Talk:National Academy of Medicine

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.

United States: Government 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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Overhaul and attempt to wikify[edit]

Page was highly disorganized and redundant. Began cleanup. More work needed. Leonard Finger (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not sure how much more is needed as cleanup. You might consider reinserting some of the material about their publications. and perhaps we need a separate full list of members wit hlinks to their WP articles. See List of 08 elected members?

No need to include Dr. with M.D. that's restating something that is already stated. It's either Dr. - -, or it's - -, M.D. 02:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.0.43 (talk)

Not all medical doctors are M.D. There are D.O., D.D.S., etc... also many medical researchers are Ph.D. Moheroy (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change[edit]

This organization is now known as the National Academy of Medicine, as of today, July 1 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallopingwalker (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^Ditto. The article should be updated to reflect this change, as it has officially gone into effect. The Institute of Medicine is no more. Long live the National Academy of Medicine! (for reference, see http://iom.nationalacademies.org/Global/News%20Announcements/IOM-to-become-NAM-Press-Release.aspx) Stpolicy (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the name of the article be the United States National Academy of Medicine (section)?Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016094950/http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/Study-Process.aspx to http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/Study-Process.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expert dog pile[edit]

For my own notes, I reordered the list from the lead as follows, in decreasing order of size (and presumed eminence within this domain, per geographical bucket):

World Health Organization
World Heart Federation
European Food Safety Authority
United States Food and Drug Administration
American Heart Association
American Dietetic Association
Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Medicine — American non-profit
British National Health Service
British Heart Foundation
British Dietetic Association
Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
Dietitians of Canada

The The Good Judgment Project has demonstrated that combining experts is valuable, but only if the experts are working from independent sources of evidence or via distinct modes of analysis. There's nowhere close to a dozen independent lines of evidence represented in that list, and sorting the list into random order only helps to mask this issue. This entire list represents somewhere between two to four distinct expert opinions (as defined in The Good Judgement Project) in my rough assessment.

Less of a jumbled ordering would be more neutral in my opinion. — MaxEnt 21:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]