Talk:Liaison psychiatry

message: I am removing the "Personal Reflection" label - I have updated the article to make it more objective and descriptive. I will try and address other issues in due course. Abt21 (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any dissent I've removed the "cleanup" tag. Abt21 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Issues tags 

message: First point - these two books (Psychosomatic Medicine and A Handbook of Elementary Psychobiology and Psychiatry) are very important points in the field. I would recommend that you do a simple google search to find other people's comments on these books. If you want me to reference somebody saying these books are important in a peer reviewed source I will be most happy to do so. It just means for every important text I will be putting two reference instead of one.
I have put a number of references to back up points e.g. german liaison psychiatry
The second point - i'm just looking at your reference about this page requiring an expert on the subject. Can you just say a little bit more about your justification for this statement. Are you making a statement about me. 
Third point - why are you removing the structure of this article. The structure of having the history of the field then leading onto contemporary practice seems to me to be eminently sensible and yet your edit to remove this structure seems to me to make it more like an essay than an encyclopedic reference.
Fourth point - if you look at some of the featured articles on wikipedia, you'll find that they do actually reference important books on the subject. This actually makes it easy for people to locate these books, purchase them and further their knowledge etc
Fifth point - Dividing up contemporary liaison psychiatry into different geographical locations is important for the global audience that Wikipedia receives Justinmarley (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, congrats on finding the talk page and figuring out how to edit it.  Now, for your first point - the book existing does not support any claims made about it being important or notable. The book's existance doesn't need a source at all. Second - I've requested someone from the Medicine project come oversee the article, check your additions for OR/NPOV issues, and remove unverifiable information. Due to your lack of real sources, lack of neutrality on the topic, and lack of knowledge regarding basic Wikipedia guidelines, I feel such oversight would be beneficial. Third: because the structure is not appropriate, nor accurate. Those are simply historical statements, and contemporary is a subjective term. There is a manual of style for medical articles which dictates appropriate article structure. I highly recommend studying it. You can find it at WP:MEDMOS. Fourth point: Yes, I know, I've written featured articles, good articles, and featured lists. All actually REFERENCE the book for content, not just just list the book as a "reference" to show that it exists (which is not necessary). There is a difference.  Fifth: no, it isn't, again, see the MoS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, it isn't appropriate, as already noted above. Also, you can't do anything now. The article has been protected from any editing. Why not take the next 24 hours to read my response above and follow the advice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Objections - contemporary is subjective, such sections are not valid by the MoS and only makes the article more essay like that it already is, practices varying have nothing to do with the sections. For the third time, go actually LOOK at the MoS I have pointed you to, read it, go look at featured medical articles (such as Schizophrenia, Cystic fibrosis, Keratoconus, etc) and then if you actually want to contribute in a neutral, appropriate way, do with using the MoS as a guideline rather than the editing agenda you seem to have come here with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, actualyl read my replies. HTML is a totally different topic area, and not a valid example of the article format to use here. It uses a different style guide, and it is only a start class article, meaning it is not a good example of an article in its topic either. It is not a philosophical point, it is backed up by standard practices which reflect the consensus on what is done in medical topic articles, which this is. Neither contemporary nor current practices is a valid, nor appropriate section. The bulk of the article should be about "current practices" with historical information appearing near the bottom of the article. Again, look at the featured medical articles which ARE valid examples of what should be done in this article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, that doesn't invalidate the recommended structure. Your attempts at shoving a current practice does nothing but list a bunch of books and your own point of view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary Practice 

message: Firstly i would recommend that you look at the featured article on the history of biology. This contains a very specific sentence about a book written by Morgan about Mendelian heredity. This is an explicit example of an article which is recognised for its quality and which contains a reference to a book without referring to specific parts of the book. This contradicts your opinion that referencing books without alluding to their content is out of keeping with Wikipedia style. Justinmarley (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should actually look at the article too. It uses the Harvard system of referencing. The "references" are the books which are then used by specific page number to support specific statements in the notes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That doesn't invalidate the MoS. It still applies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: References 

message: I don't quite understand why you say this field is of low importance. 
Are you saying that treating people with a mental illness in a hospital setting isn't important. 
Having a big label saying that its not important certainly seems to be saying that Justinmarley (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is of low importance to the project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly if this is your opinion you shouldn't be working on this topic. Justinmarley (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 'mid' is better (belatedly). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Importance of the field 

message: There is no reason from the Wikipedia guidance why current practice should not be included as a separate section. 
Your argument seems to be that it is subjective.
I do not think that this is a valid argument. I think we clearly need an arbiter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinmarley (talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a physician and have been following this discussion. I have the opinion that current practice is vital in any field in medicine as a topic. I have also looked at the guidelines and have not found anything on how such articles should be written. I would agree that current practice is a vital part of this document. Plasmons (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating an account just to support yourself as your own "arbiter" is a violation of Wikipedia policies and this has been reported. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your phrasing is defamatory both to myself and Plasmon Justinmarley (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Practice 

