Talk:American Medical Association

message: I have no idea how to repair this article, but it is seriously lacking in objective criticism of the AMA and its efforts to screw over the American people from the organization's beginning days. Anti-trst, price fixing, discouraging an adequate supply of doctors, and their ongoing wars against other medical professionals having any autonomy of practice. - Dave Hearne  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.38.153 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Political Position? 

message: AMA membership numbers:  Regarding the AMA membership numbers, it should be pointed out that the AMA automatically gives free memberships to all medical students, thus artificially inflating their membership numbers.  Many med students don't even realize they've been made a member.  In addition, in some states, in order to belong to the state medcial society, you are required to belong to the AMA as well.  Subtracting out all the retired physicians, students and forced memberships, it becomes clear that the AMA probably represents less than 10% of practicing physicians.  They are definitiely out of step with the philospohies of mainstream physicians, and giving medicine a black eye with their repeated opposition to meaningful health care reform.   I will never join the AMA.
Doc
: "Doc".  Thats not correct.  The AMA, like all professional societies, offers discounted memberships to students, and residents.  Perhaps your post would be better suited to a blog? Fuzbaby (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: comment by "Doc"

message: This Article sites two figures for the total number of physicians in 2008. In the Criticisms section it sites 954,000 and in the the Membership section it sites 661,000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.111.150 (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Number of Physicians 

message: Critics of the American Medical Association, including economist Milton Friedman, have asserted that the organization acts as a government-sanctioned guild and has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees limit by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition  . They assert that these actions have not only inflated the cost of healthcare in the United States, but have also have caused in decline in the quality of healthcare .
*This actually looks better, I just cite tagged it before I read this, reasonable third party references.I will check the refs, but looks good so far, I recommended applying this edit.--0pen$0urce (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to "Criticisms" section (open to edits)

message: In both American Medical Association and Joe Schwarz, I am removing the section regarding the “postcard controversy” as an unverifiably notable incident.
In response to receiving a mailing that he interpreted as a slur against peace activists, Terry Calhoun explained in a web column that he posted about the experience in American Medical Association and Joe Schwarz; he admittedly characterized these actions as an empowering “'political' use” of Wikipedia. Calhoun, who can easily be verified as User:Splendid by examining Calhoun’s statements and the edit histories of the Wikipedia articles to which he referred, also placed links to another website he maintains, http://splendid.backpackit.com/pub/689592 , into both articles. Adding such a personal experience violates various Wikipedia policy (i.e. certain subsections of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including “not a publisher or original thought” and “not a soapbox”) and guidelines (i.e. Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:External links’s “Links normally to be avoided”).
The only independent reference to this story is an article in the Ann Arbor News/Mlive.com which came on the heels of a press release from a group of peace activists in Michigan; the article extensively quotes that group and Calhoun. -AED 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of section

message: Very little is said about the actual organisation - what are the requirements for membership, the number of members, organizational stucture etc. - Matthew238 03:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: There seems to be a pretty serious omission around Universal Health Care (or whatever term you want to use, though I think the definition at Universal Health Care is pretty uncontroversial).  What I've heard is that the AMA doesn't support a system (UHC) that is used by all the other wealthy, industrialized nations and which would ensure medical coverage for all people.  I mean, I'm no doctor, but I would like for this to be explained in an NPOV way by anyone, pro- or anti-AMA, in the article instead of being elided.  Any takers?  Laser813 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the current AMA campaign is 'healthcare for all'.  I believe they don't support a single government payer system, but that is very different than the general concept of universal healthcare.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Universal Health Care debate not represented

message: This section was copied directly from the AMA's website and was thus a copyright violation. I have removed the offending text but left the section because I feel it should remain in the article (with a complete rewrite). If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: The first paragraph of this sections states 
"For much of the twentieth century, the AMA opposed publicly-funded health care. When the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was passed in the U.S., the AMA supported a federal law, but recommended cannabis to be added to the Harrison Narcotic Act.[citation needed]"
Can someone please provide a citation verifying the fact that the AMA supported a federal law regarding cannabis? I was under the impression that they stood in opposition to that law. Please correct me if I am wrong by supplying the source of that statement, otherwise it is subject to deletion after a reasonable period of time remaining unsourced. JS747 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Positions 

