Talk:Surgeon's assistant

Terminology and scope of practice
I notice that an editor is currently making a number of unreferenced and unexplained changes that are affecting terminology. This is significantly affecting the scope of practice described. It would be helpful for such changes to be explained. Although it isn't a straightforward task, this article needs to be written in a way that it applies to a range of different practises (across the globe). Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC) The scope of practice in the US is determined by the laws of the state where the surgical assistant is a qualified practitioner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.185.50.26 (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Surgeon's assistant. 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/20150709011559/https://www.ama-assn.org/ssl3/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=/resources/html/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-475.986.HTM to https://www.ama-assn.org/ssl3/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=/resources/html/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-475.986.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying in this article
OK, so I came here to look at the copyvio problem. We now have 28 days of semi-protection in which to deal with that. Question: what's to be done here? The first definite copyvio seems to be, from here. I'm not going to go through every one of almost 1000 revisions, but I don't see any securely clean version after that, despite various copyvio removals by, , and. Some of the copied text, such as this, may be PD; but it's (a) without attribution (b) not what we do here, per WP:NOFULLTEXT and (c) not remotely encyclopaedic in tone or meaning. So unless there are good reasons not to, I plan to revert the body text to, which can then be copy-edited in the hope of achieving something that vaguely resembles a Wikipedia article, however brief. But I'm completely open to better suggestions if anyone has any. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I support taking it right back to the 2011 version. The vast amount of material added since then has been made without edit summaries (or worse). The sections on education and licensing appear to have a focus on a few US states, is stuffed with unencyclopaedic content, and frankly appears broken beyond repair. In April 2011 the article was a two-paragraph stub, supported by only a single reference. By the end of January 2017 there were 38 references. However, how many of these are independent and reliable? It looks like there are just two: A 2009 Time article and 2006 article in the J R Soc Med. There are some good references that haven't been included yet, e.g. 2012 BBC News article. There was also a newer version of the Australasian Surgeons' position paper but the article hadn't been updated to reflect this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, ! That's now done (see below). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ouch. I spotted the swarm of IP edits over two years ago. A skim of the content at the time looked vaguely plausible, and I caught that the GAO was public domain. I watchlisted it with the intention of digging through this, but it's seriously not my topic area and the 900+ edits were too much of a firehose to really examine. I didn't see any obvious fires so I kept letting it slide.
 * This is a Hello for the IP editor(s). If you log in with an account name and start talking here, maybe some portion of the work can be salvaged. It's hard to communicate if you don't have a username. Alsee (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20110626083522/http://www.ast.org/professionals/documents/2011_%20Surgical%20Assistant_Job_Description_4.5.pdf, http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/page/surgical-assistant-licensure-getting-started https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/stonprin#definitions https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/stonprin#anchor129977. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: some plagiarism of http://www.gao.gov/atext/d0497.txt has also been removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)