexed for MEDLINE." PubMed is an interface that provides access to the MEDLINE database. MEDLINE indexes 5,200 journals. MEDLINE is but one component of PubMed. Therefore PubMed indexes at least 5,200 journals. The bar is low, and JPandS does not make it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Web of Knowledge does slightly more journals (8700 according to our entry), although it does cover the full range of academic topics (hence, I suppose, the name). Either way, it's significant if an academic journal doesn't make it into these catalogues. Not least because, with so many journals out there, the catalogues provide a necessary interface for searching for research work. If a journal doesn't appear on them (and, as SNALWIBMA notes, the bar isn't especially high; as can be judged quantitatively from impact factors), it's only rarely going to be consulted by the vast majority of researchers. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would submit high quality work to any journal that doesn't appear in these catalogues. Careers are made or terminated on the back of publication, and publishing in uncatalogued journals is a sure-fire way to ensure the latter. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for all comments.

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons does not appear to qualify for inclusion in Pubmed on grounds other than those being claimed on Wikipedia, and as already noted. Let us be more specific:-

The first of the Critical Elements for inclusion are Scope and coverage:' The journals brought to the Committee for review will contain articles predominantly on core biomedical subjects. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html. That does not seem to admit this particular journal for inclusion amongst those already indexed.

Then, Journals whose content is predominantly a subject peripheral or related to biomedicine are occasionally brought to the Committee when they have some biomedical content. In these cases, the Committee's advice is sought not only on the quality of the content but also on the contribution it makes to the coverage of the subjects in question. And, also Generally, 'such journals will not be indexed if their biomedical content is already adequately covered.

Then there is Geographic coverage: Journals will generally not be selected for indexing if ... the contents are subjects .... being published for a local audience. Which also seems to exclude the Journal, published for approximately what seems to be a readership of 4000 members of the Association concerned.

Accordingly, the Wikipedia entry as it currently stands regrettably seems inaccurate, misleading and not based on fact. The minor edits to ensure balance and factual accuracy would therefore seem justified.

Regrettably, it also seems there is no evidence to show this particular Journal has been excluded for reasons of quality. No evidence is provided beyond innuendo.

As can be seem from other parts of this Wikipedia entry, it includes quotes from somewhat seemingly unreliable sources [Quackwatch?] and trawls back to journalism from the 1960s. That together with other aspects seem to the independent and objective reader suggestive that Wikipedia is falling somewhat short of the quality to be expected of an encyclopedia. It appears to be basing much of what is said on opinions seemingly biased against what seem the sometimes controversial issues the Journal concerned appears from this entry to be prepared to cover. That in turn appears to indicate Wikipedia has a less than perfect appreciation of what in academic terms merits publication, and that those who have edited this Wikipedia entry in the past do not appear to agree with the coverage of the Journal.

The semantic distinctions being drawn between core journals on PubMed and broader coverage journals on Medline to suggest there is any confusion appears somewhat peripheral to the issues. With respect, there is no confusion. A great many journals are not included in PubMed for reasons other than quality. And the same comments can be applied to a such journals.

What all the foregoing discussions indicates is that there seem to be strongly held opinions tending, perhaps unintentionally, to bias the coverage of the current text of this Wikipedia entry in favour of such opinions. There for example appears to be little or nothing said in favour of this Journal, which aside from indicating itself a lack of balance, seems to speak for itself.

I trust you can agree, we have all now had a full discussion and exchange of views on the matter. If there is any evidence that the Journal has been excluded on grounds of quality alone, then that should be produced or the edits previously made to this Wikipedia entry ought to be restored to ensure balance and factual accuracy in accordance with the ideals of creating an accurate and balanced encyclopedia which the public of the world can have some confidence in.

I look forward to your agreement on what is after all a relatively minor edit for which it seems somewhat more detailed justification has been necessary than perhaps what some might reasonably expect is needed.

86.11.86.4 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But the article gives no reason for the exclusion of JPandS from Medline and other databases. It simply states the fact that it is not included. Nobody is claiming (in the article - this dicussion is to some extent a different matter) that "the journal has been excluded on grounds of quality". The text as it stands is accurate, balanced, and free of opinion. What exactly is that you object to? Where is the "bias [in] the coverage of the current text of this Wikipedia entry"? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. As already stated, all issues appear fully aired already. 86.11.86.4 (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I doubt you've convinced anyone, because your arguments suggest that you haven't read the actual Wikipedia article. It currently states the simple fact that the Journal is not indexed, without speculating on the reasons. You are seeking to "spin" the lack of indexing by providing misleading context suggesting that PubMed exclusion is commonplace for biomedical journals. The proposed edits violate core Wikipedia policies on original synthesis and undue weight.

