Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:21, 25 March 2015

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Use of encyclopedia as source for statement that humorism is pseudoscience

• Article: Humorism
• Content and source:

Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience.

References

1. Williams, William F. (December 3, 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. ISBN 1135955298.

Jayaguru-Shishya removed this from the article:

• first with edit note, "We need something better than a source on extraterrestrials", which is a bullshit reason, then:
• then again; with edit note: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"

I asked for a valid reason to reject the content and source, and JS responded with: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:TERTIARY)"

He offered no actual discussion, except to restate that quote from RS... which is no discussion at all. So, here we are. Is the content and source OK? Maybe not, but I am looking for actual, thoughtful input. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Source is not a fringe source, it is a reliable source about fringe topics (very important distinction). Secondary sources can trump tertiary sources, but the high-value that secondary sources holds does not mean that we cannot use tertiary sources. The bit about discussion does not mean that every tertiary source has to be discussed on the talk page before being added, it means that if he can bring in some sources that counter the contested source, we should downplay or avoid the contested source. WP:PSTS also says "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog. First of all, I opened the discussion at Talk:Humorism#Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, so I am pretty surprised to hear that I "offered no actual discussion". Second, calling another editor's comment "a bullshit reason" is hardly WP:CIVIL nor constructive, in my opinion. And third, as you already said yourself, WP:TERTIARY goes as follows (emphasis added):

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

Did you discuss at the article Talk Page before re-inserting the source? No. Instead, I said that "we should strongly favor reliable secondary sources instead of some tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias". This seems to be in line with WP:TERTIARY. I hope this helped to clarify. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Favoring secondary sources is not a reason to remove a tertiary source. It would be a reason to replace it with a secondary source for a specific point, but tertiary sources are better for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Please follow the spirit of the policy instead of just hanging on a single out-of-context portion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ian.thomson. Indeed, I launched the discussion at the article Talk Page, and not until now I got a reasonable answer. I am hoping, though, that user Jytdog will control his emotions better in the future, and restrain himself from calling other users' comments as "bullshit" or such. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

i tried to discuss with you JS and all you did was offer nonsense ("source about extraterrestrials") and repeat a quote from RS three times, which is not actual discussion. Which is still all you are doing (now for the 4th and 5th times). I am looking forward to hearing from others, which is why I posted here. If you have something thoughtful to say, I look forward to hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The source is perfectly acceptable for the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm the one who inserted it and I thought it was a perfectly acceptable WP:RS too. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Of course there is no problem with the source. It's not the 'ideal' source, but the fact that modern use of the theory of humours is pseudoscience should be uncontroversial, though I think the statement itself could be rephrased to emphasise that it is the continued use of humour theory that is pseudoscience. The theory was science (i.e. "knowledge") when it was dominant within medicine. Jayaguru-Shishya, User:Jytdog is correct that the mere fact that you quote a passage from WP:RS does not constitute a 'discussion', since the passage does not say encyclopedias cannot be used. If it were a "source about extraterrestrials" you might have a point, but it isn't and you don't. Paul B (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been some criticism of the source regarding whether the specific content of specific articles is reliable. But, as with most encyclopedias, the reliability of any individual article does not relate to the matter of article selection. It is not necessarily an ideal source, as Paul says, and I can honestly see that, but I haven't seen anything which indicates that there has been any significant question regarding the subjects chosen for inclusion in that source. The exact phrasing of the content might be open to question, but I can't see any good reason to remove any such mention based on that source entirely. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• question - Jayaguru-Shishya this is, right now, a snow close. We have 4 new voices, plus the editor who posted it, plus me, who all think the source is fine for the content (with a small tweak to the content, perhaps). You yourself have not even provided a reason for "no" - just cited a guideline that says a secondary source would be better. In the absence of any actual "no" here, do you see a need to take up more of the community's time with this? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy (ISBN 0-8160-3351-X) is an unreliable source that fails WP:MEDRS. It is neither a widely recognised medical textbook nor a scientific review article and its reliability has been seriously questioned by the skeptic community. The Skeptical Inquirer review of the book says that, ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout.", "It reads more like a collection of opinions", " contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." Please refrain from using this source in all medical articles. -A1candidate 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the above editor should read User talk:SandyGeorgia#MEDRS and pseudoscience. The apparent opinion of what may well be more knowledgeable editors about that source is that the above claim is a bit of a logical fallacy. As indicated there, what is being discussed here is whether the subject is a "pseudoscience". That, however, seems to have no bearing on whether it is or is not medically accurate. And as someone familiar with that review, as I said in my last comment above, there is nothing indicating that the subjects selected for inclusion in the encyclopedia are not legitimately included. I rather strongly urge the above editor to perhaps realize that there is in no way a clear and obvious equivalence of the terms "medicine" and "pseudoscience," despite his or her seemingly absolute conviction regarding that point. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Webster's New World Medical Dictionary describes humorism as "definitively demolished" since the 1800s. Dismissing the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience as flawed is one thing, but asking for a MEDRS to cite for the statement "humorism is now regarded as pseudoscience" seriously makes as much sense as demanding MEDRSs for similar statements about astrology, alchemy, or the Nine Herbs Charm. Humorism was totally disproven before the 20th century and its absence is a rather distinguishing feature of modern medicine. WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that we do not need a MEDRS to dismiss humorism, but that a MEDRS would be needed to say that humorism is not a pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:PARITY supports use of this source in this context. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable The source in question starts by explaining the various difficulties of using the term pseudoscience and, amusingly, invalidates itself, "The word 'pseudoscience' is not itself a scientific term. Insofar as it connotes a rigor it does not in reality possess, one might even call it a pseudoscientific term." Looking at the entries for A, these include atomism, Agassiz, Age of the Earth, antimatter, aphrodisiac and Avebury. As these all seem to be reasonably respectable topics, the source should not be used indiscriminately to tag any such subject as pseudoscience. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The term is difficult and POV-pushers for fringe theories love to endlessly discuss the demarcation problem. Sure there are boundary problems, but red is not blue and the argument becomes idiocy after a while. And there are pseudoscientific aspects to all those topics you just cited. The proposed content clearly limits application of the term to modern proponents of humorism. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement with Jytdog here. The articles linked to by Andrew Davidson bear the same titles as those in the encyclopedia, but it is also true that each of those links is to a topic which is rather broader than humorism. For instance, we all know Avebury exists, and that cannot be said to make it pseudoscientific. the article however deals with the pseudoscientific nature of some of the claims made about it. Humorism however is a much narrower topic, and the EoP article seems to be dealing with, basically, the same topic as our own article, so, on that basis, the claim, reasonable in some other cases, that the similarity of article names does not necessarily indicate the similarity of article subjects does not seem valid here. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Humorism seems quite a wide topic in that such ideas dominated medicine for thousands of years. Even now, the idea that trouble may be caused by such imbalances is still prevalent; we just have a more detailed understanding of the components of which we might have an excess or deficiency - cholesterol, iron, serotonin, vitamins, &c. And our current understanding still seems quite limited in some ways. For example, a recent blood test indicates that my lipid level is higher than the doctor might like. But can she tell me whether I actually have incipient atherosclerosis or not? There doesn't seem to be a good test for this and so uncertain risk factors are used instead. These risk factors seem quite like the broad stereotypes of the humoural sort but instead of being choleric say, you might have a high BMI and type-A personality. Plus ça change... Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OR claim that's akin to saying alchemy isn't necessarily a pseudoscience because gold, silver, and lead are on the periodic table. Your doctor would hopefully be using the risk factors based on previous documented connection, not because of magical stereotypes. Humorism is specifically the belief in blood, phlegm, and black and yellow biles, not other bodily fluids.

Geocentrism and Astrology dominated astronomy for thousands of years as well, but we still describe them as pseudoscience (if not outright superstition). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To me this does not look like a normal RSN question? It is easy to find sources saying all kinds of things, but then we need to discuss due weight, which is more of an editing discussion. What are the editing concerns that lead to the discussion? I have noticed in the past around Misplaced Pages that the term "pseudoscience", whether it is a clear term or not, is more common on Misplaced Pages than in outside publications, and this seems to be linked to interest in Misplaced Pages's own policies, whereby articles involving "pseudoscience" come under the martial law of "discretionary sanctions" (which seems to derive from historical debates about climate change articles, but has had some mission creep by my reading). Is that playing a role here? I note remark above that there might be a difference between science which has been historically found wrong, and "pseudoscience" and that seems correct. Pseudoscience is not normally a term used to apply to Aristotle for example and I don't think we should have articles about classical science, philosophy and medicine coming under discretionary sanctions just because there are still proponents today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew L, this is indeed not a normal RSN question. I agree with others; the source given is reliable for the specific use proposed. Additionally humorism is pretty valueless as an aid to understanding the human body. Discussion of our, perhaps over-inclusive, use of the term "pseudoscience" and our possible over-eagerness to use it repeatedly to disparage out-of-date attempts to understand the world, is best had elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster and Richard Keatinge on the face of it, this is a straight up and very obvious RSN case. The content and sourcing were objected to, based on the source. Consensus is clear that they are fine. We can guess that JS's actual objection was use of the term "pseudoscience" but our guesses about other editors' motivations have no place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The historical practice of now-outdated science is by no means pseudoscience, just early science -- but the continued advocacy of those ideas once they've been disproven to the point of sorcery is pseudoscience. Ptolemy is not classified as a pseudoscientist, but a modern advocate of Ptolomaic cosmology would be an astrologer (and so the only way for them to not be a pseudoscientist would be openly admitting they're practicing magic, not science). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson, as an editor with a long history on working on history of science and philosophy I am increasingly seeing these types of definitions of pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages, but not elsewhere in outside reliable sources. In fact the term is not even common outside Misplaced Pages, and to the extent that some blogs and journalists are starting to use it more, Misplaced Pages may even be the reason. It seems to be a Wikipedian definition? It seems to be a sort of mission creep thing coming from the history some years back of debate on climate change articles wherein pseudoscience became a critical term for giving admins special power, right? Anyway, for example can you find any source which says that Thomism is pseudoscience for example? Thomists, or at least some of them, follow the arguments of Aristotle, who argued against the style of philosophy which rebooted in modern times and which we now call science. So they fit your definition.

