Talk:Abdominal pregnancy

Mistake

Moved from User talk:Headbomb

You are very mistaken - the article has a peer review which is open - https://www.webmedcentral.com/Article_Review_View/2912, which exceeds the standards of most medical journals. The subject is rare such that few people in the world can give a review of it. The peer reviewer has seen an abdominal pregnacy. I'm sure you have never managed one and have no expertise on the topic. In addition the article has almost a dozen independent citations within a short time showing that the medical community accepts it (citations are a form of post publication review). Part (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Part: This article is quite clearly marked has not having passed the WebmedCentral peer-review process. Consult [1] and find the line that says "WebmedCentral Peer Reviewed: No". You can also browse all 31 articles that HAVE passed peer review (here), and you will see that "Live births resulting from advanced abdominal extrauterine pregnancy, a review of cases reported from 2008 to 2013" isn't listed amongst them. This is quite a clear fail of WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You are still very mistaken. Instead of deleting factually correct material that benefits the community, why don't you dig the actual article and see that what it says is perfectly correct and maybe cite the secondary sources. If one more peer reviewer cannot be found because it's a rare topic does that mean what is written is false? Why do you not take into account that several qualified medical people are citing the article? Is that not peer review? Your approach to editing Wikipedia is narrow. And you do not seem to understand peer review beyond reading the word "No" Part (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that this is not a source that passes WP:MEDRS. You can like it or not, WP:V is what matters (see WP:TRUTH). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: this is ridiculous. People who are trained and qualified in medicine and actually know about this topic find the source to be reliable and cite it. Then a Wikipedian with no training & experience on the topic and doesn't understand peer review finds it unreliable. You can edit how you like, in fact what you are doing is vandalism. If you were serious about the issue you would read up the topic and cite another source - reliable by your standards - that confirms what you have deleted is perfectly true. Part (talk)

The onus is on you to provide such a reliable source, not on the reader to look for one. The article failed the WebmedCentral peer review. End of story. If you have a source that meets WP:MEDRS, then provide it. Until then, this is an unsupported/badly supported claim, and should be left out of the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The onus is not on me @Headbomb:. It's quite easy to find the other sources in the article, I found them, I wonder why you didn't unless your motive is vandalism. I have no time for vandals, more so those who understand peer review superficially. It's obvious the topic is rare that the only reason the article 'failed' is because a second reviewer could not be found, but at least four qualified medical people from around the world have cited the article, a form of peer review. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to appreciate that babies outside the uterus will cause more harm for the mother and the baby than when the baby is in the correct place. I think that's what you are deleting. Part (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

concur w/ HEADBOMB(reference does not seem to fulfill WP:MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Part is correct: the WP:BURDEN on Part is to provide a source that s/he believes (in good faith, but regardless of whether others agree) meets the minimum requirements for a reliable source. Once that's been provided, the burden has been met, and it's up to everyone equally to solve the dispute.

Therefore, I believe that a more useful approach is to ask whether we can replace this disputed source (regardless of whether it truly is or isn't acceptable) with a less-disputable source that says the same thing. That would resolve the dispute by sidestepping the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: @Ozzie10aaaa: @WhatamIdoing: Thanks for comments. I miscounted it is actually six not four independent qualified medical people that cite the "disputed" article, the six clearly find it to be a reliable source besides the original peer reviewer who found it acceptable (towards bottom of page). I think this situation is very interesting. It suggests WP:MEDRS does not cover all situations which is to be expected of man made rules. " My CONCLUSION IS "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Part (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdominal pregnancy. 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/20110714080433/http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=0q502jvng20024u6&size=largest to http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=0q502jvng20024u6&size=largest

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)