If you feel that the article does not adequately praise the Journal, then the simplest solution is to find appropriate reliable, independent sources and incorporate them. You will note that the article does not editorially condemn the Journal. On the other hand, when the New York Times calls AAPS an ultra-right-wing partisan group, the article notes that with attribution. When the editor-in-chief of the American Chemical Society refers to the Journal, in print, as a "purveyor of utter nonsense", then the article notes that with attribution. When the WHO and American Academy of Pediatrics criticize the standards of research published in the Journal, or when its articles are found to contain obvious and major errors by various major media outlets, then our article notes these things with attribution. These are appropriately verifiable and relevant, and important to any coverage of the subject which aspires to be encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. As already stated, all issues appear fully aired already.

Just for completeness, other reasons why any journal may not be included is that each year only 140 are considered for inclusion and only some of these 140 will be included. So the chances of any journal out of all the others not already included being added each year is very small. At that rate it could take 30-40 years or even much longer. This is also further evidence of there being a high bar.

Additionally, as this Wikipedia article shows, the journal concerned is new and has existed as a peer reviewed journal in the present format only for 5 years since 2003 and has a short track record - another reason it may not be included in addition to all the others.

As for anyone being or not being convinced by what is said here, I am sure ordinary people can make their own minds up. The way this Wikipedia article is written it seems to be character assassination of the Association and its journal of a high order. An almost perfect testament to all that is wrong with Wikipedia? That is perhaps an argument for critics of Wikipedia to seek not to change it.

Someone needs to publish controversial papers taking a contrary view, or else there is no public debate of any kind and that is a dangerous state of affairs for any nation. It is quite apparent that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons journal is prepared to publish papers on controversial topics. It is hardly surprising that others attack them, and in the USA that can be in vicious and vitriolic terms. This Wikipedia article does nothing to put that in context or to provide balance.

As for the points you make about critics, that is only to be expected in such highly political circumstances. All anyone can say is that those who disagree with the Association and its journal, attack it in polemical terms. The New York Times' example was a trawl way back in the 1960s. They write many things which have been found questionable. In that case from the 1960s they were reporting the views of Milford Owen Rouse, of that extremely political and powerful lobbying organisation The American Medical Association.

Having read the editorial of the editor-in-chief of the American Chemical Society, it appears nothing more than a polemical diatribe and that in itself casts some doubt on his authority to comment. He seems miffed they published a paper arguing on climate change a controversial perspective he did not agree with. So what does he do? Does he pick up anything wrong in the paper? No. He engages in character assassination, a polemical diatribe. Hardly, authoritative and that puts his comments into a very different context.

Again, WHO and American Academy of Pediatrics have their own drums to beat. We can all criticize the standards of research in articles in any Journal. The BMJ and NEJM are not exceptions. The NEJM appears to have been criticised regarding some of the papers it has published on psychiatric drugs. The New York Times also appears to have a reputation in its approach to publishing some of the articles it has done on pharmaceuticals. Will Wikipedia list them in its entries on those organisations and their journals?

Many thanks for the time you have taken to express your views, albeit clearly strongly held ones. As already stated, this is all about a relatively minor edit for which it seems somewhat more detailed justification has been necessary than perhaps some might reasonably expect is needed. The degree of resistance to it and the lack of any attempt to compromise might be found surprising in all the circumstances to someone coming to this fresh. 86.11.86.4 (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I have that soapbox back when you're done with it? :) If your argument relies on an attempt to discredit the AMA, the American Chemical Society, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the British Medical Journal, the New York Times, and the New England Journal of Medicine to get off the ground, then it's unlikely you'll get a lot of mileage here. MastCell ^Talk 06:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Be aware that ghostwriting affects the mainstream medical press, so even articles in major journals need to be looked at with a critical eye. See http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/public-health/ph-iis-20110620.html . InformaticsMD (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Improper hatnote

I see no scenario where "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" could be confused with "American Osteopathic Association." – Lionel ^(talk) 08:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree on this point. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced assertions