message: 1. There is a consensus (4-0) that there should be a current section in this article. I propose this is added. It would simply require the addition of the title Current Practice above the sections on USA and UK Liaison Psychiatry. 
2. There are two doctors in this forum and one representative from WikiProject Medicine. I propose that 'requires an expert' label is removed.
3. There is a label saying that this article reads like a personal reflection or essay. Which aspects of the document is this referring to. Unless these parts of the document are identified, this label is unhelpful and should be removed. Justinmarley (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A false consensus created by a fake user is not consensus, nor is there any consensus even with said user. There is in fact ONE person, you, saying Current Practice is fine. The person from WikiProject Med said no, it would lead to OR. I said no. That's 2 against 1 for NOT having such a section. I presume the ONE doctor here is you, which is completely irrelevant to anything when it is your edits being questioned. Tag 3 is perfectly valid and if you can not see how the article reads like a pre-med term paper, that isn't something I can' help you with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your continue to make a statement of fact which is against the Wikipedia good faith clause. Additionally, if you re-read the arbitrator's statement - it was mentioned explicitly that contemporary practice would be appropriate if supported by a text. Your argument against a basic organisation of the structure within the article is perhaps consistent with your rating of this article as not very important and your lack of expertise in this subject. With regards to the style of this article - that is most likely due to your editing86.140.19.252 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Revisions 

message: My Proposal for structuring this article is to follow that of other Wikipedia articles of this type in the absence of a template in WPMedMOS:-
Introduction (although not usually titled as such) (31) (Hepatology, Neurology, Gastroenterology, Pulmonology, Endocrinology, Intensive Care Medicine, Rheumatology, Immunology, Disaster Medicine, Emergency Medicine, General Practice, Geriatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Palliative Care, Paediatrics, Rehabilitation Medicine, Preventive Medicine, Psychiatry, Medical Genetics, Medical Microbiology, Radiology, Cardiology, General Surgery, Neurosurgery, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, otolaryngology, Paediatric Surgery, Plastic Surgery, Trauma Surgery, Urology, Vascular Surgery) History and Key Discoveries (16) (Hepatology, Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Dermatology, Disaster Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Geriatrics, Opthalmology, Palliative Care, Rehabilitation Medicine, Psychiatry, Cardiology, Medical Genetics, Neurosurgery, Orthopaedic Surgery, Plastic Surgery) Training/Education/Training Across the World (16) (Neurology, Endocrinology, Nephrology, Dermatology, Disaster Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Opthalmology, Paediatrics, Rehabilitation Medicine, Radiology, Neurosurgery, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery, Vascular Surgery) Scope of the Specialty/Field of Work/Diseases managed (12) (Hepatology, Neurology, Pulmonology, Nephrology, Proctology, Dermatology, Geriatrics, Psychiatry, Neurosurgery, Orthopaedics, Otolaryngology, Vascular Surgery) Important Procedures/Treatment/Treatment Settings (12) (Hepatology, Pulmonology, Haematology, Nephrology, Rheumatology, Immunology, Dermatology, Psychiatry, Cardiology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Plastic Surgery, Vascular Surgery) Sub-specialties (8) (Dermatology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Opthalmology, Paediatrics, Psychiatry, General Surgery, otolaryngology, Urology) Societies/Organisations around the world (7) (Hepatology, Gastroenterology, Nephrology, Emergency Medicine, Medical Genetics, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Otolaryngology) Diagnosis/Investigations (8) (Pulmonology, Nephrology, Oncology, Haematology, Rheumatology, Immunology, Dermatology, Radiology) Disease Classification/Diseases (7) (Hepatology, Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Nephrology, Rheumatology, Dermatology, Psychiatry) Scientific Research (5)(Pulmonology, Oncology, Rheumatology, Dermatology, Psychiatry) Current Practice Across the World/Current Trends (5) (General Practice, Geriatrics, Palliative Care, General Surgery, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ) Notable Practitioners (4)(Nephrology, Opthalmology, Neurosurgery, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery) Publications/Journals (2) (Hepatology, Rehabilitation Medicine) Definitions (2) (Disaster Medicine, Emergency Medicine) Ethical Issues (2) (Oncology, Psychiatry) Justinmarley (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Structuring Article Using Consensus from other Articles on Wikipedia as Template 

message: As above, the article has already been reviewed by people with relevant experience and from the appropriate wiki medicine project Justinmarley (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Expert Needed Label 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liaison psychiatry. 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/20130312051308/http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/news/2012_liaison_psychiatry.aspx to http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/news/2012_liaison_psychiatry.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502014807/http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/mental_physical_health/liaison_psychiatry.aspx to http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/mental_physical_health/liaison_psychiatry.aspx
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) 14:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: justinmarley started a Medical Specialties discussion on Manual of Style/Medicine-related Talk page.  It may have lead to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Medical_specialties.  He also added the worldview template which was later corrected to be the globalization template but it is necessary?
Collectonian renamed her account AnmaFinotera then wrote that she quit in 2010 but she probably just created a new account.  Her examples of Schizophrenia, Cystic fibrosis, Keratoconus were selected by her because they were quality articles, not because they were in/under Category:Psychiatric specialities which would be more relevant examples.  I'm looking for a quality article under that category.
Jamplevia (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we go from here?