User:Anthon01

PubMed Using_sources - Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.

WP:DUE - Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

WP:NPOV - Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Leads
WP:LEAD, Accessible,  News style

WP Projects
WikiProject Alternative medicine

Topics
History of alternative medicine, Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Manual therapy, Herbalism, Alternative medicine stubs

Peer Review
PubMed

ICAK Research links

Partisan sites
Quackwatch NCAHF

Topics
Rehmannia

I think part of the problem is the constant assumption of POV pushing or assumption of what editor's beliefs are. That's often the first reaction in content disputes, "Oh, you're a POV pusher or a true believer and as such you don't have a valid opinion on the subject." The real problem of having to adequately address both beliefs and scientific reality in a neutral way gets lost in the process. It's not a small problem we're addressing here. Sense and soul have been at odds with each other since people first started thinking about our place in the universe. As the sum total of human knowledge, Wikipedia wants to cover both, when both are always at odds with each other. Honestly, I've only seen a handful of actual agenda-driven editors, editors that are here to promote a product or sell a belief. Most (in my opinion) are in good faith trying their best to accomplish what has historically been an extremely difficult or even impossible task, to cover both sense and soul in one place. Most edits on these articles I've seen aren't POV pushing, they're reactions to a perceived POV push from across the aisle. It's a push back. That's why I believe in WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as good principles. If there were actually a way to use them in practice a lot of problems on these articles would disappear. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject_Spam

Community Portal

Vandalism in progress

Template_messages/User_talk_namespace

Template:Uw-3rr

"CSC_warning-templates"

"Wikilove"

User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof

WP:REFACTOR

WP:DR

WP:NPR Neutrality Project

WP:Mediation_Cabal

WP:3O

WP:AWB

WP:AUTOWB

WP:Consensus

Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion

WT:N

WP:CON

WP:CHILLOUT

Wp:context

WP:COATRACK

WP:WRONG

Reliable sources

Administrators%27_noticeboard

WP:RFA

WP:CSD

WP:AFD

WP:RFC/USER

WP:RFCU

WP:RFO request for oversight

WP:UTM Templates

"suspected-sock-puppets"

WP:ARCHIVE

WP:SUICIDE

Counts
Ideally you have access to Web of Science, the standard source covering the natural sciences and "hard" social sciences. Then you search for the author using the author finder feature, display the articles, sort by citations. Ignore any by other people that got left in there. Gets citations from the major English language Euroamerican journals. Scopus is an alternative, if the record doesnt go back before 1996; it's also more complete for social science in European journals. Google Scholar is tricky, you can't just use their numbers, you have to actually look yourself at each one to see what citations listed are from regular journals, because it includes a lot of other material. It is weak before 2000, & doesnt include everything. But it's the only available source for humanities, or where books are involved. In physics you can use arXiv, in computer science Citebase, in economics RePEc, in Biomedicine PubMed, but they are all incomplete. The number you get there will be a minimum. Use the free ones if you dont have WoS or Scopus, though--much better than nothing--if it's critical to notability I'll run it for you in WoS. And feel free to ask for more help if its anything tricky. '''

Talk Page
<!--Coalescing behind Obama isn't going to come from resolving the conflicts between the Hillary and Obama campaigns that arose during the primaries.

So far, the focus is on the perceived slights committed by each candidate/campaign against the other. Resolving the division can only come about if both parties focus on what we hope to accomplish for us and our country in the next four years.

Think of all we have lost in the last seven years under the heavy influence of right-wing republican extremists, many of which are advisors to McCain.

McCain and his neocon buddies will do for us going forward. >