• "The organization, its members, and the journal..." -- according to the article only the journal has been criticized by medical sources.
• "has not been corrected by the Journal" -- this is being challenged per WP:BURDEN. You have 2 options: (1) cite it or (2) remove it. Removing a tag placed in good faith is not an option.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for more info left at Lionel talk page. He cites WP:CCC in his edit along with the bullying attitude (seems like it anyway maybe I'm wrong). Items previously discussed here and I cannot see any new argument presented. Happy Editing. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A cursory Google search turned up this http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html RS which indicates the organization is being criticized, not just the journal as asserted above. Happy Editing. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have found no previous discussion on this talk page that addresses the 2 issues I have raised. The source you provided does not criticize the "members." But let's look at the source. It is written by the webmaster and he does not provide the specific basis and rationale upon which he made his determinations. He merely lists 10 criteria, and then writes "I view the following with considerable distrust" and a long list follows of which AAPS is an entry. This appears to be a WP:TERTIARY source, which is fine for general information, but undesirable for specific condemnations of the kind leveled at AAPS. Moreover I don't think the opinion of the webmaster of Quackwatch qualifies as "mainstream medical sources" as written in the lead.

You have not given a justification why WP:BURDEN and WP:V should be suspended for "has not been corrected by the Journal." – Lionel ^(talk) 12:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The last concern is easily addressed. The Journal issue in question is here. The article in question is here. The article still contains the false claim about leprosy incidence, and neither shows any evidence of correction. So it's easily verifiable. MastCell ^Talk 02:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Independent review of your article...

I stumbled on this page for AAPS randomly and looked up the organization online because the article seemed so amazingly biased. In fact, almost every sentence seems carefully crafted to discredit this group or support a critic of the group.

I checked out their info. They support a traditional role of medicine with the centerpiece being the doctor-patient relationship, and criticize forces that they perceive as harmful to that physician-patient relationship.

I think a paragraph or section about controversy regarding a few fringe articles that have been published in their name might be reasonable. But the whole page is an essay of unbalanced criticism. When a regular person reading this comes away amazed at the bias, the article has serious problems. I guess that is the nature of an encyclopedia that any fool can edit.

The page on Nazism on wikipedia is much more balanced, factual, and reflective of the subject matter. Is the AAPS really that much worse than Nazism that so much effort must be made to trash it?

Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.118.198 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This article is a WP:POV train wreck. What in your opinion is the single most unencyclopedic item? – Lionel ^(talk) 08:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's important to understand that encyclopedic articles are based on what indepedent, reliable sources say about a subject, not on a subject's self-presentation. AAPS presents itself one way, and independent, reliable sources generally view it another way. We prioritize the latter, although we can certainly mention the former.

I think it's misleading to describe AAPS as "non-partisan" in Wikipedia's voice. AAPS is clearly a highly partisan organization in the commonly understood sense of the word - numerous reliable sources place it somewhere between "conservative", "ultra-conservative", and "far-right". AAPS describes itself as non-partisan, but we need to be clear that it's a self-description. Otherwise we mislead the reader. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, we should describe it as reliable sources describe it, and then include what it describes itself as. We certainly should not be using its own description in Wikipedia's voice if that description flies in the face of what independent reliable sources describes it. Yobol (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The Asylum Street Spankers claim to be "God's favorite band" but it doesn't get mentioned in the lede of that article. Self-characterizations are important to note, but don't hold the same weight as independent, reliable sources. The previous version of the lede was more appropriate. a13ean (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK, what's up with this? Mtbwalt (talk · contribs) and Collect (talk · contribs) are repeatedly reinserting: "According to Time Magazine, the AAPS was founded in 1943 to 'fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine.'" But, of course, that's not "according to Time magazine". That's according to Jane Orient, executive director of AAPS, quoted verbatim in the New York Times. In our haste to bowdlerize this article, we have people edit-warring to reinsert information that is evidently false (as anyone who's briefly glanced at the cited sources should recognize). If this quote is attributed in-text at all, it needs to be attributed to the person who actually said it, not to a magazine (where it didn't even appear in the first place). I think it's fair to expect experienced editors, at least, to be a bit more careful with sources, and particularly with direct quotes. Can we make an effort to focus on the content of independent, reliable sources and to accurately convey it? MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a member and nobody ever made me sign a pledge not to take medicare.

I checked out the Mother Earth link, and there are unfactual claims in that article without citation. Now this article cites that one? I guess I don't expect much from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.132.39 (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I did what I could to make this a bit more balanced and unbiased a few years back. You can see quite clearly that all such attempts were thwarted. This was written by someone who clearly hates the organization. If you have a look at the page wikipedia has on abortion, you will see that MastCell was there is a jiffy also to thwart any mention of the abortion/preterm birth link. THIS is why people have come not to expect much from wikipedia regarding an controversial topic. And the folks controlling things are indeed very proud of their ability to simply make things vanish.

