Talk:Society of Hospital Medicine
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
[Untitled] edit
the creation of this page in no different than any other medical society listed in wikipedia, including the american association of physician specialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Physician_Specialists), american medical association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association), society of professional journalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Professional_Journalists), american hospital association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hospital_Association), etc. The post is not promoting membership but states fact about the support to a growing population of medical practice. If this is considered spam and self-promoting, then why are wikis like Girls Scouts of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hospital_Association), Anheuser Busch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anheuser-Busch), Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lewis_MDA_Telethon), and Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_church) remain; as these could all be considered self promoting and for personal gain. It definitely sends mixed signals from wikipedia and whomever is challenging the wiki, as this was written within the guidelines, including references and citation.
Docbb1 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, then how do pages like American Board of Hospital Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Board_of_Hospital_Medicine) remain as well. If you cannot place a society on the wiki, then the a lot of wikis listed under American Medical Associations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_medical_associations) should be removed as well. I am not certain the intent for the speedy deletion, but the intent of the wiki is to educate about the Society and does not request or promote membership... Docbb1 (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Todd03 (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no desire to be overly promotional on the part of the society, rather an attempt to conform to standards and norms by a group new to the community. In response to feedback, words such as "our" "first" "only" and others which could be taken as promotional have been deleted, even when those words convey a fact. The volume of citations will also grow in the coming days as we correct that element of our post as well...we appreciate the feedback from the community and will continue to be aggressive in responding.
After discussion with the SmackBot manager, he ok'd us to remove the orphan tag since other relevant articles now linked to this article.Docbb1 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
After adding multiple citations in the history section and reaching out to LibStar, who placed the citation tag, I have removed the citation tag and would gladly add more citations on anything that is questionable.Docbb1 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)