Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Primary sources, especially when nonsense
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)


 * , I refer you to the above section, where 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)


 * Okay, a bit of detail: their sources are not peer-reviewed in our meaning, but as far as the organization is concerned, their journal is peer-reviewed in their meaning.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)
 * 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)
 * A “bot” keeps over riding my edits. Jjjerry14 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/how-do-scientists-become-cranks-and-doctors-quacks/ tgeorgescu (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Barack Obama hypnosis
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)
 * You read all 103 refs? I just checked two, and they both support the content. DMacks (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a political hit job, not based on fact. Jjjerry14 (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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


 * 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)


 * 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)

Violation of Wikipedia rules
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)


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