Talk:Friends of Science in Medicine

Additional information

Opened FSM talk page. DJFryzy (talk) 06:09, August 25, 2013‎ (UTC)

Repeated bias attacks

It has been noted that several unidentified users have attempted to denigrate this article into a biased piece of propaganda. Please remain vigilant in maintaining this page. DJFryzy (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that User:DJFryzy has engaged in sockpuppetry [1] in relation to this article. Please remain vigilant... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"A critical review from the Australian University of New England..."

The 'critical review' in question [2] is written by a PhD candidate at the University of New England. I can see nothing to indicate that the University either endorsed the paper, nor played any part in its preparation. In my view then, it is improper to imply otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Would this be more accurate? A critical review published in the Journal of Creative Approaches to Research in 2013 concluded that FSM contradicts the literature in their viewpoint of complementary medicine and its use, and manifests ideology and power within their discourse.DJFryzy (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I can see little reason why Wikipedia should be citing the review at all. The journal seems to be of little academic impact, the review seems to be uncited (at least according to Google Scholar) and the author may well be seen as lacking neutrality, if it is the same Jeffrey Flatt who is 'Course Coordinator (Complementary Medicine)' at the School of Health, University of New England. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is little evidence that this 'review' has any academic credibility, and given that it was being promoted via sockpuppetry, I have removed it from the article. If anyone wishes to restore it, I suggest that they first take it to WP:RSN, to see whether the community considers its inclusion valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The content and reference have been restored to the article. If someone wants to remove it I don't object. This paper seems to carry very little due weight. On the other hand it is of reasonable quality and published. On the whole I tend to agree with ATG the journal is not one with a significant impact or reputation and the article remains uncited. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Modifications, Updates July 2014

This article is currently under review in its entirety for updates, accuracy, and most importantly neutrality. If anyone has anything to add or change, kindly leave a small note on the Talk page. Thanks. Onlydemi (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Page has been updated. Onlydemi (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Page updateBoko78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unclear content

I have tagged the follow content as unclear,

The response by the CEO of Chiropractors' Association of Australia, Andrew Macnamara claims that there is no evidence provided to back up these concerns, however there is some evidence from a 2007 systematic review published in Pediatrics which would back up FSM concerns.

The preceding sentences do not provide a clear explanation of "these concerns". Explication of "FSM concerns" is not presented. What concerns did FSM raise, which did Macnamara dismiss and which are supported by the article in Pediatrics? - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friends of Science in 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/FSM-Skeptics-thankyou.pdf

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)