@Jytdog, yes I do recognize that in theory we can point to a sources question, but it is a rather difficult question to get worked up about. Encyclopedias can be used on Misplaced Pages, although in some contexts they are considered weak sources. It becomes a question of due weight, and due weight is generally a topic for article talk pages, although for sure there is nothing wrong with coming here for some extra opinions. OTOH your reply seems to confirm that it is really all about this term which is important for Wikipedians: pseudoscience? There is also seems to be a questioning of motives on both sides. I have not looked closely at the case, but it seems that the accusation is that the word is being forced into the article, using a weak source. Is that a fair summary? I do not see that the replies here have given any arguments for or against that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning anybody's motives; I will not delve beyond the surface of the objection that was actually raised. Which has now been well addressed in the appropriate forum. If you want to explore the use of the term "pseudoscience" generally, WT:FRINGE is thataway, and if you want to discuss whether the term is appropriate to use in the humorism article, Talk:humorism is thataway. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomism doesn't exactly make empirically testable claims, but humorism and astrology do. Our article doesn't refer to Thomism as pseudoscience, and neither did I. Young Earth Creationism would be a better example, and we do refer to attempts to make empirical claims supporting YEC as pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes Ian.thomson but this definition of pseudo-science is again rather Wikipedian as far as I know and the language you are referring to in those example Misplaced Pages articles will have been placed there by Wikipedians, just like in the case under discussion. I am aware that there is quite a lot of discussion going on around Misplaced Pages about making sure that certain articles are seen as connecting to "pseudo-science", or not connecting to it, because that term then connects to the "martial law" of discretionary sanctions etc. In some cases I have personally seen very controversial efforts being made to twist the wording of articles quite far from what the sources say, in order to make sure that a big black line is drawn between a "history of science subject" (in the example I came into contact with this was teleological argument) and a "pseudo-science subject" (in my example "intelligent design", which NB is supposedly not the article for the intelligent design movement). Problem there is that not one source draws such a big black line. One practical result of long term debate on this apparent wiki-OR, is that the word pseudoscience has been added to the first line and definition of the topic of that article, although there are very few sources that use the word, and no sources at all which say this is a defining characteristic of intelligent design. The arguments given for justifying this include wikipedian definitions of pseudoscience much like the one you give. Is there any chance that the case in hand was similar? In any case, it is important, if you want feedback to be useable, to explain the context of the disagreement. Just coming here asking "can we ever use this source?" is actually not the correct way to use this forum. See the instructions at the top.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In my original post i named the article, and provided the content and source, and asked if the source was an RS for the content. look at it. nobody asked any general questions. I think this thread is done. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean that you have not wanted to mention what was controversial about using the source. As gets said over and over on this forum, almost every source is good for something. What is clear from the feedback you have received is that it is apparently a weak source. The implication of this is that if there are debates about the weight it is being given, it might be problematic. There has also been a question raised about whether we are using the source beyond its own intentions, because I see the remark above given that the source itself questions the exactness of the term, whereas apparently some of the controversy here is about using the source to make a very black/white type of comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster I'll say this one more time. The editor who reverted and gave one bullshit reason and one non-reason (quoting policy that tertiary sources should be discussed but never saying anything) never said anything about pseudoscience. You are making that assumption. You are free to do that, but do not fault me for not dealing with your assumption about the original objections to the content and its source. It may be that you are raising that issue yourself but you have not framed it that way. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I have not wanted to take a position at all, because I am unsure of the context. It is in any case true that just because a source is tertiary does not mean we can not use it. I am just saying that there might be other more valid concerns, including due weight concerns, and also concerning the quality of this specific tertiary source, which is apparently questionable. I stand by saying that on this noticeboard there is a long term recognized problem coming from editors who post without explaining context. Of course sometimes people ask questions here in a very focused way such as "can we use tertiary sources?" (ignoring other concerns) in order to get what they want in a content dispute.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

i provided the exact and complete objections that were raised, with diffs. Done here. Jytdog (talk)

• Reliable. Source is fine for the statement: "Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience." 2.27.78.13 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, although some of the information being posted here sounds a bit concerning. OTOH I continue to wonder if that is the real point of the disagreement, and therefore whether this is the right forum. Apparently the disagreement could be one of notability. In other words, is there really significant published discussion about "humourism today", or is humourism mainly a "history of science" subject? Is that not the issue of discussion? (I still have not looked closely.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable as a source for what is and is not considered pseudoscience. Obviously. Equally obviously, quacks who practise quackery based on humourism (i.e. a large swathe of the alternative "whole medical systems" insist otherwise and do research to try to bolster their beliefs, thus neatly proving the point. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Unreliable - According to our article on the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, the contributors of this book are mostly affiliated with dubious academic positions such as "Department of Religious Studies" and "Center for UFO Studies". Those fighting pseudoscience must realize that using non-scientific sources to fight pseudoscience will only serve to weaken their own arguments and undermine the credibility of the skeptic's movement. -A1candidate 00:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And those advocating pseudoscience need to understand the venues in which the demarcation issue is discussed, and not hold out for the impossible. Humourism is a refuted notion, the modern purported study of humoural interventions is pseudoscience. It is hard to think of any department more appropriate than religious studies, for investigation of humourism, which is, essentially, a religious philosophy and not a scientific or medical construct.

The irony here is that if the ufologists were not included in the advisory panel, cranks would be complaining that there were no "experts". We see this all the time with homeopathy in particular, where any negative review finding is always waved away using a variety of excuses, and the response of the Aussie homeoquacks have used precisely this argument against the recent government review. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the one advocating pseudoscience - because you promote pseudoscientific publications such as Science-based Medicine and other self-published blogs that superficially employ the scientific method but are in fact based on subjective opinion. The demarcation issue is often discussed in scientific literature, except you're completely blinded to it and fail to realize the mere existence of numerous quack-busting review articles such as PMID 15061600 and PMID 22957409.

The irony here is that if mainstream scientists and medical doctors were the only contributors to this text, those fighting pseudoscience would complain that the "demarcation issue" is not discussed in the context of humorism and they would not have cited this source in the first place. And we would obviously not have the need for this pointless discussion. -A1candidate 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is really a categorical fallacy: pre-scientific "medicine" and medicine are two very different entities. Yes, humoural doctrines had a place in pre-scientific "medicine", as did many other now discarded ideas. The crucial thing is that these ideas were jettisoned as medicine began to be a scientifically-founded field.

Alchemy became chemistry, astrology became astronomy, humourism became... well, nothing, really, because it is worthless as a theory of physiology or disease so science had to start over from scratch.

We would document them as pre-scientific beliefs were it not for the fact that a significant number of people continue to believe in humoural theory, and to treat actual patients with actual ailments as if humoural theory were valid, despite the fact that it is not. Worse, they conduct sciencey-looking "studies" to try to prove their beliefs to be true. That is why humourism is pseudoscience, not pre-science. It is precisely analogous to creationism. It is a historical construct that is perpetuated for reasons of faith and doctrine by a minority, long after science has shown it to be invalid, and which nurtures a cottage industry producing "studies" that, by ignoring all conflicting evidence, "prove" their faith to be true.

That is pretty much the dictionary definition of pseudoscience, of course. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the Galenic school of medicine was not completely pre-scientific because the development of the scientific method is actually inseparable from the history of science or the history of mankind, for that matter. According to PMID 24879053, "In addition to these very perceptive insights on physiology, the Galenical school made important advances in anatomy".

Humorism was not "jettisoned" by medical science. It was what led to medical science in the first place. For if there was no humorism, there would have been no modern medicine. On the other hand, if there was no creationism, we would not have any creation science. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology became astronomy, and humorism (as taught by Galen) became physiology (See PMID 24879053). -A1candidate 08:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has worked a lot on history of science articles, but none on humorism specifically, I have to say that A1candidate is right. There is no big black line that reliable sources on this subject can draw between "scientific" and "pre scientific". That is the kind of position one finds on blogs, but it does not reflect how medicine really developed. The Greeks already made a distinction between traditional knowledge (nomos) and knowledge built up in a methodical neutral way (episteme). In the case of a "practical" science such as medicine, one of the big distinctions between modern and classical science, teleology and similar metaphysical ideas, was never a factor, because it was accepted that in practical science you have to build knowledge based on what works, even if you are not sure why. (The debate between teleological classical science and modern science can be described as one of whether all science should be like medicine.) Humorism, you might say, was based on theoretical speculation combined with practical experience, and that is where it went wrong. But this speculation still plays a role today, and many ideas which seem true today will be proven wrong in the future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable for reasons already stated. David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Using government sites such as the DOJ as a source

I have a broad question about the use of government sites such as , this and this The use of the final source I've included was refused on March 6, with this edit summary: Remove press release as source per WP:SELFPUB. Remove health claims lacking WP:MEDRS sourcing. Diff here I'd like some feedback about using these and similar government sites as sources. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course primary sources can be used, but without third party analysis, they are easy to misuse. A press release is a poor source for the content that you added, in my opinion, but I disagree with Formerly 98 that it violates WP:MEDRS.- MrX 15:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is a reliable primary, fine for the attorney general's statement. Secondaries should be sought for context. Saying pesticides are toxic is a "sky is blue" level claim, not a medical claim. It doesn't seem necessary to include though. For the purposes of that article, it would do just as well to begin the quote at "By misleading consumers about the potential dangers...". Formerly98's edit to "illegal safety claims" is vague and uninformative. Rhoark (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Formerly 98 Gandy's summary here does not properly summarize my argument and it was posted without informing me, though I am the other party in the content dispute. I would like to explain my edits here:

The exclusion of this material was based on WP:SELFPUBLISH, which is part of the Misplaced Pages POLICY WP:VERIFIABILITY. Specifically, the policy states:

"self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."

Footenote 9 of that same article further states:

"Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases...."

The policy further elaborates the situations in which the use of self-published sources is acceptable: They may be used for non-exceptional claims about the organization that published the press release or other document but never to make claims about third parties.

This is not merely a guideline, but is part of a Misplaced Pages policy. To me it seems very clear. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree that Rhoark's response pretty much covers how you can apply policy in this case or does this need more discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Rhoark's response was also thoughtful and well reasoned, but I disagree with his statement that "Pesticides are toxic is a blue sky statement". Methoprene, for example, is recommended by WHO for addition to drinking water cisterns to control malaria mosquito breeding, as its tox is lower than many natural food components. In any case, I believe the issue of whether a source is sufficient to establish toxicity falls under MEDRS, which would clearly exclude the DOJ as a reliable source for such statements. I realize its a quote, but if we allow quotes about health effects from non MEDRS sources, I think MEDRS then becomes so easy to circumvent we open a real can of worms.

Perhaps the critical question here is this: Is the PR being used as a source for the fact that a statement was made by the AG, or is it being used as a source for an attributed statement about the toxicity of the pesticide under discussion? I would argue both, and that it therefore is excluded by MEDRS. Respectfully Formerly 98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that where a specific compound is concerned, its toxicity should be backed by peer-reviewed research. As for self-publishing, don't focus overmuch on the listing of press releases as an example. What matters is not the form or style of the work, but whether there is a degree of oversight or gatekeeping between the author and final dissemination of the work. The press office of a government body should have copyeditors and legal advice, so that requirement is fulfilled. The usual cautions of WP:PRIMARY and WP:BIASED still apply. Rhoark (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: Thank you for your response. According to WP:SELFPUBLISHED, the characteristic feature of self-published sources that makes them unsuitable is "the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents." Do I understand correctly that your position is that the legal advisors in the DOJ and Attorney General offices are able to provide independent review and thus overcome this issue? This is my area of concern. Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No less independent than the relationship of a journalist and editor at the same newspaper. Rhoark (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not really a reliable source issue. In the diff the reference is used to cite a quotation, and those should get as close to the primary source as possible. I see more of an issue as to whether the quotation adds anything to the article. Rejecting government publications as a general policy isimply because they come out of the GPO is so ridiculous as to hardly merit discussion. Mangoe (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, in my opinion Gandy miscast the issue. I never objected to the use of "Government sources". I pointed out that policy as described in WP:SELFPUBLISH prohibits the use of press releases other than for self-description.Formerly 98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Realizing that there are a couple of other issues here as well, I think it reasonable to point out that a press release from a private entity, like, for instance, a movie production company, is a lot different from a press release from, say, the National Institute of Health, NASA, or other governmental bodies and/or scientific research centers. The former very rarely have any sort of independent review in advance, the latter will be in general reviewed by at least the in-house lawyers immediately prior to release and will often discuss the results of scientific research which might be for the first time made available through the press releases. In general, the governmental/research center press releases might be seen by some as being more in the vague range between primary and secondary sources, as they tend to be written or at least reviewed before publication by individuals independent of the researchers and thus in a sense make them more secondary sources than primary sources. Particularly in press releases from government or research entities disclosing the results of prior research, I can't myself see any reasonable objections to using them, anymore than I would object to using academic journal articles written by the researchers about their studies. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter:I tend to agree with you in principle, especially with respect to scientific and regulatory agencies such as NASA and the FDA. (Though I think that we need to edit WP:SELFPUBLISHED and not simply ignore it. But somehow the PRs coming out of AG offices and the DOJ seem much more political. They read like they were written by, well, prosecutors, and worse yet, ones that are explaining the importance of what they have achieved to the electorate. In the courtroom they are balanced by defense attorneys - the U.S. constitution requires that the office of judge and prosecutor be separate, and prosecutorial misconduct gets hundreds of cases dismissed every year. This is my gut feeling though it is hard to express it in a way that is easy to defend. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right that they are biased and primary, not to be treated as gospel. Useable, though. Rhoark (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Especially for factual details of court rulings, which is how they were being used in many of the cases. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is getting rather abstract, but in practice the answer is usually obvious. For example, here is one of the citations removed by Formerly 98 (diff):

Source:

Article: Chevron Corporation

Content:

In 2000, after violating the Clean Air Act at an offline loading terminal in El Segundo, California, Chevron paid, a $6 million penalty as well as $1 million for environmental improvement projects.