YourHumanRights (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

leprosy entry

i just removed some text that cites a letter to the editor about the leprosy statistics. I think mentioning it skirts the line of due weight, personally, but I'm curious to get a little more background and the editor's reasoning for adding it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

removal of Farla content on gun violence debate

I initially reverted this removal simply because it was a large section blanked. Upon further review, the link to hacienda publishing indicates that the article "The Perversion of Science and Medicine (Part III): Public Health and Gun Control Research" (authored by Farla) originally appeared in the Medical Sentinel, the journal of the AAPS. It's not clear to me whether the article in its original form was presented as being from the editorial staff, an invited commentary, or other format where the opinion it contains would most clearly bear the imprimatur of the organization and its in-house journal. It seems likely to me that it would (they published it, after all), but I do not have access to the journal, it not being indexed by pubmed et al (and it's old, to boot).

If this needs further discussion, this would be the place for it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it was right in front of me. The Hacienda Publishing link indicates that this originally appeared in the "Editor's Corner" section. Clearly it indicates the opinion of the editorial staff of the journal, and by extension the AAPS. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Political Activity section has nothing to do with the subject of the article

Per request, opening a thread on this. This Political activity section has nothing to do with AAPS. It talks about the political association of somebody who happened to have worked on AAPS' journal and "others". I think we should remove the section , since people might mistakenly think AAPS was involved in this gun control debate. --Bertrc (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

AAPS has been involved in the gun-control debate; that's not a mistake. An op-ed by the head of AAPS, published in the AAPS house journal, was cited extensively by conservative media and politicians opposed to gun control.

Guns in American Society discusses the AAPS' advocacy against gun-control legislation, writing in part that the AAPS "vehemently opposes seeing handgun violence as a public health problem or as an epidemic." The book goes on to note that AAPS dismisses virtually all mainstream research on gun violence as "junk science", argues that handguns save lives, and has published at least two special issues of its house journal dedicated specifically to advocating against gun-control legislation. The AAPS also tends to issue press releases advocating their position on gun control.

How does this have "nothing to do" with AAPS? MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My "mistaken" comment may have been wrong (I've struck it out), but that is not really the point. My issue is that the political activity section of the article had nothing to do with AAPS. That section is entirely focused on Miguel A. Faria advocating on his own behalf. If AAPS is involved with gun control, then the section should explicitly say that and back it up with cites. The existing text should be removed; I see nothing to salvage in it, since nothing in the text actually addresses AAPS' positions. --Bertrc (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it - I'm sorry for misunderstanding your initial point. Yes, I agree that we shouldn't spend a lot of ink talking about Faria operating on his own behalf. I think it's reasonable to say a word or two about AAPS advocacy on the issue of gun control, but we should re-write it using sources that actually deal with AAPS rather than Faria. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated, using your link. --Bertrc (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

AAPS was founded to oppose Social Security: political positions are their Raison d'être. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional sources

I have been reading about this organization given the recent press coverage on Rand Paul, and there are many sources that describe some highly controversial viewpoints besides what is in the article now, including, that Obama used hypnosis to convince voters to vote for him, and the World Trade Center towers collapsing due to their compliance with federal restrictions on the use of asbestos. Sources: [4], [5] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113001029/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html to http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Balance and honesty

AAPS claims to be anti-socialist and want government out of medicine, but has no objection to either when it benefits physicians. For instance, AAPS does not object to medical licensure, which many economists say harms consumers in various ways. Licensure creates a cartel, a legal monopoly bestowed by government, which is arguably a form of socialism. AAPS also supports prescription drug laws, which are a huge economic benefit to physicians, giving them a near-monopoly over access to most drugs. It has also agreed to work with law enforcement to essentially entrap patients are who said to be "drug seeking." In return, AAPS wants government to stop arresting and prosecuting physicians for what is considered inappropriate prescribing of scheduled drugs. I don't offer these as arguments but as illustrations of positions taken by AAPS that reveal that it has a much more nuanced position on government involvement in and control of medicine than the rhetoric of its officers and members suggest. Nicmart (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nicmart: There is nothing that can be done to change the article based on what you are saying, because you have not mentioned a reliable source to back up what you are saying, if you have a source to say this , please post that here. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504091458/http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/about_us to http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/about_us/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

wording

@Bradv: "unorthodox and at wide variance" sounds weird and confusing, but means the same thing as "differs substantially from". Tornado chaser (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

