Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion 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.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.wooF23:29, 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)
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 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.
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; Misplaced Pages Community decides the terms of the discussion, and you have to cheerfully obey, or leave Misplaced Pages. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 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)