message: I could be remembering completely wrong, but I seem to recall an era when the AMA did not admit non-white physicians, with the result that other groups developed. If I recall correctly, this was in the mid-1900s. --Dan (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Do you have a source?  2. Would it be any different that every other professional organization during that time period, i.e. even if true would that make them unique in that way?  If you can say yes/yes then feel free to add it to the article.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't have a source, just a fuzzy memory. Was hoping someone would jump in and confirm this. --Dan (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The AMA did not officially bar non-white physicians, though their long-time editor and effective leader Morris Fishbein was hostile to "schwartzers": but membership of the AMA depended on membership of an affiliated county or other local medical society, and these were, especially in the South, whites-only. Without local medical society membership, black physicians were barred from most hospitals. The local societies remained free to impose a "color bar" until the AMA's annual meeting of 1968. 
References:
1. Medicine: Eliminating the Color Bar. Time Magazine, 28th June 1968 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841338,00.html
2. AMA Moves to End Discrimination. JAMA. 1968;205(1):A27-A46
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/205/1/A27
3. Medicine: The Plight of the Black Doctor. Time Magazine, 23rd August 1968
http://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,838622,00.html
NRPanikker (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrictions on membership 

message: This section does not appear to be neutral. It reads somewhat like an ad and it like the article is lacking verifiable citations and references for much of the article. Lets discuss and come up with a solution --0pen$0urce (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you propose? Probably best to start by identifying reliable sources and go from there. MastCell Talk 01:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps also point out which specific parts you mean? I see some likely candidates, but if you identify what you are speaking of then it'll be easier to look for references to that particular point. Fuzbaby (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you mean by "double steps", but from your general tone and approach I doubt that it's an attempt to seek middle ground or consensus. I've removed your tag-bombing; in my opinion, it's borderline disruptive. Most of the items you tagged are in fact sourced. For example, you cite-tagged every item in the "Timeline". These are sourced to the AMA's website, and the link is included at the end of the section text. It's generally considered excessive to put a citation after each sentence, and preferable to include a single citation at the end of a lengthy passage drawn from a single source. Similarly, you tagged the sentence: "Ronald Numbers' 1978 book, Almost Persuaded: American Physicians and Compulsory Health Insurance, 1912-1920, provides an account of the AMA's policy positions during this early period." This is hard to understand, since the source is mentioned in the very sentence which you tagged as "unsourced".More to the point, it's clear that you didn't bother to look at whether the material was actually sourced before adding dozens of tags, which is concerning in that it makes it a bit harder to assume that your motivation here is to improve the article. No one is preventing you from explaining your concerns in civil and concrete language. Please do so. There is no deadline, and the article hardly needs dozens of poorly-conceived cite tags this very second. Allow me to suggest that people here will listen to a reasonable, civil argument based on Wikipedia's guidelines, and that your time might be best spent making such an argument rather than abusing cite tags. MastCell Talk 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Sourcing from a webiste of a company or organization are often used in articles, as well as others from outside sources. Whether it can be used or not depends on what its used for, there is no inherent npov problem with using AMA sources to give information about their own organization, especially if it is in reference to their official positions (in which there is no better source) or their history. I've still yet to see anyone point out specific problems of npov that concern them, other than just making glittering generalizations on a talk page...Fuzbaby (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Have you considered looking for additional reliable sources and bringing them here for discussion or incorporation into the article? I know it's a lot more work, and less fun, than leveling ad hominem attacks left and right, but on the plus side, you might be taken more seriously if there were any inkling of a reason to believe you cared about improving this article. MastCell Talk 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Is anyone stopping you from finding better references? I'm encouraging you to do that. The problem is that while you seem interested in complaining, tagging, and attacking other editors, you don't seem interested in actually fixing the article. Challenging and removing unsourced material is fine, but your tag-bombing spree made clear that you either don't understand or don't bother to check which material is sourced and which is unsourced. Do you see my concern? MastCell Talk 09:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: This is textbook abuse of citation tags, and textbook disruptive editing. You didn't even bother to look before tagging, since as I pointed out above, much of the material you tagged was directly and appropriately sourced. MastCell Talk 23:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute Political Position Section 

message: === One Source===
Just because sources "Often" used as you claim, does not mean they are within the scope of Wikipedia references policy. I do not agree on the NPOV, citing material from main subjects webpage for an article, is not 3rd party and is not neutral. If the refs are general information that is fine, but glorification's, controversies, encyclopedic, opinions, ectera are not neutral and they are not 3rd party.
Lastly attacking people who are volunteering and providing input is also against wikipedia policies
see Dispute Resolution,Neutral Point of View ,No Original Reasearch, and lastly and most importantly  Verifiability. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability 2.1 Reliable sources. Then we can proceed with improving this article. Two issues that appear need to be addressed here, 1. Lack of reliable 3rd party references. Any unsourced material can be challenged and deleted. Sources have to be from a reliable 3rd party, not solely or in majority from AMAs website. I am fine with general Organization information, but the bulk of the article especially opinions need not to be from AMAs website.
2. Neutral Point of view, this ties in the sources, AMAs website is not 3rd party and therefore creates a neutral point of view dispute.
There is a considerable amount of unsourced material on this page, I am therefore tagging the page one source since clearly we have discussed over a reasonable period of time, and 7 out of 12 (62%)external references are from one source, AMAs website, this article needs more reliable 3rd party sources and therefore this request for sources tag is reasonable and productive. Please do not remove tag without reasonable discussion or considerable additional of references that are not from AMAs website. The fact that there is only 12 references on an article this size needs to also be addressed. I have seen shorter/smaller articles with dozens of references. Also a lot of the repeat references are also pointing to the 7 that are from the AMA website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 
:I'm going to remove the tag for several reasons. First, the article cites several independent, reliable sources, and is not based entirely on the AMA website, so the tag is inaccurate. More importantly, you have made absolutely no attempt to fix whatever issues are bugging you. Your contributions to this topic on Wikipedia consist solely of unhelpful, borderline disruptive, and often inaccurate tagging, with a side helping of personal attacks against other editors. Since you're citing policy, take a look at the one against personal attacks. You've already linked our dispute resolution policy, so I'll assume you've read it - now consider following it. MastCell Talk 05:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to edit-war over the tag with you, because that would be beyond lame. Don't pretend you're "repairing" the page with edits like these, though. If you feel that there are insufficient third-party refs, find. some. more. I don't know how to say that more clearly. It would help if you'd comment on content rather than contributors, but whatever.How about this: since you're unhappy with the sourcing, go ahead and take a week or two and look for better sourcing. If you find some, bring it here and we'll work together to incorporate it. If you look but don't turn anything up, then we'll talk about restructuring the article to lessen the reliance on the AMA's website. If you don't lift a finger to improve the article but continue on your current unimpressive course, then I'll remove the tag. MastCell Talk 09:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, I am an administrator. Your assertion to the contrary displays the combination of inattention to factual detail and aggressive posturing that I've found so difficult to deal with. Given the content of your posts, your sudden request to "focus on content instead of other editors" strikes me as more posturing, but please prove me wrong. MastCell Talk 23:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: OK. So first you placed about 30 citation tags. And now that you're actually taking the time to read the article, you've found 1 citation issue so far where a tag was justified. Do you see the problem? Read the article first; tag second. MastCell Talk 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I was thinking the same. You've edited this article and talk page about as much as I have; you appear to have few other active interests on this project beyond the AMA; and your edits seem to sacrifice encyclopedic concerns for the goal of making the article more negative. One might conclude that you have a conflict of interest. MastCell Talk 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: By claiming editors who don't agree with your editing style have a coi, you are per se commenting on other editors. I do agree that, as already mentioned, you have an obvious slant in your editing that indicates a coi. I think the main problem editors have had is that your contributions to date (not all) have shown a lack of usage of the neutral point of view (agenda pushing), and some edits that were straight out vandalism, followed by misquoting WP policy to veteran editors. At all points it appears that editors encouraged you to constructively contribute to this page.Fuzbaby (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: This is when its too bad you can't see the "eyes roll" through a computer screen. Fuzbaby (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Feel free to raise the issue of my conduct in any of our dispute-resolution venues if you feel it necessary. Incidentally, Wikipedia policy explicitly prohibits using legal threats to try to intimidate other editors, as you are doing here. Please retract your accusations of libel and defamation. Or, if you seriously believe that legal action is warranted, then please refrain from editing Wikipedia while you pursue it. MastCell Talk 23:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

text: As it seems that your interest is more about making speeches on a talk page, rather than putting actual work into the article, I don't think this is going anywhere. If you would like to discuss content, then do so, but so far I have seen very little put into content and improving the article and more put into tagging and soapboxing. Fuzbaby (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues Tag

message: Just because sources "Often" used as you claim, does not mean they are within the scope of Wikipedia references policy. I do not agree on the NPOV, citing material from main subjects webpage for an article, is not 3rd party and is not neutral. If the refs are general information that is fine, but glorification's, controversies, encyclopedic, opinions, ectera are not neutral and they are not 3rd party.
Lastly attacking people who are volunteering and providing input is also against wikipedia policies
see Dispute Resolution,Neutral Point of View ,No Original Reasearch, and lastly and most importantly  Verifiability. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability 2.1 Reliable sources. Then we can proceed with improving this article. Two issues that appear need to be addressed here, 1. Lack of reliable 3rd party references. Any unsourced material can be challenged and deleted. Sources have to be from a reliable 3rd party, not solely or in majority from AMAs website. I am fine with general Organization information, but the bulk of the article especially opinions need not to be from AMAs website.
2. Neutral Point of view, this ties in the sources, AMAs website is not 3rd party and therefore creates a neutral point of view dispute.
There is a considerable amount of unsourced material on this page, I am therefore tagging the page one source since clearly we have discussed over a reasonable period of time, and 7 out of 12 (62%)external references are from one source, AMAs website, this article needs more reliable 3rd party sources and therefore this request for sources tag is reasonable and productive. Please do not remove tag without reasonable discussion or considerable additional of references that are not from AMAs website. The fact that there is only 12 references on an article this size needs to also be addressed. I have seen shorter/smaller articles with dozens of references. Also a lot of the repeat references are also pointing to the 7 that are from the AMA website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 
:I'm going to remove the tag for several reasons. First, the article cites several independent, reliable sources, and is not based entirely on the AMA website, so the tag is inaccurate. More importantly, you have made absolutely no attempt to fix whatever issues are bugging you. Your contributions to this topic on Wikipedia consist solely of unhelpful, borderline disruptive, and often inaccurate tagging, with a side helping of personal attacks against other editors. Since you're citing policy, take a look at the one against personal attacks. You've already linked our dispute resolution policy, so I'll assume you've read it - now consider following it. MastCell Talk 05:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to edit-war over the tag with you, because that would be beyond lame. Don't pretend you're "repairing" the page with edits like these, though. If you feel that there are insufficient third-party refs, find. some. more. I don't know how to say that more clearly. It would help if you'd comment on content rather than contributors, but whatever.How about this: since you're unhappy with the sourcing, go ahead and take a week or two and look for better sourcing. If you find some, bring it here and we'll work together to incorporate it. If you look but don't turn anything up, then we'll talk about restructuring the article to lessen the reliance on the AMA's website. If you don't lift a finger to improve the article but continue on your current unimpressive course, then I'll remove the tag. MastCell Talk 09:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, I am an administrator. Your assertion to the contrary displays the combination of inattention to factual detail and aggressive posturing that I've found so difficult to deal with. Given the content of your posts, your sudden request to "focus on content instead of other editors" strikes me as more posturing, but please prove me wrong. MastCell Talk 23:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:T | One Source]]

message: I have already found 1 citation/reference that was erroneous, I did have to fact tag. Plan on reviewing all these citations and adding more or deleting those that cannot be  Verified. This article clearly is lacking references and it needs assistance from the community, not drive-by tag deletion without discussion. Removing/adding a tag without discussion is not constructive and all.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. So first you placed about 30 citation tags. And now that you're actually taking the time to read the article, you've found 1 citation issue so far where a tag was justified. Do you see the problem? Read the article first; tag second. MastCell Talk 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Refimprove | Refimprove]]

message: There appears to be editors who have a conflict of interest and have some vested interest in the appearance of this article regardless if it is  verified content from a  neutral point of view or not.--0pen$0urce (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same. You've edited this article and talk page about as much as I have; you appear to have few other active interests on this project beyond the AMA; and your edits seem to sacrifice encyclopedic concerns for the goal of making the article more negative. One might conclude that you have a conflict of interest. MastCell Talk 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: By claiming editors who don't agree with your editing style have a coi, you are per se commenting on other editors. I do agree that, as already mentioned, you have an obvious slant in your editing that indicates a coi. I think the main problem editors have had is that your contributions to date (not all) have shown a lack of usage of the neutral point of view (agenda pushing), and some edits that were straight out vandalism, followed by misquoting WP policy to veteran editors. At all points it appears that editors encouraged you to constructively contribute to this page.Fuzbaby (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: This is when its too bad you can't see the "eyes roll" through a computer screen. Fuzbaby (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:COI | Conflict of Interest]]

message: This article is interesting and when I found  sources article, it came together. Nuff said, This article needs references...I will slowly work along and fact tag with caution anything I feel needs references or tag if I cannot find referees. Tags are useful when there is a some work to be done on an article and one can't and shouldn't have to go at it alone, the community should contribute as a whole and the tags let them know what is needed.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:PSTS | Primary Sources]]

message: To continue to refer to me in a libelous and defamatory manner by making endless accusations without merit and then going as far as to call me obstreperous. This in my opinion is harassment and not conduct becoming of someone who is a administrator. Lets discuss the article please and use better  Etiquette.--0pen$0urce (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to raise the issue of my conduct in any of our dispute-resolution venues if you feel it necessary. Incidentally, Wikipedia policy explicitly prohibits using legal threats to try to intimidate other editors, as you are doing here. Please retract your accusations of libel and defamation. Or, if you seriously believe that legal action is warranted, then please refrain from editing Wikipedia while you pursue it. MastCell Talk 23:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

text: As it seems that your interest is more about making speeches on a talk page, rather than putting actual work into the article, I don't think this is going anywhere. If you would like to discuss content, then do so, but so far I have seen very little put into content and improving the article and more put into tagging and soapboxing. Fuzbaby (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:EQ | Etiquette]] and [[WP:NPA | No personal Attacks]]

message: Why is the history timeline encyclopedic? It is either unreferenced or referenced to primary sources. Jesanj (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History timeline 

message: On page 163 of Robert Martensen's A Life Worth Living he mentions successful AMA lobbying efforts on Congress against funding for community health centers/neighborhood clinics to create demand for hospital services. Jesanj (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community health centers 

message: Another criticism of the AMA is "In the U.S., the American Medical Association offers physicians Continuing Medical Education credits (a certain number of which are required to maintain a medical license) for attending courses on homeopathy."  (Miller, Henry I.; Bruce B. Dan (08.11.2009)  Homeopathic Medicine Is Homeo-Pathetic Forbes)--216.31.124.161 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Medical Association and homeopathy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on American Medical Association. 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/20070929123431/http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/070720/20clinics.htm to http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/070720/20clinics.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321220429/http://www.acponline.org/about_acp/chapters/ca/worldscopes.htm to http://www.acponline.org/about_acp/chapters/ca/worldscopes.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054754/http://oculus.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=nlmfindaid%3Bcc%3Dnlmfindaid%3Bview%3Dreslist%3Bsubview%3Dstandard%3Bdidno%3Dama461 to http://oculus.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=nlmfindaid%3Bcc%3Dnlmfindaid%3Bview%3Dreslist%3Bsubview%3Dstandard%3Bdidno%3Dama461
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055121/http://oculus.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=nlmfindaid%3Bcc%3Dnlmfindaid%3Bview%3Dreslist%3Bsubview%3Dstandard%3Bdidno%3Dama556 to http://oculus.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=nlmfindaid%3Bcc%3Dnlmfindaid%3Bview%3Dreslist%3Bsubview%3Dstandard%3Bdidno%3Dama556
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on American Medical Association. 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/20130921054754/http://oculus.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=nlmfindaid%3Bcc%3Dnlmfindaid%3Bview%3Dreslist%3Bsubview%3Dstandard%3Bdidno%3Dama461 to http://oculus.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=nlmfindaid%3Bcc%3Dnlmfindaid%3Bview%3Dreslist%3Bsubview%3Dstandard%3Bdidno%3Dama461
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055121/http://oculus.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=nlmfindaid%3Bcc%3Dnlmfindaid%3Bview%3Dreslist%3Bsubview%3Dstandard%3Bdidno%3Dama556 to http://oculus.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=nlmfindaid%3Bcc%3Dnlmfindaid%3Bview%3Dreslist%3Bsubview%3Dstandard%3Bdidno%3Dama556
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'd honestly like to remove this entire section; it reads as though it was written by the AMA itself. Matriarchetype (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charitable activities 

message: There should be more about how during the first half of the 20th century the AMA was pretty much unabashedly racist (see Middlesex University (Massachusetts) for one example).  Also, the AMA's mindless knee-jerk inflexible opposition to any and every form of government involvement with medicine in the 20th century -- opposed to Medicaid, opposed to Medicare, opposed to medical aspects of Social Security, opposed to the Hillary Clinton plan ca. 1993, opposed to a large number of other proposals and ideas which are mostly forgotten now etc. etc. etc. -- played a very significant role in eventually handing over control of medicine to the insurance companies.  If doctors don't like the insurance company control over medical care, they should blame the AMA. AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , the racism is already covered in quite a bit of detail - it's best if the article doesn't spend an WP:UNDUE length of time on history. Or if it does, best to pull out into a separate article. Overwhelming the article with past bad activities might suggest that this reflects the current state of affairs in a biased manner. II | (t - c) 00:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it was an extremely prominent feature of basic AMA policy and governance during roughly the first two-thirds of the 20th century, and that overall the AMA leadership at the time often seemed more proud than ashamed of it (though perhaps not proud of the shifts and subterfuges sometimes necessary to implement it), and that it arguably still has residual effects on the relationship between blacks and the AMA 50 years later, my definition of "undue" may be different from yours -- since in the current article the actual policy (as opposed to the transition away from the policy) is only really discussed in a brief two-sentence paragraph the beginning of the "Civil rights era" subsection.   And why isn't the National Medical Association even hyperlinked??  Currently the article seems to abruptly jump from 1847 to the 1960s, and I don't know that it would be "undue" to fill in this gap... AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History again 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect (A.M.A). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 25#(A.M.A) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "(A.M.A)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Subject not notable on its own merits Rogermx (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no third party sources. I will nominate for deletion.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[FREIDA Online]] into [[American Medical Association]] 

message: I reworded this section, it maybe could be deleted or moved (not sure where) but I think it at least makes sense now. JBJ1988 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing tag on Structure section 

message: Hi, I don't think the Dorman Fox News source should be used in the policy positions section. Fox is not a reliable source for claims like this, and if this anti-racism position is notable enough for inclusion in the article there should be a non-biased source covering it. I'm not sure why it was added back in after I made this clear in my edit summary back in February. Trikekus (:3) 16:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been well over a week, so I went ahead and removed the sentence with that source. Trikekus (:3) 15:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News source