EBSCO listing

JPandS is indexed in EBSCO's CINAHL Complete and this information is being suppressed. The current article reads like an attack piece and not an encyclopedic entry. Citesource 18:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I searched EBSCOHOST for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in various sections, including "Title Lists" (at [6] ), but got only "No Results". I can't think why this company, that calls itself a "provider of research databases, e-journals, magazine subscriptions, e-books and discovery service to libraries of all kinds", would suppress one of their titles. Please provide a link that provides either the Journal's EBSCO entry or a source that states it indexes it, but suppresses it and why. Thank you for your time and attention, Wordreader (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Do they push "scientifically discredited hypotheses"?

It seems clearly to be the case. I've started a discussion on the Fringe Theory noticeboard for additional input.[7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course they do; and it's impeccably sourced. Further removal without discussion and consensus would be disruptive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course they do not; the presence of a source without the editor ingesting the material is laughable. The content of the source article is a complete 180 from the statement in the article. It needs to be removed. Neglecting this topic would be violating Neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrindMocha (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@GrindMocha:, Please read the article body. The lead paragraph is a summary of the body and generally does not need to have cites included for every point if those claims are cited in the article body. This is certainly the case here. In point of fact, the claims made are cited to the Association's own "journal". Contrary to your statement above, it would actually be a violation of NPOV to remove them (see WP:FALSEBALANCE for more). In any event, I am now the third editor to make an objection to your removal of this material and you are obliged per WP:CONSENSUS to seek agreement from editors at large before making that change again. I hope this helps explain our policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn has it right; the introduction summarizes the body, and the sourcing in the body is more than adequate to support the statements made. NPOV is satisfied and false balance avoided. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, without a doubt the opinions expressed are WP:Fringe and the article does a laudable job of presenting them as such. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Reads like an inflammatory hit piece

This article reads like a partisan hit piece on this group. They do hold lots of unconventional views some of which are clearly unsupported. I don't think anyone will take this article seriously with the inflammatory opening paragraph. Their views are supported with data, which may be of low quality but they do cite their data. The judgements on if it is misinformation or disinformation should be left to the reader. This also only focuses on their negative aspects. I'm sure there are other facets that are positive from this group, it just seems like they are not listed here. I would recommend to clean up the opening paragraph and list their controversies under a "controversies section". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hail Scrooge (talk • contribs) 12:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Pfft. Creationists' views are supported with data. Astrologer's views are supported with data.

Wikipedia supplies the reader with reliable information, which includes what experts think of someone's opinion. Experts think the AAPS's views are crap, and the article tells you that.

You want to censor Wikipedia and hide that information? Won't work. If you can find reliable sources that say good things about those clowns, please show them. If you can't, bye.

WP:BRD and WP:WAR are good reading. WP:YWAB is another thing you should have a look at. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, WP:SIGN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I think we should be presenting data about the group, not passing judgments on the quality of their data. If it is a controversial stance, link to the appropriate opposing side (ie JAMA, ACP, etc...). Making a statement such as "they promote disinformation" just causes the appearance of bias and will likely turn off readers. In your above comment I'm not sure why you bring up Creationists or Astrologers. I'm guessing you don't believe in Creationism or Astrology but you seem to associate it with some kind of insult. Why single out those groups? They have their data that they feel is good enough for them, so why the negative association. If you are that biased against certain groups should you not recognize that and step back so you don't present you biases in said articles? If wikipedia is to be taken seriously and not be associated with one side of politics or the other then the articles need to be presented in a neutral manner, not one where a side is clearly favored. The article also does not tell you that the "experts" think the AAPS's views are crap. This article basically takes this groups controversial positions and presents the other side of argument. I came across this article by accident and don't know much about this groups history but was immediately taken aback by how negative this article was about this group. I thought I might try to make it a bit more neutral sounding as it seems the editors really have a strong opinion against this group. --Hail Scrooge (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

An experienced editer once said to me that you need three things to edit wikipedia. Sources, sources and sources. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

After reading the first half and skipping the second half of your contribution, it was clear to me that you did not read and understand WP:YWAB. WP:FRINGE and WP:LUNATIC may also help you to understand that not all opinions are born equal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Information is well referenced. As other editor said "If you can find reliable sources that say..." then bring up here on talk page or add them if well referenced. ContentEditman (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Please remove the content unsupported by the references

