| Revision as of 16:09, 2 November 2021 editRoxy the dog (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,207 edits →Please remove the content unsupported by the referencesTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:05, 10 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,491 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons/Archive 1) (bot |
| (107 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}}{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ps}} |
|
{{Talk header|archive_age=365|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Line 12: |
Line 13: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Aids|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject AIDS|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Abortion|class=C}} |
|
{{WikiProject Abortion}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women's Health|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women's Health|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Low|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Primary sources, especially when nonsense == |
|
== Do they push "scientifically discredited hypotheses"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concerning ], ABOUTSELF is not a free pass for linking proselytism and indiscriminate editor synthesis of primary sources, it's for uncontroversial, non-self-serving basic information... This could have been removed as UNDUE but since the in-article description was not as bad as the sources, I simply tagged them for future improvement. —]] – 02:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
It seems clearly to be the case. I've started a discussion on the Fringe Theory noticeboard for additional input. ] (]) 16:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Of course they do; and it's impeccably sourced. Further removal without discussion and consensus would be ]. ] (]) 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 ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::{{reply to|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 ] 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 ] to seek agreement from editors at large before making that change again. I hope this helps explain our policies. ] ] ] 17:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{u|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. ] (]) 17:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
Yeah, without a doubt the opinions expressed are ] and the article does a laudable job of presenting them as such. ] (]) 17:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{reply to|PaleoNeonate}}, I refer you to the above section, where {{u|tgeorgescu}} has already stated something that applies almost word-for-word to this: {{tq|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...}} the organization's own proselytizing. There is no need to look for "better" sources when what is being sourced is what the organization wants to say. ] ] ] 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
== Reads like an inflammatory hit piece == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Okay, a bit of detail: their sources are not peer-reviewed in our meaning, but as far as the organization is concerned, their journal is peer-reviewed in their meaning. Even ''Mein Kampf'' is ] for Hitler's views. |
|
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". <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
::Besides, I don't think that HIV/AIDS denialism is a self-serving claim. And, yup, ] should be avoided: if the point is not clear enough, or it has been officially retracted, give them the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 03:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Pfft. Creationists' views are {{tq|supported with data}}. Astrologer's views are {{tq|supported with data}}. |
|
|
|
:::Coming back to this, I hope you both had a nice weekend. Another issue is that these Sentinel posts are not really about them, it's more accusations and conspiracy theories about others. It's also confusing. For instance, the mention of Jehovah seemed to lack context so I looked at the source. It turned out to be some kind of ranting sermon from one particular MD in the 90s and did not explain why he was particularly concerned with Jehovah... If there's any peer review there it's by in-universe advocates, I would not consider it as such. —]] – 22:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Misplaced Pages 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. |
|
|
|
::::A “bot” keeps over riding my edits. ] (]) 04:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
:You want to censor Misplaced Pages 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. |
|
|
:] and ] are good reading. ] is another thing you should have a look at. --] (]) 11:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
:::::https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/how-do-scientists-become-cranks-and-doctors-quacks/ ] (]) 04:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Also, ]. --] (]) 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== WP:COI == |
|
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. --] (]) 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. -] ] 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 ]. ] and ] may also help you to understand that not all opinions are born equal. --] (]) 14:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] declared at {{diff2|1179593854}}. ] (]) 04:23, 11 October 2023 (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. ] (]) 13:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Whoever is writing this article is politically motivated and not truthful. I have been unable to correct the misinformation. ] (]) 14:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Please remove the content unsupported by the references == |
|
|
|
|
|
::{{reply to|User:NorthBySouthBaranof}} ::{{reply to|User: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 ]. 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. |
|
|
:::Please read ]. Even 100 editors disagreeing for spurious reasons isn't a lack of ]. Wikipedic consensus is based upon ] and ]. ]'s opinions are not ]. ] (]) 21:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
::], since you have a conflict of interest, you should not have been allowed to edit the article anyway. Principally speaking, you do not have the legal right to edit the article. ] (]) 22:00, 11 October 2023 (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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span> |
|
|
|
== Violation of Misplaced Pages rules == |
|
:::::{{re|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. ] (]) 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? |
|
|
|
From Misplaced Pages rules: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Misplaced Pages's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement, email the information team at info-en-q@wikipedia.org." |
|
:::::::The article is ''full of reliable sources''. Read them, and learn to sign your posts with four tildes, like this <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> thanks. Oh yes, an afterthought. you are edit-warring, that will get you blocked from wikipedia if you aren't careful. ] ] 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. ] (]) 04:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Also, threatening to appeal within Misplaced Pages is not improper in any way. |
|
:::::::Would you agree that ] is "medical disinformation"? If you agree, then AAPS clearly and provably promoted it in their journal. If you disagree, then you ]. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages". Thank you. Second, I suggest to read the provided section of ] 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. ] (]) 04:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Again, my preference is to resolve this efficiently and amicably here. The unsourced, false first sentence of the entry is in violation of Misplaced Pages rules requiring verification, and it's libelous, as my prior comment (twice deleted) fully explained. Please remove the first sentence of this entry immediately.--] (]) 04:52, 8 February 2024 (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 ]. ] is something else though, {{tq|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 ] territory here. --] (]) 06:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:You do not make the ]. You either obey the ], or you're out. |
|
{{u|Aldep77}} read ] and ] 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. ] ] ] 15:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{talk quote|**** Misplaced Pages is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Misplaced Pages is designed to be written from a ], not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, ], etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule ''never'' satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should completely avoid covering such topics. ] (]) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (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 ] (]) 15:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The question is whether publishing a tiny disclaimer gives your organization immunity from being criticized inside the public debate. I don't think it works that way. Otherwise every person and every organization would be granted immunity from criticism just because they published disclaimers. I don't think that AAPS can hide behind a disclaimer. Same as Twitter and Facebook may be criticized for the harm they do unto others, even though they are merely platforms which enable users to talk. Criticism of Twitter and Facebook is a commonplace in mainstream media. |
|
::You don't decide the terms of the discussion; Misplaced Pages Community decides the terms of the discussion, and you have to cheerfully obey, or leave Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:So {{tqred|"What you're doing is like saying Elon Musk "promotes" something offensive that someone says on X. That would be defamatory to Elon Musk."}} misses the point that Musk is routinely criticized in mainstream media for the moral failures of Twitter. Musk cannot hide behind a disclaimer, either. So, if that does not work for him, it is folly thinking that it would work for your organization. If you were Musk's lawyer, would you advise him to publish a disclaimer that he cannot not be criticized for the shortcomings of Twitter? Such disclaimer would have the only effect of making him look ridiculous. A disclaimer only serves to make known an attitude, it is not legally binding. All disclaimers at the bottom of your e-mails are juridically worthless. If anyone has legal rights or duties about the content of the e-mails, those are not because of disclaimers, but because the law of the land. ] (]) 11:23, 8 February 2024 (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. -] ] 16:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
From Misplaced Pages rules: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Misplaced Pages's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement, email the information team at info-en-q@wikipedia.org."
Again, my preference is to resolve this efficiently and amicably here. The unsourced, false first sentence of the entry is in violation of Misplaced Pages rules requiring verification, and it's libelous, as my prior comment (twice deleted) fully explained. Please remove the first sentence of this entry immediately.--AAPS Attorney (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
