Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

EBSCO listing

JPandS is indexed in EBSCO's CINAHL Complete and this information is being suppressed. The current article reads like an attack piece and not an encyclopedic entry. Citesource 18:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I searched EBSCOHOST for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in various sections, including "Title Lists" (at [1] ), but got only "No Results". I can't think why this company, that calls itself a "provider of research databases, e-journals, magazine subscriptions, e-books and discovery service to libraries of all kinds", would suppress one of their titles. Please provide a link that provides either the Journal's EBSCO entry or a source that states it indexes it, but suppresses it and why. Thank you for your time and attention, Wordreader (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

wording

@Bradv: "unorthodox and at wide variance" sounds weird and confusing, but means the same thing as "differs substantially from". Tornado chaser (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Do they push "scientifically discredited hypotheses"?

It seems clearly to be the case. I've started a discussion on the Fringe Theory noticeboard for additional input.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course they do; and it's impeccably sourced. Further removal without discussion and consensus would be disruptive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 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 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)

Yeah, without a doubt the opinions expressed are WP:Fringe and the article does a laudable job of presenting them as such. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)