@NorthBySouthBaranof: ::@Eggishorn: since you have asked to move to the Talk page, I will discuss it here. Again, please provide the references when you make claims in the introduction. This is per the Wiki policy reliable published secondary sources. Also, if you want to keep them, you need to reach the consensus. Clearly, based on this talk page and based on the history, there is no consensus and many editors have pointed out to this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITELEAD. Even 100 editors disagreeing for spurious reasons isn't a lack of WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedic consensus is based upon WP:RULES and WP:RS. WP:RANDY's opinions are not WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I have read it. It clearly says. "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. " The opening statement has been challenged by many editors. So please support it with references from reliable published sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs)

@Aldep77: You do ignore something: citations are provided in the body of the article, not in the lead section. The lead section simply summarizes the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I am ignoring anything. Where is a citation about "promoting medical disinformation" from reliable published sources?

The article is full of reliable sources. Read them, and learn to sign your posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~ thanks. Oh yes, an afterthought. you are edit-warring, that will get you blocked from wikipedia if you aren't careful. Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 23:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your afterthougt, edit-warring means "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. ". My edit has been undone 3 times, I have not undone anybody's edit. Thus, I think it is not me who is supposed to get blocked. But in any case, I am trying to "reach a consensus or pursue dispute resolution" as per Wiki rules and expect you and others follow the same route. Thank you for understanding. Aldep77 (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree that denying HIV causes AIDS is "medical disinformation"? If you agree, then AAPS clearly and provably promoted it in their journal. If you disagree, then you lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I would suggest you to refrain from personal attacks, like above: "lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia". Thank you. Second, I suggest to read the provided section of WP:CIR carefully, as there is nothing there that I violated. Finally, third - the paper that you have published is a scientific paper, wrong or write it does not mean that AAPS promote something. Journals are the place to allow scientists to exchange ideas. It is not up to you make conclusion, like "promote something". The author of the paper has enough regalia to be able to publish scientific papers in scientific journals. I am asking again - plese provide the verifiable published sources supported by inline citation that "that promotes medical disinformation". Not your opinion, not your conclusion but an actual citation. Thank you. Aldep77 (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a section "Publishing of scientifically discredited claims". All of those, as well as most of the claims documented in the rest of the article, are obvious misinformation. Disinformation is something else though, spread deliberately to deceive. It suggests that those people know that what they say they is wrong. I don't think there are sources for that one, or even evidence for it. It seems that they actually believe all that crap, immersed into the bubble of Extreme-Wacko Deny-The-Science-And-Replace-it-By-Paranoid-Delusions Mainstream Bizarro American Conservatism as they are.

So, "disinformation" ought to be misinformation. Other than that, we are deep in WP:SKYBLUE territory here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ::@Hob Gadling: for at least an attempt to find a consensus here. So do you agree with changing disinformation to misinformation?