This is a statement about an objective fact, and the DoJ citation is obviously both relevant and reliable as a source to support this statement. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And this from March 8: BTW, I want to add that Formerly 98 stated that I had brought a debate here without notifying him. That was not the case at all--we were not in a debate re using government announcements, but I was aware that I have seen them widely used and have used them myself and needed to know if they are acceptable or not. Gandydancer (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It probably would have been best practice to notify Formerly 98, to avoid any suspicion of deviousness. Formerly 98 might think that by not notifying him, you wanted the luxury of presenting your argument here unopposed, grabbing a quicker/easier consensus in your favor, and slipping it into your back pocket so that you could use it in an anticipated confrontation with him over the issue. I am not saying this was your intention; I am only saying these are the sorts of suspicions which can be avoided by notifying all parties. Xanthis (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not at all fair to me to suggest that I may have been acting in a devious fashion and it makes me angry to see my name used in that way. Please note that I asked my question "in general" and first gave a DOJ announcement that I used in the Cracker Barrel article where I was stunned to find that the article brushed over the fact that as late as 2004 Cracker Barrel restaurants were blatantly discriminating against black customers, the second one was a DOJ announcement related to Dow since that was the article I was currently working on, and the third one was a state government example, the one in which I was told that it was a "press report" and not usable. This is/was not a case where I was asking about the use of a certain site for a certain claim in which I wanted to win an argument, but a broad question about the use of government announcements. This question is important to me as I go about my WP editing. To come here and have it suggested that I may have planned trickery is not at all fair to me and I resent it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I did not suggest that you were acting deviously, or that it was your intention to do so. I merely pointed out what the other editor - who made the edit which you used as an example, and with whom you were in an ongoing discussion - might think and how those are the sorts of thoughts that can be best avoided by notifying all parties.Xanthis (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This case is a misapplication of WP:SELFPUBLISH. The idea behind the policy (and the real-world concept) is that "X has paid to have his work published, and we have no reason to trust it except for the word of X him/herself", which in almost all cases is where the term is applied is not worth much. However in case of the source under consideration, its factuality is backed by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, which is certainly at least as credible as a generic popular publisher. Yes, there may be concerns about relative expertise, WP:PRIMARY etc, which mean that the source may need to be used with proper care and attribution. But dismissing this as a self-published source is simply not acceptable; if this is a common (mis)interpretation of the policy than it needs to be clarified, but I don't think that is the case. Abecedare (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable. I must agree with Rhoark, Mr. X, Mangoe, and John Carter, and Abecedare. (But see my caveat about WP:MEDRS, below.)

Formerly 98, I know it must be frustrating for you that press releases from private individuals and companies carry little weight, while press releases from government offices have a certain currency. Frustrating though it may be, I believe it is quite true. The "WP:SELFPUBLISH" policy must be read in the appropriate context. It begins by saying, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book..." The wiki policy then goes on to talk about things like "newsletters, personal websites, open wikis," etc.

I could agree that this is WP:SELFPUBLISH if the attorney general were making these statements on his own Facebook page, but that is not the case here. A press release by a government agency relating to its official functions is probably not "WP:SELFPUBLISH." If we take your (Formerly 98's) argument to its logical conclusion, then the bound volumes containing the original certified copies of the acts and resolves passed by a legislature in each year would arguably be "WP:SELFPUBLISH" in many cases.

The fact is that government bodies retain a certain neutrality even when they are engaged in regulatory, enforcement, and prosecutorial activities. Certainly at least as much neutrality as any publishing house. The fact that these government officials are democratically elected by the people whom they govern does not make this any less true (you spoke about the taint of politics). After all, unlike a private entity they are not engaged in litigation for their own pecuniary benefit. Here, the published press release by the Atty. General's office is given additional weight by the fact that there is a referenced (and attached) court judgement supporting it - which really makes it more of a secondary source.

To apply these principles to the quote at issue: I believe that the official press release is perfectly usable as evidence that Dow paid a fine (especially since the court judgement itself is linked to). As the other users have mentioned, this doesn't mean that this is necessarily the best source we can find. To address your "gut feeling": of course statements by government officials are not always gospel. Just because a source meets the criteria for being cited to does not necessarily mean that it must always be true. But that is a separate issue.

As for the statement, "Pesticides are toxic substances that should be used with great caution," in a medical or toxicology context this sentence would defintitely be problematic per WP:MEDRS. I am not a chemist (just a microbiologist) but I know that "pesticide" encompasses such a broad galaxy of chemicals that any general statement about toxicity is bound to be nonsensical. There is a big difference between chlorantraniliprole (which is so non-toxic to mammals that it doesn't require a signal word on packages - not even "CAUTION") vs. the organophosphate pesticide tetraethyl pyrophosphate (which will kill a rat within seconds if a drop is applied to an eye or mucous membrane). Here, the attorney general, with all respect, is wandering outside of his official bailiwick. If he were the surgeon general it might be a different story. But in the context of this diff ("environmental record of the company") it is really more of a question of relevance. See also my comments on the article talk page. Xanthis (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Xanthis: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Let me play devil's advocate with a reducto ad absurdum argument: Would this press release from the office of U.S. Senator Rand Paul be a WP:RS for the political positions of Loretta Lynch? This is also a government office. In most states, the Attorney General, like the state's senators, are elected officials. thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: I think your argument is hardly reductio ad absurdum: it is an excellent example that tests the point. To answer your question, I would say no, Sen. Paul's press release is not a reliable source for the political positions of another person. But neither would a statement by the attorney general be a particularly reliable source for the political positions of another person -- judging political positions is outside of the scope of the official duties of that office. It is simple electioneering, and if the attorney general were to release such a statement (even on official letterhead) he could not really claim to be clothed with the presumption of neutrality that comes when his office is discharging official duties.

There is an additional distinction that I think is very important: an individual senator is a private person. They are members of the senate, but the senate as an entity can act only by vote. The senate can therefore "speak" only through its clerk. Because of this, I would say that statements made by individual senators -- even statements directly pertaining to legislation which they claim was passed/not passed -- will never count as a primary source. The attorney general, by contrast, is empowered by law to act individually in an official capacity, and to speak on behalf of the government.

In your particular example, the fact that Sen. Paul repeatedly uses the pronoun "I" is a strong clue. If the attorney general were to speak in terms of "I" (rather than in terms of "The State of New York"), IMO that would be good evidence that he is speaking his personal mind, rather than speaking on behalf of the State of New York. Xanthis (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I agree with Formerly98 that these are self-published press releases and my analysis pretty much ends there. Government agencies use press releases like these for political reasons, e.g. to show off their accomplishments. Agencies such as the DOJ and the NY AG's office answer to elected politicians, whose reputation for accuracy is, well, I don't need to finish this sentence. There is no evidence these press releases have been fact-checked for scientific accuracy. They were probably written by lawyers or press secretaries rather than by journalists or scientists. They are certainly not peer reviewed in the scientific sense. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I have a question. I agree with you that WP:MEDRS statements made by an attorney general's office (e.g., "Pesticides are toxic chemicals.") are probably unreliable, as I mentioned in my comment. But I wonder, do you feel the same way even about publications from a government office making factual statements directly concerning their official duties (e.g., "Dow has agreed to pay a $2M fine to the State of New York"), and maybe even referencing a primary source such as the court judgement?

Second, I can understand your suspicions that certain government agencies may try to use certain types of publications as a form of subtle electioneering. But I propose that "self-serving" does not necessarily mean "self-published" in the sense meant by WP:SELFPUBLISH (personal websites, blogs, open wikis, etc). While we might argue that certain publications from various government offices can be unreliable for other reasons (and possibly exclude them on that basis), it doesn't necessarily mean that they are WP:SELFPUBLISH. Xanthis (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On your first question: A closer issue that depends on the specific content. WP:ABOUTSELF would apply in some circumstances. In all cases attribution would be necessary for such self-published statements. Regardless, it doesn't depend on the public-private distinction. Two private companies can settle a dispute and put out similar press releases, and the analysis would be the same. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On your second question: "Self-published" doesn't just mean web content. See WP:V footnote 9 - press releases are expressly and squarely included. There is no exception for press releases from government agencies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been quite an interesting discussion, but right now it seems that the majority of commentators are taking a position that directly contradicts the literal language of WP:V, which is a POLICY. It is my understanding that policies cannot be overridden by local consensus, one needs to get consensus to change the policy.

What is the next step here? I don't mean to forum shop, but I don't think the conclusion of this noticeboard discussion can be to ignore the literal language of WP:V. I don't usually get involved in these sorts of things, should this discussion be moved to the WP:V talk page? Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion should run its course. Contributions are still coming in. If they stall you might want to consider starting an RFC. But moving over to WP talk seems inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, any consensus here cannot change policy, but can still be a valid good-faith interpretation of the policy as it relates to this case. For example, the qualified exception already granted to "newsblogs" (and especially the explanatory comments in footnote 9) seem to indicate that publications sponsored by recognized and reputable organizations can be excepted, even if self-published. (Would anybody really argue that Encyclopædia Britannica is no longer verifiable were the company to print the next edition in-house?)

Regarding the second point -- good question! The WP:SELFPUBLISH policy begins with the word "anyone", and in citing examples seems to use the word "personal" repeatedly (e.g., "personal websites," "personal blogs,"). That obviously doesn't mean the policy applies only to individual self-publishers, but it seems to be groping toward an idea (like the image of a guy running a blog from his basement in his undershirt) that is easy to visualize but hard to define. I am not aware of anything that prohibits specific ideas for re-wording from being advanced on WP:V talk at any time. Does anybody have ideas about how the policy could be re-worded to be improved? I agree with Dr. Fleischman that this excellent discussion should run its course. Perhaps out of this discussion will come some ideas about how to further clarify the WP:SELFPUBLISH policy. Ping (Gandydancer—MrX—Rhoark—Formerly 98—Mangoe—John Carter—Abecedare—Xanthis—Dr. Fleischman) Xanthis (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliiable Press releases do not meet rs. Furthermore, it usually raises alarms when editors seek this type of source. Presumably if it were a press release then the press would have written a story. In doing so, they would determine what to present as fact and what to present as merely the opinion of the DOJ. Publication would also determine how important the statement was. If no story was written, then the press has ignored it and we need to explain why it should be mentioned here, per WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I agree with TFD on the weight issue, but my reasoning is because of WP:PRIMARY and not because the statement of self-published.

