Talk:JAMA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Para #3[edit]

Para #3 is a little bit over the top compared with the rest of the article and not really encylcopedic. Comments? Should it be shortered or deleted per WP:WEIGHT? Shot info 01:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The firing of Lundberg was a major event in the history of JAMA. It compromised the editorial independence of a major medical journal, and was widely denounced by medical journal editors. It demonstrated that, contrary to their stated principles, medical journals are not always free to publish what their peer reviewers judge to be significant. JAMA avoided controversy afterwards. The Lundberg firing was followed by a similar firing at the Canadian Medical Association Journal, so it's part of a detrimental trend. Shortening it would not tell the story adequately. Deleting it would be censorship.
If you think this entry gives undue weight to the Lundberg firing, the solution is to add other material about JAMA to balance it out. Given the importance of JAMA, this entry should be much longer. Nbauman 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that the info in article space doesn't say what you say above? Where is the actual compromise? It smacks a bit of OR the way it is written at the moment. Brevity of articlespace is not a reason to avoid WEIGHT. Shot info 06:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some info showing that the Lundberg firing was widely seen as a violation of editorial independence. Doesn't help making that section shorter, though. Someone should really make the earlier ones longer, then. Rl 08:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have no problems with this, but since about 50% of an article is a single event relating to a single editor, it voilates WEIGHT. I agree that the article needs fleshing out however other journals are just as short as JAMA even though JAMA is a little bit more famous than others. Shot info 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, R1. There were articles in virtually every major medical and scientific journal about the Lundberg firing, and I think every one supported Lundberg.
Shot info, do you read JAMA, or have you ever read it regularly? Nbauman 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nbauman, do you read WP policies and guidelines, or have you even read them regularly? Shot info 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace[edit]

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)[reply]

Amastacy[edit]

Amastacy, if as your sig implies, you work for the AMA (perhaps you are Stacy L. Christiansen), you are forbidden by Wikipedia rules (which you can see on your own talk page User talk:Amastacy) from editing an entry about your own employer. I'm sure you did it inadvertently, but these are pretty serious rules and you will be blocked very quickly if you violate them.

You can however discuss the entry in Talk and make suggestions about what you think could go in the article. Given the importance of JAMA, this should be a fairly long entry.

I personally am not interested in a list of the mission statement, but I would like a few examples (with links) of some examples of articles JAMA has published which illustrate how they meet that mission statement, recently or historically. Nbauman 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the talk page didn't contain any of that – it didn't even exist. Also, it is my understanding that editing the entry of your employer is generally frowned upon. But where does it say that it is forbidden? Rl 08:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know why that link isn't consistently working, but right now, the page says:
Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.
Nbauman 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. When I go to User talk:Amastacy, I see this:
I reverted your edit in JAMA because it replaced a short article with a mere list of ten "critical objectives" literally lifted from a JAMA web page. If, as your edit summary implies, some of the information in the article is incorrect, please point it out. Also, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Which is what I put there this morning. Anyhow, I take it you agree that Wikipedia rules do not forbid editors working on the articles about their employers. Rl 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jama logo.gif[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA-français[edit]

I wonder why it has become fashionable all of a sudden to remove information on JAMA-français ([1], [2]) – information that was merged from a separate article back in June. And why {{fact}}? It's not as if it was difficult to find sources on the subject (e.g. [3], [4]). Also, what has WP:WEIGHT got to do with anything? Rl (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Superlative Status?[edit]

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)[reply]

Editor[edit]

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.[5] Jesanj (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed New Section: "Bias and Unreliability in JAMA Articles"[edit]

I'm aware of one obviously fake "study" intended only to have a desired political outcome on the matter of e-cigarettes, but want to know if there are any others.Jonny Quick (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source material for this "bias and unreliability"? Sound like a good idea maybe except keep in mind NPOV and NOR, I'd say. juanTamad (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much material that one may argue that now the article is biased in a favouring way towards JAMA. See for famous examples of dishonest reporting in the course of time:
- http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/388625 (notice the slimy comment at the top)
- http://ahrp.org/jama-editor-should-apologize-resign/
Harald88 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith changes[edit]

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.[6]
  • 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)[reply]

KateWishing, by reverting my good faith edits for the reasons above, you've let several errors stand:

  • JAMA publishes weekly and sometimes daily online (https://jama.jamanetwork.com/onlineFirst.aspx)
  • JAMA has not published abstracts of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for several years.
  • The journal does not have French and Spanish language editions and hasn’t for many years. What evidence do you require to prove that?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmxzptlk (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 September 2015

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on JAMA (journal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA infobox image[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Coldcreation'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks Airplaneman! Coldcreation, would you support the upload of a second more contemporary cover image? (Mrmxzptlk)(talk) 15:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move 10 December 2020[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– The medical journal is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Massviews and Pageviews. The next highest on the dab page in terms of views is Music of Ghana and the word "Jama" does not appear anywhere in the article.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 03:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally why isn't (pronounced /ˈdʒɑːmə/) in the lead? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because of Wikipedia pageviews. I feel that most people searching for "jama" by any capitalization are searching for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first, oppose second per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first, oppose second. The journal is clearly the primary topic for the capitalised term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colings[edit]

Kan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.196.0.13 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JAMA&oldid=1212228408"