Aldep77 read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS again. That's not how it works. You are expected to reach a consensus with other editors before unilaterally trying to camel-nose your preferred version into the article. Please do not make any further changes until this has been resolved here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt from your part to reach consensus. Do you have any objection that they are physicians? Do you want me to provide reference that they are physicians. I am seeing that this article is biased, misleading, lacks references. So far, apart from threats of blocks and harassment of "being unqualified to edit wikipedia", I have not received any attempt to find a consensus. I have tried to be polite and reasonable. So what is your proposal? Thanks Aldep77 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't decide the terms of the discussion; Wikipedia Community decides the terms of the discussion, and you have to cheerfully obey, or leave Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I prefer that you should cheerfully obey, but if this continues at all, I'd have no hesitation in supporting your removal from the project. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"I prefer you cheerfully obey" is not a discussion. So I suggest you to follow the rules and find a compromise. You might block me out of revenge of course, but it constitute a distractive behavior and will be appealed. So I will repeat my question. What was the recent change has been reverted? All three persons are physicians and this is relevant to the article on the Association of Physicians. I hope to see an attempt to find a consensus on your side. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You suggest I follow the rules. Aha ha ha haha. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Aldep77 has been notified of discretionary sanctions, and pushing WP:FRINGE POVs in such areas leads to block or topic bans. Which are legitimate, not an abuse of process, so it is highly unlikely that those will be overturned. Mere insisting they are right does not make them right. Wikipedia Community decides who is right, and admins honestly enforce should decisions. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am still hoping for any indication that you are trying to follow wikipedia rules, and try to find consensus. So again: What was the recent change has been reverted? All three persons are physicians and this is relevant to the article on the Association of Physicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I have no opinion about replacing American Republican with physicians and. But I do have an opinion about repeatedly reverting. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not reverting anything, I had my comment reverted. I am asking for explanation and trying to find consensus or a compromise. So you are talking to a wrong person. Anyway, I am still waiting for a constructive explanation and an attempt to reach a consensus.Aldep77 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about replacing American Republican with physicians and. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Aldep77, you are not going to get to set the terms of this discussion according to your satisfaction. WP:CONSENSUS means that decisions are not required to satisfy everyone, but that if there is a general agreement of the users who want to comment say something, that's what the article will say. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn Let's stop meaningless arguments. Please explain, why did you undo the recent change? All three persons are physicians and this is relevant to the article on the Association of Physicians. Thanks.Aldep77 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And, of course, consensus is not arbitrary, but based upon WP:RULES and WP:RS—and there are plenty of sources WP:CITED inside the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu Could you please show me one reliable published secondary source that tells that AAPS " that promotes medical disinformation,"? Thanks Aldep77 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Just don't push your luck. All other participants to the discussion agree that several WP:RS cited inside the article make exactly this point. WP:V does not require having verbatim confirmation, just the description of medical misinformation does the job. To put it otherwise, we have plenty of evidence that the association consists of cranks and quacks. It is an association for the promotion of quackery and medical pseudoscience, in a sauce of paranoid conspiracy theories. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please explain, why did you undo the recent change? I've done so twice now but will do so again: You have tried to change the consensus describing this organization. This change has been challenged. You are not supposed to continue trying to make changes until you get other editors to agree with your change. Which you won't because the description is based on well-cited things this organization has itself published. Do we need outside sources saying, "AAPS has published articles condemning [X], [Y] and [Z] and is therefore anti-[X], anti-[Y] and anti-[Z]"? No. Nothing in WP:NPOV or WP:NOR requires that. We can take them at their word. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about the recent revert of yours when I added that "All three persons are physicians" and this is relevant to the article on the Association of Physicians. Let's solve this first. Why did you revert this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thereupon I give you the benefit of the doubt, but generally speaking your edits to the article aren't allowed because of WP:NONAZIS. There is a difference between the conservatism of Reagan and Thatcher and the extreme right. What I can tell you for sure is that conservatives hate extremists. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu I am happy to here that you hate extremists and nazi's. But what has it to do with this? Are you calling me nazie? Aldep77 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Aldep77: Because.You.Don't.Make.Changes.During.Discussions. That's the same answer and asking me yet another time isn't going to change the answer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Aldep77 Discussion? I am happy that you are finally suggesting to discuss something. Let's discuss. I suggest to add "physicians and politicians" and this is relevant to the article on the Association of Physicians. Do you have problem with this change? If you do, then please explain. If you don't, let's do it. Thank you. Aldep77 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No. This reply is not discussion. It is simple restatement of intention and a demand for refutation. For the last time, read WP:ONUS. You are proposing a change (one that is opposed by every other editor who has commented) so you need to provide a policy- and source-compliant reason why this is justifiable. Until you make a positive case for your proposed changes, I will not further engage in this tail-chasing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It is pity that it is not a discussion, as according to the WP:CON, if you don't agree with my edit, we are supposed to engage in attempt to reach a consensus. Yes, I proposed a change to add "physicians and politicians". And the reason for this (onus that you asked for) is that and this is relevant to the article on the Association of Physicians. Now, you are wrong, that other editors are against it. So far it was only you who are against it. The only opinion on this change from other editor was "I don't care about replacing American Republican with physicians and. ". Please pay attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration "constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions." Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldep77 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That change is an insignificant issue, I guess none of us cares deeply about such change. The gist is, however: while there is no requirement that articles about WP:FRINGE topics be attack pieces, we don't write lightly about such topics, either. In other words, such association is busy with extremist, pseudoscientific, and paranoid rants. And that's our article will keep telling. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn You have retracted my change of "physicians and politicians" being the only one who objects to it without providing any arguments specific to the change. Do you want to provide any arguments against it or you are fine to include it? Thanks. Aldep77 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu It is right thing to describe relation of this association to all of the above when it is confirmed by reliable sources. My concern with this article is that it is written as an attack piece. I want to make it objective and unbiased, otherwise Wiki itself can become place for extremist, paranoid rants. Since the topic is so hot, I will not do any changes without discussion and trying to reach consensus. Thanks for the the response.Aldep77 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You have been served with WP:GOODBIAS upon your talk page. Wikipedia is biased against AAPS. This is by design. You're the only one here who pretends that the article would be insufficiently sourced. No one else agrees with you upon that. See WP:1AM.