I am only objecting to labeling announcements by DOJ and other governmental (and private) institutions self-published because of considerable consequences that would follow, requiring for example removal of any nobelprize.org or pulitzer.org link from any BLP (since such "self-published" sources can never be used as third-party sources about living people). Abecedare (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I continue to believe that User:DrFleischman and User:Formerly 98 interpretation of what constitutes non-usable self-published works is not consitent with the real-world use of the term, or what wikipedia policy entails. But for now, I'll ping board-veterans @DGG and Blueboar: who may have some useful input. I would also like DrFleischman's (and any other interested editor's) view on whether this edit of mine from two days back at a high-profile, contentious, medical article citing a "self-published" report authored and published by NHMRC was against WP:SELFPUBLISH or WP:V policies. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The report you used would not be excluded because WP:V says

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", which would generally apply to agencies such as the NHMRC, EPA, and FDA.

WP:V also contains a redirect to WP:RS which states:

"Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies"

Formerly 98 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sufficiently versed in MEDRS or in Australian government to answer Abecedare's question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• No source is absolutely reliable or unreliable, at least not for everything. All sources , without exceptions, have limitations. The actual use of a source depends on many factors what the reputation of a source may be for a particular subject, on the degree of editorial control and responsibility of a source is, what the topic being discussed is, whether it represents an exceptional claim, especially about BLPs, and so on. Even press releases: they depend on the authority of the person or body making the press release. On political matters, government sources typically represent what the government wants people to think about the issue--they do not even prove what the government in question actually thinks. For the articles in question here. The Rand press releases is proof of what he wishes to saw his views on the subject are. The DOAJ items are not proof of the facts stated therein, merely proof that the parties agreed to a settlement on these terms, or that a penalty was assed. They are statements of the legal issue at hand, not the scientific consensus. A party settling a case usually does not accept wrongdoing, just the expediency of making a settlement. To a certain extent they usually do represent the scientific consensus, but this is a matter of interpretation.

A government public health agency making an explicit statement of the scientific consensus, as in the Australian homeopathy example, is very strong evidence of what the consensus is. They're a reliable secondary source within the meaning of MEDRS. They're not definitive, but then nothing is. Even the most reliable sources listed in MEDRF have at times been mistaken, or subsequently proven to be wrong.

The policy WP:V, like all WP policies, itself requires interpretation. It is interpreted in the guideline WP:RS, WP:MEDRF, etc., specific cases are interpreted here or one the article talk pages. Even what looks like the most absolute policy statement is intended to be read in a reasonable way, as it cannot foresee all circumstances. My opinion is that WP:V is correct as it stands as a statement of our policy, within these limits of interpretation. It is never a good idea to modify accepted wording to deal with specific exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• SPS says that an SPS, like a press release, shouldn't be used to make claims about third parties. If the DOJ press release is about a settlement, that settlement is between the DOJ and a third party, and I think the DOJ press release is a reliable source for the existence of the settlement and its terms. but like any WP:PRIMARY source, editors should be very careful not to go beyond what it actually says and not add analysis or commentary to it. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

These aren't primary sources. These are press releases describing settlements, so they're self-published secondary sources. The primary source would be the settlement agreement itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

they are manifestly secondary sources, as at least the third mentioned includes the opinions of others. But they are self-published, and therefore reflect the official view of what the agency in question wishes to say about the settlement--and is therefore subject to multiple layers of ambiguity and need for nPOV interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's cut through all the wikilawyering shall we?... we are allowed to use self-published sources as long as we do so appropriately, and we are allowed to use primary sources, as long as we do so appropriately... so all this angst over the classification of the source is actually a distraction from the more important question: Are we using the source appropriately? Does it actually verify the specific statement found in our article? You can not answer this in generic terms. Each and every citation is unique... because in each case the source is being cited to support a unique statement. in other words... a government press release may well be quite reliable in one context, and yet the exact same press release will not be reliable in another context. We need to know the specific context to meaningfully answer the question. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable for use intended. David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lewrockwell.com

is

Is <ref> PNAC Captured Part of the U.S. Government and Caused America to Attack Iraq in 2003, Michael S. Rozeff, LewRockwell.com, 2014</ref>

A reliable source to assert *"Authors such as George (2005) and Kirby (2007) posit that PNAC enjoyed this influence largely due to the fact that key players in the Bush Administration - such as Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Carl Rove, Richard Pearl and Dick Cheney - were closely linked to the organization (either members or signatories to documents)." in List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush which is subject to WP:BLP as well as WP:RS? Note that article title is PNAC Captured Part of the U.S. Government and Caused America to Attack Iraq in 2003 which I regard as typical of articles on the lewrockwell.com site. It appears to not have passed prior RS/N discussions other than for opinions of notable persons cited as such, but the implication of conspiracy appears to require stronger sourcing, IMO, than simply opinion. Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that LewRockwell.com is not a reliable source for these sorts of claims about third parties. If these putative connections are really significant, someone else must have discussed them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no way that's a reliable source for that or much of any claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that use of this source should be limited only to describing opinions of its authors, as opposed to citing factual assertions. They specialize in "diatribes" and conspiracy theories. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree strongly with any use: Advocacy sources like this one that alleges to "help carry on the anti-war, anti-state, pro-market work of Murray N. Rothbard." are extremely unlike to provide accurate information. I think the "it's reliable for the opinion of the authors" is the equivalent of saying it is not actually reliable. Every source is reliable for the opinion of the author. CorporateM (Talk) 03:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Lourockwell.com has an express ideological agenda and doesn't even purport to offer accurate news coverage. The author is not a journalist. Moreover the source doesn't verify the content, since there's no reference to George or Kirby. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Ha ha ha ha ha! No. For the reasons stated above. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• No, it is not a reliable source. Spumuq (talq) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• UnreliableThis makes ordinary unreliable sources look like peer-reviewed math papers. No. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Could've sworn we did this before around election time. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Neuromuscular scientist's blog as an RS on religious practices - Reiki as pseudoscience

Reiki is a form of popular religious practice founded by a Buddhist monk. A blog post by neuromuscular scientist Steven Novella, a member of the skeptical movement, has described it as a "pseudoscience". He posted this on his blog, which is called sciencebasedmedicine.org. A number of editors on the Reiki page have decided that Novella's blog post means that reiki is "now considered to be a form of pseudoscience". Is this a correct use of sources? Shii (tock) 13:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No. We need a good academic source to back up such a claim, not a self-published blog. -A1candidate 13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Steven Novella is a published expert on neurophysiology, so he can be cited for his opinions related to neurophysiology. That can include the opinion that Reiki is pseudoscience. However, the opinion should be directly attributed to him, not given in the passive voice as the opinion of unspecified people. Rhoark (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's sensible. I personally think this claim belongs further down in the article, where spurious medical claims related to reiki are discussed. I don't think it belongs in the lede, especially when reiki was not intended to be scientific in its original form. Shii (tock) 15:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a "spiritual practice". However, it is widely used as alternative medicine. A few sources to consider:

• Trends in Molecular Medicine says reiki is "pseudoscientific" and "faith healing". Research on reiki and similar "merely lend them legitimacy and take money away from more deserving projects" because in clinical trials reiki has "already been proved to have no benefits whatsoever".
• The National Council Against Health Fraud says, "There is no evidence that clinical Reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion, or that they are superior to massage or any other healing ritual. Reiki's metaphysical beliefs may be in conflict with an individual patient's religious beliefs. Full disclosure of the belief system should precede its use in any setting. An investigation of proponent literature casts serious doubt as to whether Reiki practitioners can be trusted with such full disclosure. Reiki literature presents misinformation as fact, and instructs practitioners on how to skirt the law in order to protect themselves from regulation and accountability."
• Edzard Ernst says reiki "defies scientific measurement and is biologically implausible. These circumstances render Reiki one of the least plausible therapies in the tool kit of alternative medicine."
• David Gorski says reiki is "highly implausible...pseudoscience", "dubious" and "quackery". Reiki is "as close to impossible from basic science considerations alone as you can imagine."

As for "reiki was not intended to be scientific in its original form", organic farming (in its original form) was pretty much a religious practice. The common usage of "organic farming", however, has nothing to do with those beginnings (or, of course, the original meaning of "organic"). Reiki, whatever its original form, is now most widely known as "a healing technique". - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Novella source is fine per WP:PARITY. Or use one of the sources that SummerPhD mentions. Either way, the pseudoscientific/fringe nature of Reiki needs to be prominently mentioned, as required by policy. Alexbrn 17:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I understand the application of WP:FRINGE, the source should be fine. As with most discussions of this nature, editors bring up the subjects of original intent and history, but to use such arguments to censor information related to Reiki's scientific basis violates far too many of our core policies and goals. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You've now cited two different articles by Novella -- a blog post and a journal article. You've also twice cited David Gorski, an oncologist who is simply outspoken on the subject of pseudoscience and an advocate in this regard. You should quit relying on these POV citations, and focus on Edzard Ernst, an actual expert in alternative medicine, and the National Council Against Health Fraud. I would agree with mentioning "pseudoscience" somewhere in the lede if proper citations are provided and not blog posts. Shii (tock) 18:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog post is in the article and the subject of your complaint. A peer-reviewed journal article is a suitable alternative. I cite Gorski separately from the journal article as he was speaking independently. I see Lübeck in the article (among others) cited from more than one source (sources we have dates but not titles for). Yes, Gorski is a medical doctor; is that a problem? Lübeck, untainted by a medical degree, apparently gets his reliability from angels and living close to a "famous power spot". Scientific studies of his various spiritual powers are available at his site. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in my annoyance I overlooked the fact that the journal article does seem to be peer-reviewed and agreeable. Shii (tock) 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog is a poor source. Not only are blogs rarely peer-reviewed, WP:SELFPUB says we should not use self-published sources about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Since reiki is obviously utter bollocks (mystic energy can flow through the hands and can be used for medical purposes ... riiiiiiight) any old source will do for the lightweight claim it's pseudoscience. Only more exceptional claims would require more exceptional sourcing. The "spinning plate" image from WP:RS illustrates the principle nicely:

Alexbrn 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, just because something is wrong, doesn't make it pseudoscience. And no, we don't just get to ignore our rules about reliable sources just because we feel like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The image and caption are from WP:RS – these are our guidelines: read and learn. We are a reality-based project and these commonplace facts can have commonplace sourcing, or stronger if you wish (no harm in that). WP:Lunatic charlatans don't get passage in Misplaced Pages articles. Alexbrn 18:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You are barking up the wrong tree. No one on this noticeboard would ever go to a Reiki practitioner. The question is not whether it makes sense, it's whether the label "pseudoscience" applies. I do not regularly pray, but that doesn't mean I think prayer is "pseudoscience". For claims like this a RS is needed and not just "any old source". Shii (tock) 19:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we're off on sidetrack here. We have a peer reviewed journal (among others) directly call reiki a pseudoscience. Whether or not a weaker source would suffice is immaterial to this discussion. Given that the OP agrees this is an acceptable source and no one else seems to be saying the label is inappropriate, I think we're done here. Objections? (Incidentally, I don't think reiki is "wrong". The proper term is "not even wrong".) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a peer reviewed journal (among others) directly call reiki a pseudoscience.

I have access to the full text of that journal, and it doesn't appear to say that. Perhaps you may wish to quote the relevant section that I missed. -A1candidate 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This article quotes them as calling it pseudoscience. This says it's widely considered pseudoscience. Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology characterises it as pseudoscience. This also includes it along with homeopathy as an example of pseudoscience, quoting Gorski and thus establishing that Gorski is not just some random blogger but considered an expert in the field of pseudoscience. Are we done here yet? Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I do not have my full access at the moment and I don't see a free text of it. I may have pulled the quotes from a press release or article about the article. Though i don't recall seeing this article (and don't typically use the Daily Mail for anything), it does seem to have everything I attributed to the journal article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• the source is fine and inclusion in the lead is also appropriate. the lead should cover the major aspects of the subject, and the complete medical hokum is one of the major aspects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The lede currently says, "Used as a medical treatment, reiki confers no benefit: the American Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine have found no clinical or scientific evidence supporting claims that Reiki is effective in the treatment of any illness." I think that covers it. Most/all of the skeptic sources raised here are valid for the relevant article section, but putting the pseudoscience label in the first sentence is WP:HOWEVER. These are matters of weight, though. RS questions have been answered. Rhoark (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

a clarification in the lead sentence that the pseudoscience attribution is related to the medical / health/ energy claims. again, the lead sentence clarifies what it is notable for and that is the pseudoscientific energy claims.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Shii, Gorski and Novella are both medically qualified, Gorski is a published research scientist, so is Ernst, and all three are prominent and widely recognised authorities on fraudulent alternative health practices. Misplaced Pages is not an "integrative encyclopaedia", freely mixing fact and nonsense. Reiki is an alternative medicine therapy, and it is promoted with the same kind of pseudoscientific gobbledegook as homeopathy, therapeutic touch and numerous other refuted therapies. To frame it as a religious practice in order to obscure this, is a violation of WP:NPOV, because that is not how it is sold by its practitioners. Also, Gorski and Novella's opinion is not self-published, it's in a peer-reviewed journal: and we even have a source establishing its significance: . Guy (Help!) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• To my eyes, the source might be minimally acceptable for the information it provides. However, I can and did find a few better ones rather easily on Google searching for the words pseudoscience and reiki. There is a good question whether the word should be included in the lead. That, I acknowledge, I am less sure of, and to an extent question, along the lines of Shii above. That would probably better be handled at the NPOVN. I guess the questions for that board would be whether the benefits claimed by reiki are of what might be called a "scientific" nature and whether it might be being effectively misused as a science, maybe like a theoretical case of a defrocked priest offering exorcisms for psychological benefits. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• reliable Novella and Gorski are each widely recognized experts on quackery and pseudoscience. Per SPS :"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - Quackwatch is a reliable source on these matters. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) (added 'reliable" at front Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

• Not a reliable source: I don't believe a self-published blog from a neuroscienctist should be used in the Lead to define the subject. My understanding of expert sources is that merely being an academic and publishing works is not enough. Their work itself has to be the subject of significant discussion in other sources. Its actual application is much narrower than how it tends to be used to rationalize poor sources. However @SummerPhD: has already provided plenty of much better sources to replace it with and there's no reason to use weaker sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't need the blog in the lede, we have the peer-reviewed article by the same author. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM pardon me, but did you read my post right above yours? Novella and Gorski are both well-known in the field of skepticism - they are experts in pseudoscience. please check out their WP articles and of course the sources cited there. POV-pushers of alt-med quackery hate HATE HATE when Novella/Gorski are cited and constantly try to make the argument their expertise is limited to neurology/neurosci for Novella and cancer for Gorski; its just distortion. thx. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody hates them. They are respecatable scientists who are free to publish any of their arguments in a review article which we could then cite, or they could post it on their blogs and be ignored. -A1candidate 15:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, this is really unnecessary personalization and battleground mentality. I urge you to trim the snide comments about other editors and focus on the content issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

i didn't say that anybody hates Novella or Gorski. i said that PoVPoAMQs hate when they are cited. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Totally unnecessary, totally inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I'm no expert in WP:MEDRS matters, but my understanding is that WP:UGC's expert exception doesn't apply to medical claims (which are specifically addressed by a different section of WP:RS). Per WP:MEDRS, the broad and unqualified claim that reiki is pseudoscience should probably require a literature review. I also I think the rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources applies here. Despite the very reasonable skepticism over its efficacy, reiki is quite widespread and is offered by many hospitals. WaPo: "Reiki is now viewed by many as an effective, accepted alternative practice in mainstream America, where at least 1.2 million adults have tried the energy healing therapy." (source: ) The suggestions in this discussion such as "no one on this noticeboard would ever go to a reiki practitioner" are made in sheet ignorance. And derogatory comments (such as those dismissing reiki as "obviously utter bollocks") should be made more sensitively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  Nonsense. MEDRS only applies to medical claims. FRINGE applies in this case. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS gives "specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." -A1candidate 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense back at ya. :-) This is a medical claim, is it not? I agree that FRINGE trumps MEDRS, but to get into FRINGE-land there has to be a consensus in the medical community that reiki is pseudoscience. I'm pretty confident there's no such consensus. This falls pretty squarely in the "questionable science" bucket. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As DrFleischman says, since reiki is not a medical procedure, but a delusional quack treatment, WP:FRINGE is the correct reference, not WP:MEDRS. You won't get reliable medical sources expending much effort on something that has no remotely plausible mechanism of action and no credible evidence base. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS would be necessary to say that Reiki is not pseudoscience. A MEDRS is not needed to say that magical claims are pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, the expert in the magic and medicine, has dubbed reiki magic, not medicine. I guess that settles it. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with the reliability of the source in question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't put words in your mouth, so it's not only dishonest but rude to do the same for me. I don't need to be an expert in medicine, I just have to see that there are no MEDRSs that describe Reiki as medicine, but there are sources describing it as the usual Vitalist Energy medicine magical pseudoscience. If we need a MEDRS to say that something has no medical value, we would need a MEDRS to describe Russian roulette as potentially lethal. The "MEDRS needed to say pseudoscience" argument demonstrates at best a major misunderstanding of NPOV, if not outright tendentious editing (not you, but I'm getting ready to name other names). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable medical review article to back up a dubious claim about a treatment that is an "accepted alternative practice" for more than a million people (according to DrFleischman's source in the Washington Post), then it simply means that the claim is false and you should not use a self-published blog to support it. -A1candidate 13:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What claim is false and why? If I understand you correctly, you believe that because a treatment is widely used, that somehow means that it is not quackery? --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think what A1 is saying is that you need particularly reliable sourcing for the claim that a widely used treatment is quackery. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

On the note of needing a literature review, WP:PARITY applies here. For fringe topics, they typically don't get coverage in mainstream literature because they typically just get ignored. If we want to specifically use the term "scientific consensus", that usually requires literature reviews, but there are other variations to demonstrate an idea is fringe, quackery, psuedoscience, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable for this instance. WP:PARITY applies in this specific usage. We have a lower bar for considering something reliable when describing a fringe topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This makes no sense at all. WP:PARITY has no bearing on the reliability of any particular source. It only comes into play when comparing two conflicting and otherwise reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

??? "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." Novella and Gorski are the most reliable sources out there for FRINGE stuff. That sentence is what validates their use in these contexts. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So true. I had missed that, and my apology to Kingofaces43. Regardless, I still fail to understanding the basis for how we're in fringe theory-land as opposed questionable theory-land. I see an awful lot of "duh it's so obvious" comments, which makes me wonder if much of the skepticism I see here is little more than blind faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there MEDRSs describing Reiki as scientifically valid medicine? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

First, does Reiki at all make a claim to be medicine? To the best of my knowledge, they only talk about healing which is definitely not the same as "treating", as any cultural anthropologist will explain. They are not the only ones to "heal" - for example, clinical psychology also talks about healing. Yet, medical practitiones are usually not authoritative with respect to psychology, so I don't understand why they should be considered authority on healing or other "para" type things? Moreover, among doctors, you will find ones who support "alternative therapies" and those who oppose them, and both these categories do publish in peer-reviewed journals. Why should we take a medical doctor as an authority on Reiki, that fails my understanding. IMHO, it is sufficient to mention that medicine did not find any clinical evidence that Reiki could help in any medical condition (except perhaps for a well-recognised placebo effect which should always be kept in mind when writing about alternative trerapies). kashmiri 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

^@Kashmiri:: Exactly. This same issue comes up on the other post on this noticeboard, where someone says that Reiki is "medicine". It has nothing to do with Western Medicine. David Tornheim (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this area, but my understanding is that some people claim reiki to be an effective medical treatment while others see it more as a spiritual practice. There is certainly a debate out there about whether it's an effective medical treatment, and to that extent the question of whether it should be labeled a pseudoscience is an important one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

there is no legitimate debate about it, as an effective treatment for anything. there are "lunatic charlatans" who claim it is effective for treating diseases or conditions, and the scientific communtity, which says "Baloney". that's not a debate. with regard to its use for pleasure or spiritual development, science has nothing to say and "pseudoscience" doesn't apply. if our article talks only about pleasure and spiritual uses, all the talk of pseudoscience could and should come out. (this is where our articles self-destruct. if people who like these techniques would limit themselves to just describing uses in traditional medicine, or uses for pleasure or spiritual growth, and not keep trying to say that they actually contribute to health or treat disease - in other words, if they would stay clear of making claims about health that are testable with the scientific method - then things could be lovely.) Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I see it this way: Some people swear by treating cancer with carrot juice. There is no clinical evidence, for whatever reasons. But should we then go to carrot article and quickly label eating carrots as pseudoscience? I am no expert, either, but I see a lot of people using Reiki simply as a relaxation technique (which is absolutely valid in light of contemporary psychology). Moreover, medical scientists tend to be cautious in formulating their conclusions (see here: doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x) and I see no reason why us Misplaced Pages editors should not follow this example. I've seen that a few editors here feel that Misplaced Pages should bring enlightenment to the dark masses, not noticing that science has evolved since 1960s and the former black-white categorisation of medical theories and treatments is now giving way to postmodernist approaches. kashmiri 23:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. In that way the article as currently written is not neutral. But that goes way beyond this particular discussion, which is about the reliability of a particular source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

hell no. mainstream science is not post-modernist. there are critical theory people who like to talk about that kind of handwavy junk, and alt-med POV-pushers love to try to relativize science, but that is not mainstream, realworld, science. 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, "realworld" science! Makes me laugh. Only last month I witnessed two acclaimed medical researchers arguing whether muscle tissue is affected in a particular medical condition or not. I guess your view is that one of them must have been a pseudo-scientist, no? Because only one can be true in your view, no? Try to understand that science, especially medical science, is not about truths cast in stone but about constant research, constant quest, and there is nothing relativist about it. Pity that neophytes memorise scientific discoveries but forget to display the same humility to the current state of knowledge as actual scientists. kashmiri 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

oh blech. scientists in the life sciences are absolutely crawling around in the dark trying to figure stuff out. nobody sane would ever deny that. but going so far as to deploy that, and the real scientific debates that arise, to justify some po-mo radical relativism, is either ignorance or willful bullshitting (speech intended to persuade with regard for truth)... or most likely, a combination of them. the scientific method is all based on a realist model - there are actual facts out there, that we can discover. it is not just a wash of discourses embedded in power structures. phooey Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• unreliable -- self-published blog, by self-proclaimed "expert" from "fringe" movement Scientific skepticism* is no better than a self-published blog from self-proclaimed "expert" in Reiki. (* "fringe"--based on the definition I see applied on this notice board to very popular things like Reiki.) David Tornheim (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:PARITY applies - Reiki is a WP:FRINGE claim; it "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." The particular fields are science and medicine. Reiki claims to tap invisible, undetectable, unlimited energy and apply it is some unknown way to treat any and all ailments, without regard to time and space. These claims, if true, would allow a reiki practitioner today to "treat" Abraham Lincoln's gunshot wound in the 19th century. This is a significant departure from testable (a.k.a. "scientific") claims. How "popular" the woo is has no bearing on the question. Please review Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This may be a bit of a straw man argument. Some people claim reiki has these sorts of magical powers, some don't. Some people say reiki is a spiritual practice, some people say it's just comforting, and some people say it may have some limited medical benefit. What I'm saying is you have to look at the specific claim. To say reiki is categorically fringe is going too far. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

^Exactly.David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there are two basic questions involved here. One, is reiki pseudoscientific. So far as I can tell, yes, it is both somewhat inherently pseudoscientific, as its claims are more or less for physical improvement of some sort. The second question is harder. To what extent are all traditional Chinese medicine practices pretty much the same thing, including other possible "variants" on what might broadly be called qigong-type practices, and to what extent WEIGHT would be involved in how prominently to display the word pseudoscience in every article related to qi related therapies and/or TCM, both of which are themselves, so far as I can tell, counted as being fairly universally pseudoscientific. I have a feeling that question would probably better be handled at NPOVN for questions of WEIGHT and/or maybe an RfC specifically related to reiki or one about the amount of prominence or weight to give the word "pseudoscience" or some variation thereon in these specific articles relative to other roughly synonymous terms like TCM. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding removal of tertiary sources from an article

I would be very interested in any comments regarding the removal of tertiary sources as sources from the List of new religious movements article, the bulk of which is indicated by the revision history here. The primary concerns are whether the removal is actually necessarily supported by policy and guidelines, and the second, probably bigger, concern is whether it is reasonable to, in at least one instance included in the changes indicated above, leave at least one of the items listed unsourced by the removal of the tertiary source. Also, considering the sometimes controversial nature of the term NRM itself, I would be interested in whether or not having as many such sources, primary, secondary, or tertiary, would be perhaps in the best interests of the article, to eliminate the question as to whether the inclusion of a subject is based on perhaps one single perhaps questionable claim in one source or not. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In the long run, any entries not sourced to reliable secondary sources should probably end up removed from the (as you point out) controversial list. The editnotice for the list has been in place since 2009 and clearly specifies that "All material in the article must be sourced with citations to secondary sources" as a part of the inclusion criteria. Tertiary sources may help us with high-level context, but (especially in a controversial area), secondary sources are needed. Having said all of that, there may not be any harm in leaving the tertiary sources in place - we just need to ensure that secondary sources are added (or the entries are removed). --Tgeairn (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The above comment is, unfortunately I believe, very much in error, and I very much welcome the input of any uninvolved editors regarding that matter. It has been well and repeatedly stated here and on the other noticeboards that tertiary sources are at least acceptable to demonstrate that given topics can be included in lists. The rather, at least to my eyes, seriously questionable statement in this edit summary regarding what that individual declares, apparently by fiat, is the "primary interest" is not in fact the most important thing. I myself believe that the statements of the above editor are themselves an indicator of perhaps less than adequate understanding of policies and guidelines, particularly when removing a tertiary source leaves an entry in a list unsourced, and believe it not unreasonable to request that someone whose grasp of procedures is perhaps questionable not declare themselves as being the judge and jury regarding what sourcing is and is not adequate for inclusion in a list. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are suitable for general information about a subject. I believe the edit notice is contrary to policy and should be modified. In addition, not everyone makes a distinction between secondary and tertiary sources; some lump secondary and tertiary sources together as secondary sources. So if the edit notice doesn't have a link to the definition of secondary source intended by the edit notice, who's to say tertiary sources don't satisfy the edit notice? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really an RSN issue, more of a WP:NORN issue, but oh well. Neither of you are quite right on this. WP:OR is quite clear that tertiary sources can be used and are even preferable in some situations. Secondary sources are not required. However, stylistically it's inappropriate to cite "as many such sources, primary, secondary, or tertiary," as possible, as this is a recipe for citation overkill. In most cases a good approach is to cite the single most reliable source available. An exception to this is the rule that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Most of the content at List of new religious movements seems pretty unexceptional to me. And I think a few sources (say, three) should be sufficient even for the most exceptional content in the encyclopedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right of course on the overkill aspect being potentially abused. We shouldn't overburden an entry with, for instance, more than a few citations unless the material being cited is particularly questionable. Unfortunately, I regret to say, I don't myself know of any group which really likes being called an NRM, and that makes effectively every entry in the list potentially questionable by that group's supporters. And, again unfortunately, considering the sometimes questionable arguments about some of these entires, and the fact that some of the sources used might not specifically use NRM per se in the title, like Lewis's Encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions, which is probably one of the best sources in general on the topic but arguably doesn't use the exact phrase NRM per se, sometimes multiple citations are appropriate. So, maybe, that source and others like it which might not use the exact term prominently, and one of the others which does specifically prominently use the phrase NRM, might be useful, and, if one of them might be challenged by some, a third for confirmation of that one. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a group doesn't like being labeled a certain way doesn't strike me as a proper reason to invoke WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Invocation of that policy should be reserved for, well, extraordinary cases, and if we used the criterion you suggest it would be invoked an awful lot. As for sources not specifically using the NRM term, that's really a verification issue. Either the source verifies the content or it doesn't, and this must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the source doesn't verify the content it shouldn't be cited, and adding more non-verifying sources would only make the article that much more misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, historically, the arguments get made an awful lot. And one of the other really regrettable situations with this particular topic is the fact that the term NRM is so newly agreed upon, well after the anticult movement started, that the arguments based on cult≠NRM or sect≠NRM are rather frequently made. If there were more really good sources since the establishment of the term, that wouldn't be as much of a problem, but there are only one or two journals dealing with the topics and the number of books and other sources since the development of the term which really use the term at all prominently isn't that good. So, yea, it could even be argued, perhaps somewhat effectively, that even an article about the topic in Nova Religio or the older journal "Syzygy" does not necessarily mean that the subject qualifies as an NRM. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case our article might be a good candidate for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON #6. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to have an opinion on the matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that John Carter's point about the lack of reliable secondary sources, particularly the lack of sources that agree with one another, is a good argument for having a WP:Secondary requirement for inclusion. As the list stands now, we have several hundred references to three of the sources. For the list to have value beyond being a reprint, we can and should do better than that. If we can't, then the entry doesn't belong on the list (or the whole list should go as DrFleischman mentions above). The tertiary sources can certainly stay referenced in the article/list, but secondaries should be required for inclusion. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your POV is noted. However, your argument that a list can only have value if it is "beyond being a reprint" to my eyes seems to show a misunderstanding of one of our core policies as per WP:VERIFIABILITY, and I find it nothing less than amazing that someone who describes himself as an experienced editor seems to be arguing that his personal opinion about what are sufficient basis for inclusion should take priority over extant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with John on this point. As I explained, removal because of citation solely to tertiary sources is directly contravened by our policy on original research. My point about deletion was something completely different. I'm saying the inclusion criteria might be either unusably narrow (labeled by RS's as an NRM) or unusably ambiguous (labeled by RS's as something that may or may not be synonymous with NRM). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case, the term NRM is occasionally avoided in favor of more "politically correct" language, but the different terms like "emerging religions" are all pretty much describing the same set of groups. The field itself, perhaps strangely, in this case seems to be, based on the available academic sources, more clearly defined than the specific name most frequently given to the field. I aee on WorldCat the dominant categorization terms seem to be "cult," "sect," and "new religious movement," or plurals or translations thereupon, so the field is fairly well defined, even if the terminology still isn't. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are acceptable, but articles must be based mainly on secondary sources. I never use them and if it were up to me I would ban them. However, I see no reason to remore them as sources unless better sources are provided or the text they supported is removed. TFD (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

this depends on the specific sources. Tertiary sources such as reliable subject encyclopedias are usually even more appropriate for Misplaced Pages articles , at least as a foundation, than more specific secondary sources. On the other hand, a mere list of organizations under a heading is not usually a reliable source unless it is a list that shows them meeting an important and specific criterion, and is compiled by a reliable publisher. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC) .

celebritytonic.com

Is celebritytonic.com a reliable source? Their disclaimer page is seriously not promising. For example, "We source our information from third party websites and the information may not always be accurate" and "we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website content". --Geniac (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a dead giveaway that it's unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty obvious case - not reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 18:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not a reliable source. The website's content is solely based off of gossip. Comatmebro 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

endgame.org

Was used at Citizens for a Sound Economy for the claim

Between 1986 and 1990, CSE was granted almost $5 million from various ]. "David Koch and several Koch Industries employees served as directors of CSE and the CSE Foundation."<ref>{{cite web |last=Draffan |first=George |date=2000 |url=http://www.endgame.org/corpcon2.html#CitizensforaSoundEconomy |title=The Corporate Consensus: A Guide to the Institutions of Global Power |accessdate=March 18, 2015}}</ref>

It appears to be a personal blog of George Draffan, with big sections about the Bilderburg conspirators etc. Collect (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a convenience link for a book published by "Apex Press and the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy". Apex Press is an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, so it's presumably reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Book" might be overstating the case. According to the WorldCat entry at OCLC 48396103 it is "114 unnumbered pages : illustrations ; 28 cm", and held by just five libraries in the world. Draffan's other works are much more widely held, including one published by Apex, OCLC 492765725. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right. But "The Elite Consensus" apparently is an updated version of the linked original, and it makes Draffan into a published expert. It might be better to dig out the new edition, but since the claim is fare from exceptional, I'd accept the original, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep in a sense -- but that means his conspiracy theories then also become a usable source? He seems a prominent "Bilderburg conspiracy" sort, alas. I would suggest it is a deficient source for any contentious claims about living persons as a result. Collect (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"While the ERT subtly masterminds its grand vision of Europe in collaboration with the European Commission, another Brussels-based European lobby group is busy implementing the less glamorous but equally critical details. Whereas ERT is quietly proactive, UNICE is a reactive, detail-obsessed, supremely efficient lobby machine. Its working groups dissect every proposal, regulation, directive and article emerging from Brussels before spitting influential position papers back into the policy-making apparatus. Its efforts often result in the adoption of business-friendly initiatives, and the blockage of more socially or environmental progressive legislation" from endgame.org. I note the Koch $5 million quote is found in many (33) pages now - with no "original source" given. Unfortunately, I find no source specifically cited by Draffen for the claim. Collect (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Publishers at reiki

In the process of cleaning out numerous self-published books at reiki, I have found several publishers that I cannot find anything about. Several of them are used by authors whose other works I had removed as self-published. They are being used to explain details of a fringe practice, the history of the practice, etc. As some of the claims are quite extraordinary, I don't want to have claims attributed to all reiki believers if the claims are actually limited to "some" believers.

Any information/opinions on the RS status of Lotus Press, New Leaf Distribution Company, Headway and Ulysses Press would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that Reiki is "Fringe"? According to this site there are 1 Million Practitioners. I have seen it in many cities. It is offered in universities and there are numerous organizations including international organizations, which list practitioners in every state in the U.S.David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: I should have said WP:FRINGE. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Reiki energy is unlimited and is not limited by time or space. Science does not recognize anything in any way resembling this. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable -- All four publishers look as reliable as a mainstream publishers like Barnes & Noble (which publishes things like these and these) or Random House (that publishes these and these). Headway is part of Oxford University Press.David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The publishers may be mainstream - that does not however necessarily make content regarding fringe medical practice reliable - see Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiki is not a Western Medical Practice. It is an Eastern Healing Practice--originating in Japan. (see: here). Neither is Yoga a Western Medical Practice. David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

How exactly is that statement even supposed to be remotely relevant? Misplaced Pages does not apply different standards regarding sourcing depending on geography, or on the labels used by practitioners. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You are judging the practice using the eyes of Western Medicine. The two system are totally different. See , , , . I'm not sure why you call Reiki "fringe"--it is quite popular. Does Misplaced Pages advocate labeling the entirety of Eastern culture, thought, healing and medicine "fringe"? That's a scary prospect. David Tornheim (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am making no such judgement - I am pointing out that Misplaced Pages does not apply differing standards regarding sourcing depending on the origins of medically-related practice. Feel free to propose that the policy be changed if you wish (not here though - the appropriate place would probably be Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) considering the significance of the proposal) but meanwhile, I ask that you refrain from giving misleading statements regarding existing policy on this noticeboard. 11:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of making misleading statements regarding existing policy. I did not make a statement about Misplaced Pages policy; I asked you a question, because of the slippery slope nature of your contention that an Eastern healing practice like Reiki is WP:Fringe.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oxford's "Headway" is not a publisher of reiki books, it is an English course (take a closer look at your link). I am not talking about B&N or Random House, I am asking whether there is significant, meaningful evidence that these publishers meet our policy. I do not see any indication of this. (How popular they are is immaterial. Comic book publishers are quite popular, but don't expect Misplaced Pages to cite them any time soon for evidence that there is an alien living in NYC who flies around fighting super villains, while passing himself off as a reporter.) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Lotus Press publishes books on Astrology and Tarot Esoteric Arts. Their Science and Technology books are : Windows 95 how to. I do not see anything establishing a reputation for reliability from that one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• New Leaf Distribution Company also seems particularly sketchy as in something that unquestioningly spews forth alt med / new age claims with no actual scientific background or oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything I have read indicates that Reiki is not a scientific process. That a source is alt med, new age, self-help or spiritual does not make it unreliable, unless it is with regards to scientific claims or testable health claims (assuming the publisher has made no effort to fact check). It is more like psychotherapy or Freud's theories. One can say for example, "Practitioners claim Practice Q solves ailments X, Y and Z, but western scientists have found no evidence for such claims." That is an NPOV that DESCRIBES what the practice claims and what scientist or Western med. has to say about it. But to only put the West's view claiming that all of Reiki is WP:Fringe is terribly biased.David Tornheim (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The continued assertion that Reiki is WP:Fringe is quite problematic. In another RS post above, a user admits that they believe no one here would even consider going to a Reiki practitioner to find out what it is about. This does not exactly sound like an open-minded crowd willing to look to experts in the FIELD of Reiki, but who instead have an a priori bias against Reiki, having decided without any real investigation that Reiki is a worthless practice and that anyone who advocates it can not be an expert in it and that only those who criticize it should have a voice about it, finding those people and then replacing the Reiki experts' voices with those of the critics they have found who share their POV instead. The other RS post even goes so far as to advocate use of a self-published blog from a skeptic! If this is indeed the plan, that is a very serious problem for NPOV -and- choice of RS.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources used in the GamerGate Article

Yes, I know. GamerGate ... But I think since this controversy already made Misplaced Pages look bad (ArbCom drama) we should insure that the article quality actually improves. And one massive problem standing in the way is the amount of factually wrong statements that are sourced but provably wrong and every argument regarding the truth is dismissed with a handwaving of WP:RS. My opinion is that the reliability of sources should be judged individually whenever possible.

There are many examples and I will start with only one. I don't want to waste anybody's time.

Source: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html

I will list what statement the source supports on the GamerGate article as well as if/why the statements are false/inacurate:

• "Quinn's detractors falsely alleged that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of the game"

The accusation wasn't even that there was a review. But in any case: "Nathan Grayson has, provably, written twice about Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest in a favorable manner without disclosure at both Kotaku, on March 31st, 2014, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 8th, 2014. It was proven that Grayson and Quinn were close together since January 10th, 2014 and had at least known each other since June, 2012. Grayson was also thanked in the credits of Depression Quest." Source. To quote from the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article: "Anyway, standouts: powerful Twine darling Depression Quest, surrealist Thief usurper Tangiers, and sidescrolling epic Treasure Adventure World." (article about 50 games greenlit).

• "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies. Some supporters have denied this label, but acknowledge that there are misogynistic voices within it."

The according piece from Jesse Singal's article is supported by "proof". If you read the proof, it becomes quite clear that Jesse Singal misrepresented his source, in other words it is a lie (by accident?): The author of the "proof" only describes himself as antifeminist, but not GamerGate itself.

• "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their actions are driven by a concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues."

I don't object to that, although the wording "unethical conspiracy" can be seen as judgemental and should be avoided. Another question would be what is to be considered a conspiracy. There were in fact ethical mishaps uncovered by GamerGate and several platforms changed their ethical guidelines - but this is going to far for this discussion.

• "Because of its anonymous membership, lack of organization and leaderless nature, sources widely differ as to the goals or mission of Gamergate. With no single person or group able to speak for the Gamergate, defining it has been difficult."

• "Singal was critical of the movement's lack of organization and leadership commenting on their "refus to appoint a leader or write up a platform"."

No objection here (but relevance?).

• "Jesse Singal, writing for New York based on a post he made to Reddit, stated that he had spoken to several Gamergate supporters to try to understand their concerns, but found conflicting ideals and incoherent messages. Singal observed that despite being told by supporters that Gamergate was not about misogyny, he saw Gamergate supporters making a constant series of attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian, and other women."

The actual observation taken from Singal's article:

"When I visited KIA on Sunday, for example — again, the subreddit I was explicitly instructed to visit if I wanted to see the real Gamergate — three of the top six posts were about the indie developer Brianna Wu (a subject of harassment and threats), the feminist commentator Anita Sarkeesian (ditto), or the “social-justice warriors” (SJWs) that Gamergaters love to ridicule for polluting gaming with their "radical" ideas. Keep in mind that merely mentioning Wu or Sarkeesian or Quinn to many Gamergaters lights a white-hot fury in them — This is not about them, they will insist, ad nauseam, to the point that the more clever of their lot have started referring to them not by name but by the label "Literally Who" (or LW) 1, 2, and 3 (as in "I literally have no idea who that is")."

Singal just states that there are discussions about these women, but nothing remotely like "constant series of attacks".

To summarize: Not only contains the source inaccurate and false information, but these false informations are reprinted on Misplaced Pages but also is the source itself misrepresented (last point).

I propose to declare this source unreliable and encourage all interested Wikipedians to check the reliability of other sources as well. Citogenitor 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Your "fact checking" does not counter the YEARS AND YEARS of reputation for scrupulous fact checking by that organization. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Logical fallacy: Appeal to tradition (Once considered reliable, always reliable). Sorry, this doesn't work. Challenging the status quo and old ideas is the fundament of progress. If we don't question the reliability of sources regularly nothing will improve in that department. And I don't ask to dismiss NY magazine (or whatever the publisher is called), I don't ask to dismiss everything Singal has written. I ask to dismiss this particular article. If a source supports claims with contradictory statements it can't be considered reliable.Citogenitor 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is quite literally policy. We accept as reliable sources those sources which have proven over the years to be reliable sources and gained a reputation for their fact checking accuracy and editorial oversight. this source has established such a reputation and your personal "fact checking" does nothing to alter that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fact Monster"

The article Sneakers (footwear) has recently been augmented by two kilobytes loosely attributed to "Fact Monster" (though some of the addition is not in this source). Neither "Fact Monster" nor "factmonster.com" appears in the WP:RSN archive. The page looks feeble to me: it's unsigned, it says nothing about its own sources, it's written for kids (and thus particularly susceptible to simplification and the lure of an attractive story). But the short article Fact Monster (revised only trivially in the last eight years) seems to take the website seriously (it calls it not an "infotainment website" or similar but instead a "fact center"). Am I perhaps just snobbish? -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Does not look Reliable to me. It also appears to be close to a copyright violation. I think the user adding it should provide some evidence as to why they think this is RS. In the meantime, I think the material should be removed from the article.David Tornheim (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

NB this is the editor's first and (the last time I looked) only edit, so we have to put it rather gently. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

^If indeed it is the user's only edit, I agree no WP:BITE. Let's guide user to use better sources, as I suggest below. The user might even be a child, so let's use "kid's gloves." David Tornheim (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a secondary source, check the Columbia_Encyclopedia page, it seems they license its use to a range of groups. Gudzwabofer (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If the material comes from Columbia Encyclopedia, which certainly sounds more reliable, then I suggest using that as the RS rather than "Fact Monster", which as far as I saw had no citations for its "facts". I see nothing wrong with kids learning material without extensive footnoting, but I think we want something a bit more reliable where readers can more easily trace the evidence claims of secondary sources back to their primary sources and scholarly research, rather than going through an extra layer. David Tornheim (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Hoary: Factmonster is a publication of Pearson Education, a reputable publisher; on the other hand it is a website intended for kids (elementary and middle-schoolers). So while it may be fine, though not ideal, as a source for non-contentious information, don't use it for anything remotely disputable, not because it is likely to be outright false but because (as you suspect) it is probably greatly simplified for the intended audience. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking at the particular edit of concern: the content was paraphrased too closely, bordering on copyvio (the paraphrasing was so close that I didn't even notice the word substitutions initially), and had to be removed, of course. But if the user had indeed properly paraphrased the content from Factmonster (and added it to a History, rather than an Etymology section), that would have been fine IMO since it would be a sourced improvement to the current Sneakers (footwear) article, which could always be upgraded with better sources and more details in future edits. Abecedare (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy

I was told this is not a reliable source:

http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf

I'm at a loss as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gudzwabofer (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 March 2015‎

Please see the notice at the top of this page - we need to know the article it is being cited in, and what text precisely it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I was told it isn't fit to be used for the Naturopathy page at all because it contradicts someone else's sources, and was published 10 years ago (making it younger than a lot of pre-existing sources on the page). They also failed to recognise that the reason the systematic review this source refers to isn't accompanied by in text referencing is because the systematic review is a component of this source. They advised me to post it here.

Here is a copy of what I posted, which was deleted.

In 2003, the Victorian government commissioned La Trobe University to undertake a review of Naturopathy in Australia. This built on the 2003 Federal Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System.. Among its findings was that "A review of 77 systematic reviews published between 2001 and 2003 suggested that there is now evidence of the benefits of naturopathy and WHM for almost every body system and all major illnesses. It can be concluded that the ‘tools of the trade’ of naturopathy and WHM can be effective, and that the practice of naturopathy and WHM is therefore potentially effective," and that "The list of what are considered by conventional medicine practitioners to be complementary therapies changes continually, as those therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care and as new approaches to health care emerge ." The report identified the potential risks of naturopathy as " inappropriate prescribing, failure to be aware of contraindications, inappropriate dosage, and inappropriate duration of therapy." It described the main contributor to this as being lack of education on the part of the practitioner. The report recognised that there had been significant progress in naturopathic education, with many universities now offering Bachelor degrees, but that there was still progress to be made on consistent quality across all institutions. The report recommended government regulation and protection of title for naturopathy, among other professions.

3. http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf School of Public Health, La Trobe University. Retrieved 21 March 2015.

4. http://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/committees-eccmhs-report-031031.pdf Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 21 March 2015.

5. http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf School of Public Health, La Trobe University. Retrieved 21 March 2015.

Gudzwabofer (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looks Reliable to me. David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a report on "The Practice and Regulatory Requirements of Naturopathy and Western Herbal Medicine", rather than a systematic review of the efficacy of naturopathy - only 26 pages of 319 actually constitute "A Review of Reviews of the Benefits of Naturopathy and Western Herbal Medicine", and the section was written by practitioners of complementary medicine - perhaps not the best source for an impartial overview. Accordingly, I have to suggest that it might not be an ideal source for such claims. Apart from anything else, there appears to be no evidence that this section of the report was subject to peer review, as would occur with more normal systematic reviews published in scientific journals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Professor Stephen Myers has qualifications in western medicine and pharmacology as well as naturopathy and works for a mainstream university, The workforce section for nat/whm was done by an industry rep, the rest seem to be employees of la trobe, uws, and rmit. The report has been published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, which is a peer reviewed journal.Gudzwabofer (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the report meets WP:MEDRS for medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is unreliable for the use you want to put it to. It is clear from the Naturopathy talk page, and here, that your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is lacking. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, based on the assumption that an expert in a field isn't qualified to write about it, something which you won't find applied to other disciplines, I'll limit my use of the offending section of this report, but I'll be trucking a lot of the existing naturopathy sources onto this page, especially the ones I'm yet to get answers about on the naturopathy talk page.Gudzwabofer (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is this good enough for medical claims?

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicine

Gudzwabofer (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it is an accurate summary of mainstream scientific consensus - the standard by which we assess content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It has no in text referencing, this disclaimer:

Note: This information may not cover all possible claims, uses, actions, precautions, side effects or interactions. It is not intended as medical advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with your doctor, who is familiar with your medical situation.

And when I tried to extend a quote from it in the naturopathy page, I was told it was a "misleading summary", cmon guys, you can't have it both ways.Gudzwabofer (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clearly does not meet WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Does it not? I'm confused. Please enlighten me, why not? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck, could you clarify which source you are referring to, since Gudzwabofer has confusingly (and inappropriately) brought another source into the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh heck sorry, I assumed there was only one source being discussed, the one at the top of the post. That is what I was referring to. I apologize for my misunderstanding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for the confusion. We are discussing http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf then. What is wrong with it as a reliable source? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Victoria study would be reliable for health content, but fails MEDRS, specifically WP:MEDDATE Study is 10 years old, and there are more recent reviews. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• ACS source is reliable for health content, per WP:MEDRS - is recent (2013) and is a statement by a major medical organization. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As a report produced on behalf of the Victorian Department of Human Services, the report is clearly a reliable source and nominally even a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (under WP:MEDORG). However the question of binary reliability-unreliability is IMO somewhat of a red-herring. The relevant question is how much weight this report should be given in the Naturopathy article. For starters, a report by the health department of an Australian state surely does not command as much weight as more reputable bodies such as WHO, NAS/IoM, NIH (and its divisions), British Health Service, or even Australia's NHMRC (not to mention reputable systemic reviews, such as Cochrane's). So the text proposed by Gudzwabofer is certainly excessively long and detailed. However there may reason enough to cite the report briefly in the naturopathy article. One way to judge this, given that the report is ~10 years old, would be to see whether later review articles and surveys of naturopathy cite the report (either positively or neutrally); if they do then summarize the report in about a sentence. If they ignore it, or cite it critically, leave it out altogether. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable: I only read this far: "In 2003, the Victorian government commissioned La Trobe University" (emphasis added). Then the source says it is published by La Trobe University. Looks like a primary source and should therefore not be used. CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I think that is putting a rather fine point on it. Presumably the commission was awarded in the expectation that the results and recommendations would be published. We don't say that a paper is a primary source because the authors of the paper list their names as authors. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

NCCIH

• Source: "Reiki: What You Need To Know". National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. September 2014.
• Article: Reiki
• Source language: "Several groups of experts have evaluated the evidence on Reiki, and all of them have concluded that it’s uncertain whether Reiki is helpful."

(1) Is this a reliable source? (2) Is attribution required?

(Note: To avoid confusion, NCCIH is a U.S. federal agency tasked with determining the usefulness and safety of alternative medical interventions.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that the source's reliability has been impeached here: . It is reliable for the opinions of a national center whose mandate is to provide a clearinghouse of information for alternative medicine -- not necessarily to evaluate it properly. Attribution would be appropriate lest the reader be lead to conclude that there is some uncertainty in the scientific community where none exists (it is intentionally not in NCCIH's remit to evaluate scientific certainty on any topic). jps (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources at the bottom suggest it's a tertiary source. A bit iffy. I'm not a fan of government-published materials, but it does not appear this particular agency is involved in politics, legislation, or regulation in such a way that would make them involved. It might be better to just find similar statements in the articles they have cited. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Usadojo.com

I'd like to get a disinterested opinion on usadojo.com and worldwidedojo.com as reliable sources. It doesn't look like there is much editorial oversight and I'm bothered by the appearance than anyone can submit an article and , especially the statement that new articles will be released as quickly as possible. These sites are being used in a BLP, sometimes to support some questionable claims. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

These don't look like reliable sources to me. The structure and organization of the websites are also a bit mysterious, as well as the abundance of advertisements. I wouldn't trust them being used in a BLP, so maybe suggest to the author that they need to find some additional sources to verify the information. Maybe send them to WP:RS for some guidance. Cheers, Comatmebro 23:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've linked the author to all the relevant policies and guidelines because of his propensity to use SPS's as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Larry Derfner at '972 magazine. Can the magazine be used for opinions?

An IP removed text from the article Pallywood

The text was sourced to +972 Magazine, the grounds for removal was that the source did not contain the the matter attributed to it. False edit summary.

I restored it and added an additional source from the same writer.

Larry Derfner was a columnist and feature writer for the Jerusalem Post, an Israeli correspondant for the U.S. News and World Report. He has written for the Sunday Times of London, and other newspapers like The Nation, Salon Tablet, The Forward etc.

I was reverted by User:Plot Spoiler His edit summary reads.’ Not WP:RS. Blog..’

At RSN this magazine has been discussed here and here for example. Precedent suggests that it can be used, for opinions, not facts.

In my edit, a fact was not being stated, an opinion that the word ‘Pallywood’ is an ethnic slur, containing a conspiracy theory POV was being referenced, to Derfner.

This looks fair to me. Automatic exclusion on sight without contextual evaluation, is not good practice. Comments only from independent, I/P neutral wikipedians would be appreciatedNishidani (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any of this (not the term, or the authors, or the sources), but just looking at it in a general way would it be acceptable to specifically attribute to the author by name rather than saying slightly more strongly that the name is commonly understood this way? I am asking this in a purely practical way, because ending a discussion like this with a compromise is sometimes a "quick fix".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course. My point was, that was the obvious solution for both editors. They chose simply to erase the text, the first on false grounds, the second on spurious grounds, when the easy way out is (a) drop a note on the talk page (b) suggest, after checking around, a compromise.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable: The author of http://972mag.com/whats-an-ashkenazi-leftist-to-do/104706/ the source] is listed under the "Voices" section, which is a term usually used to identify op-eds. This is consistent with the tone of the source, which is very opinionated. The magazine description also does not give me confidence. I think saying a source is reliable for the opinions of the source is a frequently used and poor rationale to support using non-RS'. Every source is reliable for the opinion of the author and if that argumentation were sufficient, any source could be used. But it is not. CorporateM (Talk) 19:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand it has a record for investigative journalism of a kind ignored by the major newspapers. One example.

Unlike the majority of Israeli newspapers, whose coverage of events in the West Bank is supplied largely by reporters based in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, a number of +972’s contributors are either frequent participants in joint Israeli-Palestinian demonstrations behind the Green Line or are close with the activists who coordinate such protests. In September, for example, a clash broke out between residents and demonstrators outside the settlement of Anatot, not far from Jerusalem. Ynet, the website of Israel’s leading newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, reported that three people were lightly injured after settlers and leftists hurled rocks at each other. Shortly thereafter, Mairav Zonszein, a +972 contributor with deep ties to grassroots civil-rights organizations, provided a far more detailed account, revealing that the number of injured was 23 and that the violence was far from a two-way street: Eyewitness accounts, photographs, and videos all supplied evidence that laid the responsibility for the violence squarely with the settlers. The rest of the Israeli media soon followed suit, correcting the story.

In your reading, such material, unless reported by Ynet or Haaretz etc., can't be mentioned (though the English editions of those newspapers often leave out much of what the Israeli Hebrew press writes, material mentioned by +972..

I don't use these sources frequently, but they do document, with photos, videos and direct field reportage, things that never appear in the mainstream press, and the writers are professional Israeli journalists.

The article uses many sources that are far inferior, not touched by the revert-warrior because they coincide, I guess, with his POV. I.e.SecondDraft, Mackenzie Institute,Michelle Malkin's blog, Melanie Phillips's blog, UPJF, Canada Free Press etc. The point is, why are we to agonize over a journalist of Derfner's range of professional experience and argue he is not quotable because he writes also for +972 magazine, which has far better investigative credentials and professionalism.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Article submission for Q-Collection Comic Book Preservation Project

Hello, I'm currently writing an article about the Q-Collection Comic Book Preservation Project and I've had some issues with the reliability of my sources so an editor advised me to come here.

Sources:

• http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2013/07/preserving_comi.html
• http://doctorcomics.com/2014/02/23/q-a-project-for-the-preservation-of-comics/
• http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news/2013-news/2013-news-comic.php?topic=2013-news-comic/0717
• http://www.dcplanet.fr/76544-decouvrez-le-q-collection-comic-book-preservation-project
• http://www.mdcu-comics.fr/news-009239-mdcu-les-tous-premiers-comics-en-danger.html

Article: Draft:Q-Collection

Statements: The Boston Globe link delivers the method that John Sindall is using "Over the last decade, Sindall has worked on developing a better preservation method. After some trial and error, he settled on a laminating process that uses five-millimeter, UV-resistant Mylar. He removes the individual pages from the bound comic books with a cutting machine made in Germany, and then laminates them with the Mylar. The laminate melts right into the fibers of the comic, sealing the pages, while also keeping them supple enough to be flipped, just like an untreated comic.

Michael Hill on his website Doctor Comics informs us about the contents of the binders "In addition to the comics the collection contains associated artifacts such as trading cards, bubble gum wrappers, photographs, ads, membership cards etc. These too, will be subject to the preservation process.

The Superman Home Page link gives some information about the contents "Each Information Page includes publication details, information on the series/particular issue/specific copy, below that info is extensive information on the series itself and below that is information on a primary character that appears in the comic book.

The French websites give various information about the genesis of the project, the comics in the collection and the contents of the binders but can I use them?

Finally, can one source be used in order to support different statements in the article?

Al Masdar News

Is Al Masdar News a reliable source? , article claims Israeli Givati Brigade member meeting with Syrian rebel group. Was used in Iran–Israel proxy conflict. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing youtube

An editor raised the question in this AFD whether or not they could add this youtube video as a reference in the article Desperate Preacher's Site. In this video an audience member makes a brief mention of the Desperate Preacher's Site while David Letterman is chatting with him.

Including such a reference seems wrong on many levels:

• A talk show audience member is not a WP:RS, or even a valid primary source in this case, they do not claim any authority or connection to the website
• It's not significant coverage
• It falls into the category of trivia
• May be a copyright violation? (XLinkBot removed the link from the article)

Another editor seems to think it would be ok to use in some scenario. It would be good to have some others weigh in on this question at the AFD as up until now the participation has been limited. Cheers Vrac (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The video is unfortunately a failure of WP:ELNO due to copyright (Desperate Preacher's Site is not the copyright owner of Letterman's show), but the episode of the show can be references, just not including the URL. So if the reason to include the namedrop of the episode in the article, that could be done. But it is only just a name drop, and thus doesn't make for a secondary source (which involves transformation of information), so not sufficient as a source in terms of discussing notability. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution