User talk:Stwashburn

Welcome!
Hello, Stwashburn, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Best practices for editors with close associations
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please review the Reliable Sources guideline and the Verifiability policy. The AAPS' own website is useful only for attributed statements of the AAPS' own opinion, and may not be used to support statements of fact. Those must be cited to an independent reliable source. That you disagree with what reliable sources say about the AAPS is not relevant. If you wish to change the sourced statements existing in the article, please open a discussion on the talk page and cite independent reliable sources in support of your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources cited in the article extensively discuss AAPS' role in promoting medical disinformation, including false claims about LGBT people and AIDS, disproven claims about COVID-19, and anti-vaccination conspiracy theories. I'm sorry that you disagree with these facts, but facts famously do not care about your feelings, or the AAPS' feelings. These facts are what Wikipedia cares about, not the AAPS' claims to the contrary. Stop whitewashing the article or you are likely to be sanctioned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why this was put here. I am just trying to help Wikipedia's article in regards to an organization that I am familiar with, so that Wikipedia is not spreading partial information without the facts from people who are more familiar with the subject matter. - Scott
 * It was put here to notify you of the existence of said sanctions, which apply to this article by dint of the group's extensive involvement in post-1992 politics of the United States.
 * That you are a member of the AAPS - a homophobic, science-denying, overtly-partisan, and fringe organization - is evidence that you are not merely familiar with, but rather sympathetic to, and approving of, the organization's goals and ideology. That you do not like the conclusions of the multiple cited reliable sources which describe it factually and truthfully based upon its overtly-stated positions, is unfortunate but not a problem we can fix. We describe things as reliable sources do, not as their members wish they were described.
 * If you wish to add self-sourced material about the AAPS, it must be subordinated to the descriptions from third-party reliable sources, and must clearly be presented as the organization's own opinion. Describing reliably-sourced, uncontradicted factual statements about the group as accusations is simply not acceptable - again, the facts don't care about your feelings, and it is a fact that the AAPS is most notable for promoting medical misinformation about a variety of subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR: Hippocrates would have been in the AAPS, not the AMA.

First of all, I removed the part saying "accusations" to make it sound less biased. I simply said that the AAPS states one thing, however other sources state other things.

Me being a member of the AAPS does not make me biased. Rather, it makes me an expert in what the AAPS is. I should at least be able to put in sourced information saying what the AAPS purports to be its mission and values. The American Medical Association (AMA)'s introductory paragraphs on Wikipedia include the AMA's purported mission/values. If that is biased, why does the AMA, an increasingly political organization, have that luxury on their Wikipedia page?

Facts don't care about your feelings, either. I tried to report facts, but you are lying by omission by not allowing such key facts of what the AAPS states about itself to be included, even when sourced. Who could possible understand what the AAPS is, if their information about it comes from Wikipedia's biased article that does not even include the basics of what the organization is about?

Let me pose a question, in the context of the Oath of Hippocrates, who is commonly referred to as the founder of Medicine:

Abortion was something of which Hippocrates disapproved, and some scholars say he made exception for saving the life of the mother (something with which the pro-life movement in the USA agrees). The AMA chooses to support elective abortion, regardless of whether there is a medical indication. So, where are doctors to go that want to live more adherent to the Oath of Hippocrates?

Being a member of the AAPS does not mean that someone supports everything the AAPS does. They are misguided and eccentric in many circumstances, but they do like to debate. But they are more true to the Oath of Hippocrates than the AMA, so adherents to the Hippocratic Oath find themselves at the AAPS. Likewise, I know there are members of the American Medical Association (AMA) who do not agree with everything the AMA does. I should know since I used to be a member of the AMA. But they were too political on the left for me, because they support elective abortion. So, if there is one person that supports elective abortion, I don't fault them for being part of the AMA, because that aligns with their medical opinion. But my study of developmental biology has caused me to be opposed to elective abortions, and therefore the AMA is not a good fit for me. The AAPS is the largest and most inclusive medical organization for pro-life physicians.

Being pro-life does not make me science-denying, but rather makes me a science realist, because I recognize what happens in the womb, whereas members of the AMA metaphorically shut their eyes and ignore the suffering and killing of a human being.