And... your statement is ludicrous: for roughly six pages of text there are 103 footnotes (one hundred and three). My Master's thesis (33 pages in total, including footnotes) did not have as many footnotes. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've raised children, Aldep77, so I'm familiar with the tactic of: "Ask the same question multiple ways until you get the answer you want." It didn't work very well for them and it's not going to work here, either. The only reason I'm replying at all is that I'm also familiar with the tactic of: "Pretend that silence is the answer you want to hear." So to be clear: you are proposing a change to long-standing consensus text so you need to provide a reason why the text should be accepted. It is clear that you have not read, or chosen to to follow WP:BURDEN but it means that proposing reasons to reject your change is not required. Proposing reasons why your change should be allowed is. Furthermore, even minor changes are inappropriate when the proposed change is in discussions. You are trying to push a POV that is not supported and even civil POV pushing is still disruptive POV pushing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding, Eggishorn, here: you are not my parent, I am not your child. You just another editor, and I am not needing your permission, I am expecting you to follow Wikipedia:wiki rules, namely "editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues". Which is "especially true for administrators". Now, regarding you asking for the reasons, I have answered it at least three times above, I will answer for the forth time. The reason for this change is that in the phrase "The group has included notable members, including American Republican politicians Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Tom Price", information that they are all physicians is very relevant as the article is about associations of physicians. Moreover, [Ron_Paul] is not a Republican currently as well as for the significant part of his career. Thus, I did the change: "The group has included notable members, including American physicians and politicians Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Tom Price." I sincerely hope that I will need to retype it for the fifth time. Thank you.Aldep77 (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aldep77. As you have been told quite a few times on this thread, there is no consensus for your changes, and they will not be made. I doubt that WP:BADGERING this talk page will garner any further responses to you, as you have become disruptive, and tedious. Please read the responses you have already received again, and you may find the rest of this thread interesting, as it details what may happen if you dont change your approach. thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi wooF. I am happy to hear any constructive argumentation against the proposed change from you. Thanks.Aldep77 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not a friendly website for the superstitious, illogical, unreasonable and WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We clearly have a problem here with this editor. Their first edit was to remove "Since the late 20th century, numerous Canadian indigenous people have viewed the use of the term "Eskimo" as offensive, because it is extrinsic and has been used by people who discriminated against them or their forebears" from Eskimo.[8] They edit warred on that. Then they moved to Fascism removing [[ Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[9] They've been editing gender articles, removing "white supremacist" from articles, etc. @Black Kite, CambridgeBayWeather, Acroterion, and GorillaWarfare: you've all been reverted by this editor. I've edited the article or I'd probably block indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller I think that having been reverted multiple times, back in 2017, would make me involved. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: sure, like me. But if there's agreement, ANI? Doug Weller talk 14:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

OR in the article

There appears to be a great deal of original research in this article. A small sample:

• The Electronic medical records section .. why is this controversial? Is there a secondary source describing the controversy?
• Rush Limbaugh drug charges .. why is this controversial? Is there a secondary source describing the controversy?

Thats a small example and unless there are any objections, Id like to go through and clean this article up. DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@DarrellWinkler:, these wholesale removals are not supported by either the WP:OR or WP:N policies. Notability, in fact, is not generally applicable to article details but instead to article subjects. The article subject is certainly notable in this case. Wholesale removals of information from controversial subjects take the appearance of whitewashing. Please discuss the reasons why each removal is justified and gain consensus here first. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Please explain, using secondary source, why these particular statements of the AAPS are controversial. Its my understanding that to avoid SYNTH the secondary source has to comment on the primary in some manner. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, a WP:PRIMARY RS, if it makes the point clear enough, and written in the name of the whole organization, it is enough for WP:V something like HIV/AIDS denialism. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

To allow the description of this organization as one the 'promotes medical misinformation' is political opinion not fact. It should be deleted from the description. 96.227.222.166 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It is correctly sourced, so we wont be deleting it. -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Barack Obama hypnosis

None of the citations provided support the claims made in the article. IMHO, the citations appear to be malicious placed to appear legitimate. The whole article should be examined. Is this a slander piece, political hit job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.95.181 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You read all 103 refs? I just checked two, and they both support the content. DMacks (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a political hit job, not based on fact. Jjjerry14 (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I can confidently say given that you reject the effectiveness of modern medicine and are invoking big pharma conspiracies that you are a crank, and that it's not worth wasting by time talking to you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)