Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

AIDS Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Primary sources, especially when nonsense[edit]

Concerning this, 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. —Paleo Neonate – 02:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate:, I refer you to the above section, where tgeorgescu has already stated something that applies almost word-for-word to this: 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:RS for Hitler's views.

Besides, I don't think that HIV/AIDS denialism is a self-serving claim. And, yup, WP:SYNTH should be avoided: if the point is not clear enough, or it has been officially retracted, give them the benefit of the doubt. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Paleo Neonate – 22:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A “bot” keeps over riding my edits. Jjjerry14 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/how-do-scientists-become-cranks-and-doctors-quacks/ tgeorgescu (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama hypnosis[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

WP:COI[edit]

WP:COI declared at [1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is writing this article is politically motivated and not truthful. I have been unable to correct the misinformation. Jjjerry14 (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legally speaking, 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of Wikipedia rules[edit]

From Wikipedia rules: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia'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."

Also, threatening to appeal within Wikipedia is not improper in any way.

Again, my preference is to resolve this efficiently and amicably here. The unsourced, false first sentence of the entry is in violation of Wikipedia 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)[reply]

You do not make the WP:RULES. You either obey the WP:RULES, or you're out.

**** Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (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.

So "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. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]