Where do you recommend a more Hippocratic medical doctor go when the AMA has sided with killing human beings in the womb?

By contrast, the AMA's Wikipedia page is positively glowing! (insert laughing-crying emoji here) They are very politically active, just on the other side. They also deny the science of embryology proving human life suffers and dies in the womb whenever an elective abortion is performed. That is some far-reaching science denial, resulting in many lives killed. So what does that say about Wikipedia, that its editors are so biased? How is that non-biased to shield the AMA while not allowing the AAPS to even have its opening statements include its mission and vision?

Note that the AMA's Wikipedia page has one of the opening portions stating its mission/vision: "The AMA's stated mission is "to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health."[6] The Association also publishes the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).[7] The AMA also publishes a list of Physician Specialty Codes which are the standard method in the U.S. for identifying physician and practice specialties. "

So why doesn't the AAPS get to have part of the opening statement or introductory paragraphs include its mission or vision? Only because you are being biased and partisan. I am not trying to take away from the AMA their opportunity to have an opinion on what their organization represents. I only expect the AAPS to be treated half-decently. I never even tried to take away the statements about what some AAPS articles have published in the past. But what about what the AMA published in the past? Why aren't all their grievous problems that they perpetuated for so many decades listed on the AMA's Wikipedia page? They supporting smoking for many decades. They have made numerous medical errors. But that is all forgiven by the Wikipedia editorial staff. I regret that the AAPS does not get equal treatment.

This proves that the Wikipedia staff is biased against conservatives who care about ending the elective killing of human life in the womb.

By the way, I'm not homophobic. But I am a realist. You can look up the dangers that face men who have sex with men (MSM), which are commonly recognized throughout medical literature. This isn't something the AAPS made up, that MSM need closer monitoring to ensure they do not become sick. It is standard medical care.

In the end, the AAPS is growing and becoming less eccentric because of people like me who recognize the wrongs of the AMA. Doctors who live by the Hippocratic Oath need somewhere to go that doesn't hate them and try to destroy them for just speaking their medical opinions, and the AAPS is that tolerant organization.

As further context so you can understand, the AMA does not ensure residency positions for 1,000 USA medical doctors per year, of the 20,000 graduated from US medical schools. Instead, the AMA continuously tells everyone, "If only the government gave us more money, then we could create more residency positions." Residency is a job, and residents make money for hospitals (because we work for cheap). So the AMA didn't need the government to give money to make more residency positions--the leadership simply wanted more money, simple as that. I was just a pawn to them, one of the 1,000 doctors (per year!) that the AMA failed to care about. What's worse, for every doctor denied a residency position, there are countless patients who suffer from lack of medical care. So that's why I didn't give up, because I cared about my patients. How pleased I was when I found that the AAPS understood the AMA's wrongs, the problems the AMA had caused, and the way the AMA did not care much about its own doctors, but simply uses us to make money. So of course I left the AMA and joined the AAPS, the group that actually cares about doctors and cares about our patients. My story shows that the AMA is creating its own opposition by failing in its role.

At least now I know why everybody says there is no point quoting Wikipedia! It is so full of bias, its editors cannot even accept facts when I've presented the facts for inclusion in a very non-biased manner that does not even remove the slander from the article. If Wikipedia were unbiased, the AMA would have a much longer list of their wrongs. Instead it just has a simple "cartel like behavior" section. This cartel like behavior is a lot more significant to those doctors who have experienced it, like myself. The AMA's leadership doesn't care about anyone, not the patients, not the doctors; they drink their own Kool-Aid and tell themselves they are wonderful until they believe, while extracting as much money as they can from the government and from medical doctors.

I'd say it is pretty non-biased of me to simply want the AAPS to have its mission and vision in the introductory paragraphs of Wikipedia. The AMA gets metaphorically slobbered over by how much Wikipedia loves it. But unfortunately, Wikipedia is too biased to accept even very unbiased edits about the AAPS. Who is biased, then?

Good luck, Wikipedia. I'll tell everybody of your biases and lies of omission.

-Scott