Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 186

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 Wikipedia that the term "pseudoscience", whether it is a clear term or not, is more common on Wikipedia than in outside publications, and this seems to be linked to interest in Wikipedia'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over-inclusive, use of the term "pseudoscience" and our possible over-eagerness to use it repeatedly to disparage out-of-date attempts to understand the world, is best had elsewhere.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(edit conflict)The historical practice of now-outdated science is by no means pseudoscience, just early science -- but the continued advocacy of those ideas once they've been disproven to the point of sorcery is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 Wikipedia, but not elsewhere in outside reliable sources. In fact the term is not even common outside Wikipedia, and to the extent that some blogs and journalists are starting to use it more, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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

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)

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). --

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

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

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 Wikipedia 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) .

Was used at Citizens for a Sound Economy for the claim

Between 1986 and 1990, CSE was granted almost $5 million from various [[Koch family foundations|Koch foundations]]. "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

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 [the European Roundtable of Industrialists] 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)

• 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: [22]. 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)

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.[3] This built on the 2003 Federal Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System.[4]. 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 [western herbal medicine] 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.[5]

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

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
  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)

[23] is

Is <ref>[http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/michael-s-rozeff/the-pnac-conspiracy/] 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

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. Cullen³²⁸ 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."[24] 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)

The article

• 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)

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 ^{~Come at me~} 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Al Masdar News a reliable source? [25], 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)

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)

Thanks Vrac (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to get a disinterested opinion on usadojo.com [26] and worldwidedojo.com [27] 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 [28] and [29], 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 ^{~Come at me~}

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)

• Anyone else? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Usadodjo's About Us page says:

Listing on USADOJO.COM through The Martial Directory is an automated process and any martial arts entity can list. Just because you find a School, Business, Organization Event, Seminar or Tournament listed in our Free or Featured Listings does not mean that USADOJO.COM has personal knowledge of these entities or that we are recommending these entities.

USADOJO.COM receives hundreds of emails daily, many of these emails requesting that we add the attached information to USADOJO.COM. We attempt to make sure that we have permission to use any information and that the information is correct and credit is give to the proper source. Sometimes, however, we make mistakes. ... We in no way wish to do harm to anyone, we simply want to promote martial arts and martial artists in the best atmosphere possible.

To be fair, such "mistakes may be made" disclaimers are often dictated by lawyers to ward off liability suits, and even reputable publishers carry them. But in addition to the open/crowd sourcing concerns... I didn't find mainstream news sources citing either sites as a source; and while quite a few books on Google Books cite usadojo.com, they are cookie-cutter titles from niche publishers (eg, Emereo, Mason Crest) of, at best, unknown reputation. So that does not help establish a "reputation for fact-checking either". Worldwidedojo, run by the same company, has a similar disclaimer etc. My recommendation:

• usadojo's listings should never be used as a source
• treat articles published on usadodjo.com/worldwidedojo.com as essentially self-published, and cite them only where
  WP:SPS
  would allow such sources.

Btw, Linksearch finds only 3 articles linking to usadojo, and none linking to worldwidedojo.com. Has there been a recent cleanup? Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, some were removed. The article I'm looking at still uses each one 3-4 times each. Thanks for the input. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I found reviews of the manga series Fluffy, Fluffy Cinnamoroll.

• Aeschliman, Lesley. "Manga Review: Fluffy, Fluffy Cinnamoroll Volume One by Yumi Tsukirino" (Archive). Blogcritics at Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Wednesday, February 6, 2013. Original article at Blogcritics (Archive).
• Aeschliman, Lesley. "Manga Review: Fluffy, Fluffy Cinnamoroll Volume Four by Yumi Tsukirino" (Archive). Blogcritics at Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Thursday February 28, 2013. Original article at Blogcritics (Archive).

It was originally published at Blogcritics but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has republished it. I notice the SPI has a Blogcritics section. I haven't found a notice saying that the newspaper is "not responsible" for the contents of the section.

Is this manga review "reliable" since it was republished by a newspaper, or is not "not reliable" due to its origins as a blog entry even if a newspaper has chosen to republish it? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a tough one:

• Seattle PI fired most of its employees and went "online only" in 2009; so the current publication shares the name but not the editorial bones that earned the newspaper its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
• Such content-hosting/sharing arrangements in general are driven by commercial considerations and efforts to monetize the brand, and often lack sufficient editorial oversight and result in dilution of quality (eg, see this article about Forbes)

For these reasons, I would not consider the blogcritics reviews any more reliable than before just because they are now hosted by seattlepi.com. But I can imagine others arriving at a different conclusion. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI appears to be redistributing BC content en-mass (see http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/blogcritics/) so I don't think it adds to the reliability. It might have if they were only republishing a selected set of authors or otherwise showing editorial oversight.

Stuartyeates (talk

) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that this website is a vehicle for the promotion of

I concur. Treat as self-published.

Stuartyeates (talk

) 19:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)