Talk:JAMA

message: Alright folks, no need to get angry. Shot info raised a valid concern. That said, WP:WEIGHT is primarily concerned with giving undue weight to minority views, which is not the issue at hand. The Lundberg firing and the reaction to it is verifiable and probably the most discussed JAMA-related event of the past few decades. Editorial independence is a big deal. The problem is of course, the more we explain why this event is notable, the more weight we add to that section. Alas, media such as scientific journals are not in the business of generating news themselves, and if they do, it's often a controversy such as this. Rl 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peace

message: :Image:Jama logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
:As a patent lawyer, I happen to agree that Wikipedia is actually violating the copyright priveleges of the AMA; but again, this is Wikipedia, where excuses and 'talk pages' seem to be simply and easily made up as excuses for 'why' something is done.Tatumstevens (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image in question has been deleted years ago. It is not obvious to me how the article as it is violates AMA copyright. Care to enlighten me? Rl (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jama logo.gif

message: I wonder why it has become fashionable all of a sudden to remove information on JAMA-français (, ) – information that was merged from a separate article back in June. And why ? It's not as if it was difficult to find sources on the subject (e.g. , ). Also, what has WP:WEIGHT got to do with anything? Rl (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JAMA-français

message: Why do articles for the NEJM and JAMA both indicate that the respective journals are the most read/circulated? Surely there needs to either be further clarification or better and more accurate citations for at least one of these entries. (Another example of Wikipedia as a sub-par source for information these days...). Tatumstevens (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Superlative Status? 

message: If all goes well, on July 1 we can change the editor. I saw it was changed prematurely to the announced future editor but now it is back to the correct one. Here's a press release. Jesanj (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor 

message: Mrmxzptlk, I reverted your good faith edits for several reasons:
* The article title should be bolded, per WP:BOLDTITLE
* The full title of the journal (JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association) should be given in the opening sentence.
* There is no reason to have a reference immediately after the title.
* The medium ("online and in print") does not belong in the Frequency field of the infobox.
* JAMA publishes 48 times a year, not weekly. It skips a few weeks.
* You removed the language information without explanation.
* You merged two sentences into one long awkward one that overuses the word "publish".
KateWishing (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding. The publication frequency refers to new issues of the journal, not prepublished studies. I'll correct the other issues. When you remove content, it's helpful to explain why in the edit summary. KateWishing (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good faith changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on JAMA (journal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071212144203/http://pubs.ama-assn.org:80/misc/conditions.dtl to http://pubs.ama-assn.org/misc/conditions.dtl
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey, just a note that the file you updated means that the title is now wholly inaccurate (there's no Metzinger on the new photo!) I think it would make more sense to upload a new file under a new name (since this file was specifically for the May 26 cover). Best, Airplaneman  ✈ 15:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just corrected this problem. The Metzinger cover has been reinstated. This image is perfectly acceptable as a non-free image. It has Non-free media use rationales for the two article in which the image appears. Please do not modify this image anymore User talk:Mrmxzptlk. Thanks in advance. Coldcreation (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the help. The image is acceptable for the painting but it is no longer accurate for the JAMA journal page as the journal changed its cover design 3 years ago. OK if I correct the image as intended - to update the journal cover image on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAMA_(journal), not the painting image? I am still new to wikipedia so appreciate the help. (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to have a recent cover. JAMA is still known for having had paintings on their covers, for decades. The current cover with the painting is perfect. Coldcreation (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be nice to have the current cover image in the section that discusses the cover design (for example, Time Magazine has two versions of its cover in its article). I think arguments can be made on both sides as to which cover to feature in the infobox, but the important thing here is that the file is true to its name (which it now is, because of 's reversion). I agree that the Metzinger cover should have a permanent place in the article because of the unique and longstanding tradition of having artwork on the covers. Airplaneman  ✈ 20:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

text: P.S. Mrmxzptlk: Feel free to reach out with any questions! Editing Wikipedia can be confusing (still is for me, sometimes), and harder than I think it should be. Cheers, Airplaneman  ✈ 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Airplaneman! Coldcreation, would you support the upload of a second more contemporary cover image? (Mrmxzptlk)(talk) 15:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only problem with the original upload is that it replaced the original image. That's like going to the article about cookies and rewriting it to be about cakes. So for an image of the new cover, it'd be uploaded as a new file, not as a replacement "updated" version of the old file (which it is not). I do think the 1993 image is more iconic, so I am disposed towards keeping that in the infobox. I do feel, however, that also displaying the newer cover format would add to the article! Airplaneman  ✈ 05:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  JAMA infobox image 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: There's consensus for the first move, but not the second, per WP:DIFFCAPS.   (t · c) buidhe 04:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally why isn't (pronounced /ˈdʒɑːmə/) in the lead? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 December 2020 

message: Kan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.196.0.13 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colings 

message: History section suggests that JAMA had a previous title before 1960. I think the wording is somewhat misleading. I'm looking at a JAMA masthead from 1898 so this could use clarifying. PalaverousRex (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History