Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:54, 23 July 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arizona Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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:

Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages-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, Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages at all? It is against Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages administrator defended leaving this entry as is.

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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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  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 Misplaced Pages" list (item 52):

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  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, Misplaced Pages 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  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 Misplaced Pages".--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

PubMed listings

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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  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 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 , 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 |].

• 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages entry, it includes quotes from somewhat seemingly unreliable sources and trawls back to journalism from the 1960s. That together with other aspects seem to the independent and objective reader suggestive that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages has a less than perfect appreciation of what in academic terms merits publication, and that those who have edited this Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 the coverage of the current text of this Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? That is perhaps an argument for critics of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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  06:42, 22 December 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 ? Misplaced Pages ? 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 Misplaced Pages'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  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 Misplaced Pages 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  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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Arizona articles
• Low-importance Arizona articles
• WikiProject Arizona articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages