Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 16

Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline
I'm more than a little bored by the perennial Quackwatch complaints. I propose solving the problem by directly addressing Quackwatch, by name, in the guideline. My proposal is based on a comment above by MastCell. Here's the proposal:

This means, in practice, that it should not be used in articles for which hundreds of scholarly sources exist (e.g., Acupuncture), but that it would be "officially" encouraged for at least most of the current (seven) uses in Alternative cancer treatment, because they're mostly things nobody has heard about. It would also be possible to use it for non-biomedical information (e.g., QuackWatch says that a seller of cancer-curing snake oil died of cancer).

The dual purposes of my proposal are:
 * 1) to encourage stronger, more academic sources into articles when those exist, and
 * 2) to stop complaints about the use of Quackwatch when those don't exist.

This represents a compromise (i.e., none of our honorable POV pushers get 100% what they want). Is this a compromise that you're willing to live with? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a good compromise to me. I would like to see included in the statement somewhere that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed. DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thought - perhaps the statement should also include something like "Editors are encouraged to remove Quackwatch citations when these are superceded by peer-reviewed, WP:Medrs compliant sources". DrChrissy (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha that is funny then becomes sad. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC) (what i meant Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC))
 * Not sure what that was meant to mean. DrChrissy (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * key rule of negotiating: when someone offers a middle ground position, the best way to lose that ground is to try to push way past it. (file under "give an inch they will take a mile") your response was a perfect example of the kind of behavior/attitude that has made alt med articles the nightmare they are, and guarantees they will continue to be, for a long time to come. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am taking your edit to be an uncivil behaviour to ridicule my posting. Please refute this.  I would not wish to take you to ANI again only for them to find you guilty of uncivility toward me so recently after last time. DrChrissy (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Jytdog Please, take my concern about your posting being uncivil, seriously. The behaviour of editors should be discussed on their Talk page.  You have requested I do not post on there, so the next message will be a polite indication that I am taking you to ANI for a repeat of uncivility toward me. DrChrissy (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the effort to create middleground, WAID. so under the proposal editors could still use Quackwatch to say that "qi" is pseudoscience.  I just did a pubmed search for reviews on qi and pulled up a bunch of woo including, and I am not joking, a review called "Human ultraweak photon emission and the yin yang concept of Chinese medicine."  published in the Journal of acupuncture and meridian studies.   in your proposed content, you left out your #1 important quality-check, namely "independent". It is the absence of independent sources speaking on X that often causes editors to reach for Quackwatch per WP:PARITY. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * QuackWatch could be used for subjects that have not caught the attention of mainstream scientific research. This is hardly the case with acupuncture. There's plenty of high-quality studies available, and we can stick to what these studies say. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * what sources you would use to describe qi from a science-based perspective? Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This sounds like a good compromise to me. I am in support of the proposal by WhatamIdoing. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fringe medicine can come up with new claims. Scholarly sources aren't going to bother covering these because the main pseudoscience has been debunked. --Neil N  talk to me 13:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Although Quackwatch is an advocacy source; its agenda happens to be strongly supported by a large editor demographic on Wikipedia, which is the only reason it's used. There are similar advocacy sources that support alternative medicine that are rejected, because they conflict with the POV of our editors. In any article like acupuncture, there are plenty of much stronger sources that can be used to establish that the practice is not accepted by western medicine practitioners and not found to have any benefits following the scientific process. CorporateM (Talk) 14:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If quackwatch accurately summarizes a field as ineffective pseudoscience, but a textbook for the fringe topic claims it is effective, we should defer to Quackwatch (and properly reliable sources for the scientific community), not a textbook written by an advocate. All sufficiently large alt med systems have textbooks, which effectively pushes out Quackwatch as a source in all circumstances, since its summary will conflict with the claims of the practitioners. This does not document how wikipedia operates, it prescribes a new mode of operation which is not in line with existing practice of assessing sources on fringe topics.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is a very good compromise. Instead of getting rid of Quackwatch altogether as some editors propose, we can still have Quackwatch step in whenever there is a shortage of more reliable material. At the same time, articles won't pretend Quackwatch is more reliable than scholarly books or peer-reviewed articles. I do think that Quackwatch has its place representing the skeptic viewpoint in limited cases there. But we shouldn't elevate it to the same status as university level textbooks for our mainstream viewpoint. That discredits Wikipedia just as much as it would if we used naturalnews.com or similar sources. LesVegas (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "That discredits Wikipedia just as much as it would if we used naturalnews.com or similar sources." Whatever mechanism you use to evaluate sources is completely broken. --Neil N  talk to me 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My understanding is that Quackwatch is a self-published website, so WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS apply. Is anyone other than Barrett involved in it? If it's something that might be helpful in FRINGE articles, it could be mentioned there, so long as it's used consistently with SPS and BLPSPS. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of SPS is wrong in this case. Even ArbCom never took that extreme interpretation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Websites like Quackwatch can also be used for biomedical information. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Quackwatch is referenced by government bodies and other respected institutions. It is regarded as an authority on alternative health claims. Obviously promoters of alternative health claims don't like that, but this is not our problem to fix. It is not a one-man band, it includes content by people like Wallace Sampson and Sam Homola. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 *  Support This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've changed my mind after further reading, especially Sarah and Sandy (below). Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments
User:NeilN, I agree that "fringe medicine" probably will come up with new claims, but most likely the woo claims won't pass the peer-review process of notable journals, so we can rest easy. However, "fringe medicine" isn't a homogeneous category: there are subjects that have not been able to attract sufficient scientific attention, but on the other hand we have subjects that are studied quite diligently. QuackWatch can be used for the former. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jayaguru-Shishya, we can't rest easy because these claims are quite appropriate for articles about fringe subjects. If chromotherapy adherents make a new claim, and these claims are covered by enough independent sources, I expect to see it in the article. I don't expect a peer reviewed paper appearing which evaluates these claims. --Neil N  talk to me 20:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the claim hasn't been able to pass the peer-review process, I don't expect it to be included in any article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So we should remove the entire Homeopathy section? --Neil N  talk to me 23:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Could someone say who other than Barrett is involved in Quackwatch? Whenever I've looked at it, it seems to have been a one-person, self-published website, so I'm confused that anyone would support its use on Wikipedia. I understand why some editors like it, but not why they would regard it as an RS, especially as the editors who like it are those who otherwise insist on high-quality sources. If someone could explain, I'd appreciate it, because it's an issue that has puzzled me for years. I accept that I may be missing something about it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Quackwatch is now an international network of people who are concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never been able to find any of their names. Are they posted somewhere on the website? Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume it was intentional to leave out their names for obvious reasons. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the obvious reasons would be. This is an example of what I mean. If a fringe person, or really anyone, set up a website saying "this is run by an international network, but I'm not going to tell you who they are, not even by pseudonym," you would question it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do know what the obvious reasons are. For example, if you are contributing to the site would you want alt-med practitioners to know who you are? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see why not. Rather than hinting and teasing, please speak plainly. If people are worried about being exposed, they could contribute using pseudonyms. Again, why the confidence in whatever this one website says, including about how many contributors it has? Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. If you want to make science, you make science with your own name. Otherwise, you won't make science. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For further questions about the site you can ask them directly. This is not the place. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the place if people are using it as an RS. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your questioning it and you oppose it? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch: Refinement #1
I like the idea and do want some guidance on QW in the guideline because it seems to have come up a lot recently, hasn't it? Issues I have with current proposal are, 1) "Websites like Quackwatch" isn't clear enough in defining what particular category QW is in (how can I tell what other things are like Quackwatch in this context?), and QW isn't (by its own definition) a website although it operates one; 2) I don't think QW should be used (as the current proposal seems to imply it could) for unattributed biomedical claims in Wikipedia' narrative voice at any time; 3) The proposed change implies QW content isn't peer-reviewed and I'm not sure either way on that; 4) I think it's a bit too prescriptive as to exactly what kind of sourcing is allowed to replace QW, it should refer to the WP:MEDASSESS scale.

Proposed refinement:

Workable? 12:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The proposal by WhatamIdoing. I think it's more straightforward, and it doesn't speculate with the underlying motives. IMHO, "...only when peer-reviewed journal articles, university-level textbooks, and scholarly books do not address the subject." is simple, good and straightforward. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Zad's refinement. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Whether or not this blurb is included, it is perfectly descriptive of our treatment of fringe topics. My only concern is that the pointer to attributepov implies that information from quackwatch should always be attributed. I'm not sure that's intended. Of course, all information should conform to NPOV (including that section), quackwatch or not. Is there a way we can avoid the implication "According to quackwatch..." is always necessary?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jess well that's why I put "in a manner that complies with..." as opposed to instructing in-text attribution must be used. I personally believe that QW should always be used with in text attribution but I guess there could be exceptional cases where not, that'd have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.  So I'd like the guideline to point to the policy but not state exactly how it should be applied, because a blanket rule is almost never possible.   15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Imagine a new pseudoscience with a fanbase and literature, but scientists don't take it seriously enough to discuss at length. Quackwatch (and other comparable sources) document its reception in the most scholarly venue we can find. Should we say "[Fringe topic] believes [crazy claim]. According to Quackwatch it is rejected by the scientific community"? That would be a misapplication of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. This situation is actually common, which is why I disagree it always requires in-text attribution. If we are averse to a prescribing in-text attribution, I think we should also avoid implying it is required. "Use with care" is good, and "in accordance with our policies" is fine, but "[hint to advocates of pseudoscience, you can claim policy dictates quackwatch should be attributed, which would shift the weight of the claim you don't like]" is something I think we can avoid.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure Jess I don't have any issue if the specific references to WEIGHT and ATTRIBUTEPOV were removed. They're policy and of course they always need to be followed.  If it's a WP:BEANS problem to mention them here, not a big deal to remove.   19:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mann jess, I guess it depends from the article. If we are dealing with a fringe topic that isn't well-covered by the mainstream scientific literature, I agree that having an in-text attribution isn't always necessary. And of course, in subjects that are well-covered by mainstream scientific literature, QuackWatch isn't needed anyway, but this should also be clearly voiced out. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks :) That was my only real concern.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Either proposal is good; this one is probably better. Both imply it shouldn't be used when stronger sources exist, but can be used to state the obvious for minor fringe medical topics that haven't been investigated by better sources. CorporateM (Talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose both as applied; we should always use the best sources available, but sometimes a nominally reliable source is so biased, or makes an obvious mistake, that we shouldn't use it. QuackWatch is a good source for pointing out those errors.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your rationale. My reading of this proposal is that using Quackwatch is encouraged in certain circumstances, but your comment implies its use is being discouraged. Have I misread something? This proposal solidifies our existing practice of using quackwatch when peer reviewed scientific scholarship is not available, right?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support refinement I like this now, so I'm changing. I think I was making a mountain out of a molehill earlier and this seems workable. Quackwatch is probably the only available source for certain topics we have. LesVegas (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I'm going to mull this one over. Slim Virgin and Sandy made a good case that Quackwatch might not be reliable regarding claims that even fall into this classification per self-publshed sourcing. We might want to investigate that further. I can absolutely see Quackwatch meeting our standards for claims about pseudoscience itself, since Barrett is an acknowledged expert on that. He is not an expert at acupuncture, chiropractic and the like but declares these to be pseudoscience. While it can be argued that Barrett is an expert at pseudoscience, it is a stretch to say that everything he characterizes as pseudoscience actually is. And when we support claims like this with a self published source, we're just trying to lift ourselves up by pulling our own hair. So until I can get a defined line between what a self published source like Quackwatch is actually reliable for, I'm going to consider better possibilities. Is Quackwatch reliable for pseudoscience? Yes, as any google search shows Stephen Barrett is an expert at that subject. Is he an expert at the subjects he claims are pseudoscience? No, and I'm not seeing any argument that he is. I even see on a google search that he is engaged in a lawsuit against a biomedical laboratory which one has to be an MD to use. Do many MD's engage in pseudoscience by running lab tests? I'm sure they do non-standard testing, but this is the point. Barrett has cast too wide of a net, and not everything he claims is pseudoscience is, and therefore doesn't fall within his area of expertise. What is obvious pseudoscience and what isn't? To me, that may be the dividing line for where we can use Quackwatch and where we can't, but I might even want to mull that one over. I do like this attempt at wording, but I'm still not sure the dividing lines are clear enough. I do think it is heading in the right direction, though. If anyone wants to discuss this in further detail, feel free to ping me or reach me at my talk page. I will respond as soon as the real world allows me to. LesVegas (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support both, preferably the refinement - Yes, its self-published, but WP:V states "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". Barrett's expertise is apparently widely accepted given 1) His receipt of FDA an Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery, 2) An honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association, 3) His receipt of  2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education, 4) He's the author of a college textbook on Consumer Health which is now in its 9th edition.  Formerly 98 talk  18:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * QuackWatch may be used when the subject is so marginal that it hasn't been able to attract sufficient attention by mainstream scientific medicine. If the subject is well-covered by mainstream scientific sources, however, we will favor those experts that have actually been able to pass the peer-review process of a notable journal instead of those experts that haven't. The world of science is rough, I know, and publishing your own website probably won't bring you any long-lasting merit. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly what I'm worried about... If some weird pseudoscience manages to get a bad paper into a "peer reviewed" journal that's not especially reliable and doesn't have strict standards, that paper doesn't automatically trump an actually reliable source like quackwatch. See, for instance, the Journal of Parapsychology. We need to be saying "quackwatch can be used when appropriate", not "quackwatch can't be used, even if appropriate, if another source is available." Some discretion is going to be necessary depending on the topic.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, User:Mann jess. That's why we pay attention to the notability of the journal, and we should mostly use only the reputable ones. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is: there are going to be situations where Quackwatch is more reliable than a "peer reviewed" publication. Prescribing that "Quackwatch can't be used when X type of source is available" limits our ability to use the best quality sources in those cases. We should be encouraging its use when appropriate; the first proposal, for example, does not do that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Mann jess, in what situations QuackWatch is more reliable than a peer-reviewed publication? Aside from publications that are not notable enought to be included anyway... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave an example above. That something has ostensibly gone through peer review doesn't automatically make it high quality. Reliability is determined in other ways. I don't want our policy to state Quackwatch can't be used when peer reviewed articles are available, even if those peer reviewed articles are junk. We should use the best source available, and this addition to policy should reflect the already existing practice of using Quackwatch for fringe topics, not discourage that practice.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The wording is too confusing. The part "in a manner that complies with WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" is not appropriate. You can say that about any source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: Would you support this addition if the last bit (about weight and attributepov) were removed? That's the direction I'm leaning.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the wording is wrong. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for the follow-up.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this will just make the arguments worse. The arguments exist because SCAM proponents hate Quackwatch. That puts it on a very long list indeed. It's not our problem. We use it because independent authorities use it. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The problem I had with the previous versions is that publishing a peer reviewed source is really very easy. Just because it is peer reviewed does not mean that the academic community believes you. The same applies to many textbooks. I think this is a fair compromise. QW is a mainstream academic perspective for alternative medicine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch: Refinement #2
Quackguru added this wording to the page:

Thoughts? &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support this or the alternate proposal above. I'm not sure about my preference quite yet.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Editors at the talk page can decide how to use the source. I think it is better to keep the wording simple. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the wording is still rather ambiguous. For example, what does mean "various topics, especially..."? There's been a lot of discussion about QuackWatch and when it's appropriate to use, and the consensus seems to be that QuackWatch can be used when "the subject hasn't attracted significant enough mainstream scientific attention." The formatting "various topics" is way too ambiguous as well. And it's not "especially when mainstream scholarly sources", but if and only if mainstream scholarly sources do not address the subject. Last but not least, "in detail", I think that's left rather unclear. For example, who is to decide what is "in detail" enough, and what is not? Certainly, if the subject is well-covered by mainstream scientific sources, we shouldn't excuse to use QuackWatch just because "some claims haven't been addressed by mainstream scientific literature", not even if one argues that the scientific literature haven't "addressed those in detail". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is intentionally simple so editors can decide on each individual article what should or should not be done. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. QW is referenced as reliable by independent authorities, we have no need to second guess this. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Suggesting that a self-published website is an RS for biomedical information would significantly weaken the guideline. If something is so lacking in notability that no RS has addressed it, surely the solution is for WP to say little or nothing about it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sarah (SV), who states the obvious once again.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose QW is not peer-reviewed and this means it is distinctively different from the sources we encourage editors to use. In my opinion, editors should be discouraged from using the web-site. DrChrissy (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Sarah and DrChrissy. LesVegas (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Also per Sarah and DrChrissy. Gandydancer (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support prior proposals that do not include promotion of quackwatch: "Well-recognized independent expert opinion". We already have a definition of expert sources in other policy documents. CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch: Refinement #3
The previous suggestion needs a slight tweak:

This recognizes that expert and notable opinions are not usually the primary content we are looking for in peer-reviewed research. We often find such opinions in other sources. This applies even more so to fringe subjects, but to some degree mainstream and highly researched subjects. Improvements appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Refinement #1 has some good points; #2 is simpler and avoids needing to first argue whether the "In such cases" clause of #1 applies. I'm finding #3 most appealing at the moment, although "and notable" may need clarification, or perhaps could be omitted. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. That would inadvertently make notability part of inclusion criteria, when it only applies to article creation criteria. Stricken. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This one is preferable to the other options, IMO. Thanks for writing it up!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This version is better written than my proposal. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that overall this is moving in the right direction. I'm a little concerned with the implication that only peer-reviewed literature outranks an expert's self-published website, and I'm a little concerned that "supplement" will be taken to mean "whenever I read anything in Quackwatch that I want to include in an article".  BullRangifer, if this proposed sentence were accepted as standard practice, can you give me an example of a statement or subject that you previously have (or would have) cited Quackwatch for, but now you would cite a better source instead?  Or an example of a statement that you would have previously cited Quackwatch for, but if no better sources contained that information, now you would omit it?  Or do you intend this to mean that there should be no change on how you use Quackwatch?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good questions. I don't see it really changing anything, just formalizing the description of standard practice. We would still follow ArbCom's directions to judge usage of QW on a case by case basis, just like other sources. No source is always a RS or always appropriate for every situation, and that certainly applies to QW. Therefore I would be better able to answer your hypothetical situations if I had real examples. I know that I have removed and allowed removal of QW when other sources covering the same POV were better for the purpose. I'm flexible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I share Waid's concern when she states that she is concerned that "supplement" will be taken to mean "whenever I read anything in Quackwatch that I want to include in an article". For example, would it continue to be used in the Acupuncture article for which there are dozens of reviews and other good types of RS? Gandydancer (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to worry. That extreme interpretation would never be appropriate or allowed to happen. We judge usage on a case by case basis. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You intend no change at all.
 * You believe that the "extreme interpretation" of using it in the Acupuncture would never be allowed to happen.
 * Quackwatch is currently quoted in that article and cited for five different statements.
 * This isn't adding up for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the wording, the assumption here is that Barrett et al have no affiliation with, say, the FDA. However in court proceedings the opposite was revealed "Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)." (Google this quotation to find the case). Does Project Medicine in general find government agencies to be independent scientific bodies free of bias? In my opinion, if QW is the only source saying what an editor desires, then it is by definition a fringe viewpoint. Stick to high quality sources, as I was taught by the good folks here at PM, such as those found in PUBMED.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That unproven claim is from an unreliable source. In fact that source is blacklisted at Wikipedia. It's considered libelous, and Barrett actually won an out of court settlement from Joseph Mercola of $50,000 for repeating it and other libelous statements from that source. (There is only ONE original source for that statement, and that person is also indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. All versions of that claim trace back to him.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This version is worse and would allow Quackwatch to be used anywhere for any reason. It directly contradicts WP:SPS, which is policy. If you want to overturn SPS, that's fine, but please do it openly on the policy page and publicize it widely. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "...used anywhere for any reason"? That's complete nonsense created out of whole cloth, with no evidence or precedent indicating it's even slightly true or a danger in the future. Also, your interpretation of SPS is wrong in this case. Even ArbCom never took that extreme interpretation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, this proposal seems largely redundant with WP:PARITY which is already a Wikipedia rule. However,  I will oppose this because I'm not convinced that specifically calling out a source will help.   Reliability is always determined on a case by case basis.  A source may be reliable for content A in article B, but unreliable for content X in article Y.  Reliability must always be judged on a case by case basis.  See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose (all three proposals), for reasons laid out at length here. It has not even been established that Quackwatch meets WP:SPS, its editorial oversight (indeed, its editors) is unclear, and for gosh sakes, we eliminate mention of sources like Mayo Clinic from MEDRS, yet we will undermine the guideline credibility by adding to it a partisan source of unspecified authorship and editorial oversight like Quackwatch??  Way to shoot years of work in the foot.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a specific, stated goal: I want people to stop asking whether/when it's reliable.  I'm open to anything that would actually solve my problem (which is the tedium and destructiveness of the repeated, angry "discussions").  How would you solve my problem?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be easier to cover the many options/suggestions etc in a new section .... because this (growing) problem affects more than how we write MEDRS. The debacle that has been repeatedly played out at ANI over alt-med, fringe, and quackery topics is painting the entire Medicine Project in a negative light, turning editors against MEDRS, draining resources from writing and improving the broad medical content we should be writing in favor of an overfixation on a few fringe topics, and  probably resulting in more than one uneven, unjust topic ban while a very small handful of troublemakers continue to have editing privileges.  The sky will not fall if we don't fight over acupuncture and chiropractic;  the off-Wiki battles in certain topics that have continued in to Wikipedia articles need to stop, and there is every indication that is what is going on in this discussion.  Is every editor who questions the zealotry in evidence on this page right now going to end up topic banned? In other words, WAID, I agree with you-- this needs to stop.  The Medicine Project is front and center at ANI on any given week, while other content improvement suffers. The way to deal with the "is Quackwatch reliable" question, though, is not to give it more credence in MEDRS.  I can continue here, or we could start a new section on this page, but as one example, see  on this very page misunderstanding WP:V.  That the FDA cites Quackwatch as a source for discussing quackery itself  is in line with what our sourcing policies allow for SPS, just the conclusion one could find if one bothered to read the many threads at WP:RSN, and not a recognition of it as an authority on any specific topic.  That we have medical editors using MEDRS when it suits them, and then citing Quackwatch (not MEDRS) when that suits them, is inexcusable, and when this whole mess ends up before ArbCom (which it will if we continue), those medical editors who are damaging the Medicine Project will be discussed.   Why is Quackwatch used in acupuncture and who added it there?  The arbs ruled on that matter, and I'll be happy to put that evidence before them.   We have WP:RSN, we have an arbcase, we can write an FAQ, we can do many things, but continuing to pander to the disruptors among us is not the way to go. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * raises an important point, namely that people are losing confidence in MEDRS because it's being misused or over-used, perhaps as a result of misunderstandings about its scope. I think it should be discussed somewhere in depth because it's popping up all over the place. Perhaps a MEDRS tutorial could be arranged. These things keep happening:


 * forensic attention to the detail of MEDRS to keep out cetain material, particularly anything negative about the pharmaceutical industry and its products (this is leading to suspicions of COI editing, and unfairly linking MEDRS to that issue);
 * claiming MEDRS sources are needed for non-medical issues in articles that make medical claims, even for history (someone wrote that we soon won't be able to say the Great Famine took lives without a MEDRS source);
 * use of non-RS when adding criticism of altmed, or anything Quackwatch sees as altmed;
 * no sources or poor sources to support health-related claims that the same editors agree with.


 * There are good editors involved in medical editing, and when objections are raised they listen. But there is a small group that meets objections with filibustering and attempts to paint the editor as a fringe supporter – which is sometimes true, but by no means always. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "anything negative about the pharmaceutical industry and its products" is an overstatement, to understate it. And mostly I hear alt-med POV pushers complaining; they always have and they always will. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how often the complaints are founded (outside of the issues we've already covered here); I've certainly seen quite a few of them that are utterly bogus. But that doesn't mean we couldn't lay out some examples.  For example, I will frequently remove or replace a non-MEDRS source for history, culture, or other areas when a MEDRS-compliant source exists that does a superior job of citing the same issue.  There exists the idea that we need not cite culture, history, social issues, etc to MEDRS sources, but we quite often do have MEDRS-compliant sources for such text, and there's no reason not to use them.  And, when MEDRS-compliant sources refute or contradict non-MEDRS sources for the history, culture, etc aspects of a medical condition, we would prefer the MEDRS source.  And, a good deal of the complaints we see at ANI also come from folks with an ax to grind, because they were using non-RS for medical content.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And that's fine. The examples I have in mind are editors trying to keep material out that simply isn't liked. No one says "here's a MEDRS source instead." I don't have diffs to hand, but I should probably start keeping them; it's systematic, not the occasional edit. A discussion about what MEDRS does and doesn't say or imply would help a lot. The issue is going to end up with ArbCom if people aren't careful, and editors on both sides will fare poorly, so it's worth sorting out. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * we certainly do struggle with the bias of editors. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, a few of us actually do say "here's a better source", at least on occasion, and I have a relevant example at hand: this edit replaced Quackwatch with something that covers the same material and appears to comply with MEDRS' minimum standard. I bring this up because there are other uses of Quackwatch in that article, e.g., for the description of the Hallelujah diet, that are so obscure that QuackWatch is almost the only independent FUTON bias-compliant source available. Which then makes me wonder: If nobody's writing about it except Quackwatch (don't be fooled by the journal article:  the author's part of that business), should we have an article about it, and is it DUE to mention at all in Alternative cancer treatments?

On Sarah's issue: you're not likely to see me object to any source that meets SandyGeorgia's high standards. The only systemic problem with using gold-plated medical sources for social content is that it tends to exclude other POVs. Using a MEDRS-style source for history is only a problem if the use has the effect of violating YESPOV.

SandyGeorgia, I'm getting the feeling that you're leaning at least slightly towards a "ban Quackwatch" stance. I'm not sure that's realistic; it's too convenient for the skeptical half of our POV pushers.

On the broader question, one of the discussions I opened recently at WT:RS is on the question of the "good enough source" vs "the best possible source". Upgrading a source from Quackwatch to a high-quality review article is doubtless a meritorious act. So is sending pages off to AFD if nobody seems to write about them. (I'll go nom that diet in a moment.) But I'm not sure that removing content supported by Quackwatch, or blanking the source (and thus leaving it uncited) is an acceptable response. We don't give people much guidance directly in the sourcing policies and guidelines about how to handle the situation of a weak source behind good content. (And WP:Nobody reads the directions, especially not the ones in the WP:Editing policy, so it's no good leaving them there.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, and I've said no such thing; that would not be a position based in policy. It is an SPS, sources are dependent on context, and there are uses for it (as I pointed out somewhere on this page)-- just not what some have-it-both-ways editors would like for it to be (eg, for sourcing acupuncture).   What this page has to do is stay in sync with WP:V and WP:RS; it is an extension of those pages that explains how to apply those policies and guidelines to certain (specific, medical) content.  The proposals are over-extending, and weakening MEDRS by codifying use of one marginal partisan source.  That doesn't mean there may not be policy-based uses for Quackwatch somewhere, sometime-- just that we shouldn't codify something into MEDRS which will weaken MEDRS by causing this page to reach beyond what it should be.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which takes me back to my real problem: if this guideline doesn't mention Quackwatch by name, then how am I going to stop people from coming here to demand that their content dispute be resolve by this guideline explicitly {banning|endorsing} it for all possible uses?  We don't have this problem with any other source—not journals, not books, not anything except this one website.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My real problem right now is that this talk page is so long I can't find posts :) First, that people don't understand core policies (WP:V and WP:RS) is not our problem on this page.  Second, that we only have this problem with Quackwatch says something about who/what is dominating the Medicine Project, and that needs to stop. (I may be repeating myself on that score :)  But that doesn't solve your problem, does it?  :)  I think the solution is to point people --> that-a-way when they want this page to do something for them it isn't intended to. Ok, so we develop an FAQ, and post it at the top of this page.  Basically, it's going to say a) here are the core policies, and b) WP:RSN or WP:DR are over there if you have an issue and want to keep fighting with each other because you don't understand our sourcing policies.  We need a new section here to discuss what SlimVirgin is raising, because this thread is too long and rambling.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Same as above on prior proposal. CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <B> Mulling this one over </b> I like Bull Rangifer's positive idea here to give more of a specific dividing line here by making peer-reviewed literature the barometer which we deny or allow Quackwatch as a source. My problem with this is that it likely should not be used on articles which the publisher isn't an expert on. I'm all for using QW for obvious pseudoscience, but not when there's questions about the scientific validity. I would absolutely support this wording on an article level, but not a claim level. LesVegas (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support It sorts out perennial debates, and explicitly invokes it's suitability for fringe contexts (and aligns with WP:FRINGE). Second Quantization (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch Refinement #4
Overall, I feel like this may be the best compromise while preserving the spirit of WP:SPS. LesVegas (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Change of subject

 * , I didn't offer examples because I don't want to personalize the point, but I'm talking about issues for which no medical source is needed (issues that aren't medical claims), but MEDRS sources are requested nevertheless. I do appreciate your trying to find solutions to the QW issue, by the way, even though I've opposed your suggestion. I also agree that if an issue is so neglected that QW is the only source, it's not clear why we would host an article (or section of an article) about it.


 * The broader issue is that a tutorial on how to use MEDRS would be very helpful. I'm wondering whether would be willing to create a tutorial video, perhaps with the help of WPMEDF. Pinging  too. James and Anthony, the issue is that there are lots of misunderstandings about the scope and application of MEDRS, leading unfairly to mistrust of the guideline, bad feeling between editors, etc. If someone could explain – here's why we need it, this is how it protects us, this is where it does and doesn't apply, this is how to use it, here are examples of misuse (anonymized so that no one is singled out), I think it would be extremely beneficial. Would WPMEDF fund/arrange something like that? Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My position is that medical sources are required for health claims. So if you are saying that substance X makes you happy or helps with pain you need a high quality source. If you are stating that X dollars was spent on Y substance you do not you just need an independent source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I don't have time to catch up on this discussion so won't address the main themes. I do like the idea of a video tutorial. The best place to hash out the script would be here (or at WT:MED, where you may get more input from a wider range of people). Perhaps it would be best to wait until the current vigorous discussions have resolved (or petered out), though. There are a number of seasoned presenters (James, Jake, John, Lane, RexxS to name a few) and I'm sure one of them would be happy to present to camera. WPMEDF doesn't have a budget yet (members pay their own way or are funded via WMF grants). But you won't have any trouble getting a grant for production costs from the WMF for a project like this once the script is agreed. Getting agreement on the script will be the only real challenge.
 * User:Ian Furst, who made this awesome intro to Wikiproject Medicine, may be interested in helping or advising. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you. I should open up a proper discussion somewhere about this, but you've suggested some good names to get us started. And I agree that it's better to wait until the discussions here have petered out. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , when you get this going, I can find an abundance of examples from my unfortunate dealings with student editing. As an example, students heavily edited klazomania (about which nothing of consequence is written), so I did have to selectively use primary sources to salvage something there.  As another example, see this unfortunate revert in the name of MEDRS via Twinkle which was actually a correct removal for the wrong reason.  And this was a curious example of a lack of parity. I'm going on vacation so will peek in mid-June. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strike bad example per, there was a secondary source there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This might be the wrong place
Quackwatch can be discussed at the WP:FRINGE talk page. QW is often used on fringe or alternative medicine topics. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * it is good to discuss here, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted a link to this discussion over there.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jytdog. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I was right. This discussion and proposal belongs at the WP:FRINGE talk page. QuackGuru ( talk ) 13:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

example, for testing
under the original proposal or the refinements.. here is a question. Under either proposal, how would the following idea be stated and sourced: "Claims that qi exists and affects health are a form of vitalism and are pseudoscience". (part of the question is how that would be stated, i.e. with attribution or without) I encourage those who oppose the use of Quackwatch to respond too. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are pertaining to acupuncture article, perhaps you can glance through the scientific literature and see what they have to say? If the scientific literature doesn't discuss that, it has either been seen irrelevant by the authors, or it hasn't passed through the scrutinizing eye of scientific peer-review process. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * it applies to most every TCM article since qi is a core concept. This is exactly the kind of statement that QW or SBM would be a useful source for; the standard literature doesn't rehearse obvious stuff like this very often. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Unless you can find a mainstream reliable source which says otherwise, QuackWatch is an adequate source for that statement. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, where I'm headed with this idea is that this information should be included, and it should be included with a stronger source than Quackwatch. Why cite Quackwatch when ten minutes' effort will find properly published books on the subject?

You could be citing books like these:

So my question is: Given that Quackwatch is divisive, given that we're wasting time with questions about whether it's reliable, given than there are perennial problems with whether it needs to be attributed as one person (or one group's) opinion, then why would you prefer Quackwatch, when the same statement could be trivially sourced to a more formal, more "respectable" reliable source that says exactly the same thing (only even more so, since Quackwatch doesn't seem to have noticed that Chinese scientists reject qi as a load of pseudoscience, too)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting the question cleanly, . (wunderbar on the content from the 2nd source!!)  I hear you on the annoyance and tedium of the constant objections to Quackwatch and SBM.  Two direct responses and a broader thought:
 * The objections to QW and SBM are, in my view, just a proxy for the deeper POV dispute. An appropriate proxy, since everything here comes down to what kinds of sources are reliable for what kind of content.  But a proxy nonetheless.  Trying to move away from those two specific sources is not going to make the POV dispute go away - the focus will just move on to other sources.
 * The problem with moving away from QW and SBM is that we end up in the even murkier waters of what books to rely on. The two you have chosen are interesting.
 * The first one (trying a googlebooks link there for convenience) Pseudoscience and Deception: The Smoke and Mirrors of Paranormal Claims, edited by Bryan Farha, has 4 of 17 chapters by Novella or Barrett (who run QW and SBM) and is just a book form of the content you find at those two sites and it is hard to see why it would be more acceptable to those who object to QW and SBM, than QW and SBM themselves would be.
 * The second one Examining Alternative Medicine: An Inside Look at the Benefits & Risks, is published by InterVarsity Press and asks "What are the benefits and risks of alternative medicine? Do some therapies have spiritual underpinnings that are at odds with a biblical framework?". This is not a source I would reach for, in a controversial article.
 * Which really points up what I said before - I think the discussion would get even uglier if we start letting in books like this as sources on alt-med; there is no end to woo-pushing books like this, as well as woo-busting books and a whole host of stuff in the middle with their own agendas (like the InterVarsity book). How would we have rational, PAG-based discussions about them?   I think we want to stay away from them and stick to the best sources defined in MEDRS - reviews and society statements as much as we can, and use the well-defined QW and SBM for fringe-medical stuff.
 * Finally, I've said this before, but to me the only way to really settle the POV war (and the concomitant use of, and attacks on, QW and SBM) would be to have long-term editors who watch them step back and agree on the scope of the articles and have both sides work to keep extremists from adding content outside that scope. And ideally the scope what include what is mainstream and leave out altogether kooky stuff (like acu as a treatment for cancer per se). Those are my thoughts.  Thanks for really talking. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Unmasking the POV dispute will solve my problem: It will get these endless "discussions" off this page and over to WP:NPOVN, where someone who has actually volunteered to deal with that type of mess can try to pacify the combatants.  And I can send plain old "my book is better than your book" disputes to RSN.  But I can't get rid of "this guideline needs to {endorse|ban} Quackwatch".  This guideline's talk page is the only proper page for discussing changes to this guideline.  (You're right:  I hadn't noticed that it was a religious book.  We will have to see if another source includes that very interesting claim.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for talking . I appreciate your frankness about trying to solve what is bugging you. While this would resolve battles over QW, battles over whether an Intervarsity Press book (or the other book you suggested) would end up right back here since they would be used to support health-related content.  Right?  So... what kind of more general guidance could be added to MEDRS to help editors sort out stuff like where we apply WP:PARITY to health content?  For example, to provide guidance as to whether either of the two books you suggested would be OK to use? Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Is Quackwatch a self-published source?
Is Quackwatch a self published source, and if not who publishes it?LesVegas (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * yes: by an acknowledged expert, so is just fine. please actually read WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jytdog I read it and had a question about something it said. Specifically, I had questions about the part which 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. I'm not all that familiar with Quackwatch but it appears to be run by Stephen Barrett. Was Stephen Barrett's work in the relevant field previously published by reliable third party publications? And if so, which publications? LesVegas (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * pubmed is wide open to you, as is the bio and publications page at Quackwatch itself. Might be useful for you to read our article on him as well. I do not think you would be able to make a credible argument that he is not a recognized authority on pseudoscience and quackery. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not doubting that Stephen Barrett wouldn't be a recognized person in the field. He's no longer pursuing his career as an active scientist, is he? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion, Jytdog. I will check Pubmed. There is no reason for you to get upset with me, I am merely asking the question, much as you were doing when you opened the RfC on whether or not alt-med practitioners had a COI. I don't have an opinion on this matter, just as you don't have an opinion on your RfC. I just never considered the idea that Quackwatch might be a SPS until Sarah brought up the argument above, and I only wanted to ask the question. LesVegas (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you took that as snippy. i meant it straight; no curveballs or sarcasm.  i really don't think you could make a credible case that he is not an expert in quackery or pseudoscience. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on Quackwatch says that it originated in 1969 and that the publication went online in 1996. Is this information accurate? I'm sorry for being ignorant here but you seem like much more of an expert on it. LesVegas (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a self-published source often used in violation of policy. The policy (WP:SPS) says (bold in the original):

"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. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

Quackwatch has been used widely, including in Acupunture, St John's wort, Chlorophyll, Christian Science. The Quackwatch owner is not an "established expert" in those fields. It's exactly the kind of source SPS is meant to guard against because there's no editorial oversight.

What has happened is that some editors interpret "the relevant field" as fringe generally. They also interpret anything Quackwatch's owner includes on the site as fringe by definition. It thereby becomes a tautology that he is an expert on anything he writes about. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of SPS is wrong in this case. Even ArbCom never took that extreme interpretation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That isn't an extreme "interpretation"; the words speak for themselves. Quackwatch is widely used in violation of the sourcing policies. I had no idea how widely until this discussion. BLPSPS, for example, makes clear that no self-published sources, expert or otherwise, are allowed about living persons, unless written by the subject. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're focusing on the BLP aspect? Okay, do you have any examples? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not only focusing on BLP (you can do a search and find examples of it in BLPs). The whole point of SPS when it was written was to keep out sources like Quackwatch that had no editorial oversight. We didn't want a situation where one person on a website could say X and X would end up on Wikipedia, except in very limited circumstances, including genuine experts in the field. But even then with great caution. We don't really want self-published Christian Scientists sourcing Christian Science, except when used very carefully. We don't want self-published anyone sourcing WP as a rule; otherwise we could just get rid of sourcing and add our own views. That's effectively what's happening here. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is correct throughout this discussion, and SPS has been widely misinterpreted here. And speaking of the mention of the Arbitration Committee findings multiple times throughout this discussion: What the arbs said (in the amended motion) was: and that editors must always:
 * Reliable sources, a guideline, warns against use of sources whose content is controlled by their owner - "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication."
 * Conflict of interest, a guideline, warns:
 * 1) avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies  on Autobiography and Neutral point of view, (emphasis mine)

... followed by the finding that: ... followed by a caution to Fyslee/Bullrangifer:
 * Fyslee (who self-identifies as BullRangifer on this page) "is a health activist who participates in a number of internet sites critical of alternative medicine, see "user=fyslee" and (contains list of sites)
 * Fyslee/BullRangifer had "engaged in incivility and personal attacks".
 * Fyslee/BullRangifer had "repeatedly used Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as references".
 * "to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits." BullRangifer/Fyslee, how can you seriously consider that because the other party behaved worse than you and was banned, that you can state here, on this page, with a straight face that you and Quackwatch were "vindicated"? And considering your COI here (or has something changed?), should you really be pushing so hard for this?  Or editing non-neutrally anywhere on Wikipedia?  Or should we post that question to a new arbcase, examining all of the alt-med and MEDRS issues?, you were part of that arbcase; do you think Fsylee/BR should be editing non-neutrally and pushing for QW to be included in MEDRS? Slim was actively working on WP:V at the time of that arbcase (in fact, she always has), and although we had our differences then on the page, she knows the discussions that went into the development of that page and their intent; I agree with her (and the arbs) that our policies are designed to specifically avoid dubious sources such as QW. While I'm here, I oppose all three versions of the proposal above, which would introduce a controversial source which simply is not needed (if something is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, a real source will have covered it), and whose introduction will only weaken a well-written and widely accepted guideline which already has opponents and detractors because of efforts like this to overextend its reach, unnecessarily.  Editors who edit medical content and frequently reference MEDRS when it is convenient simply cannot continue to then discard MEDRS when they find it more convenient to their aims to ignore MEDRS, or to endorse sloppy sourcing to websites like Quackwatch, without calling into question the credibility of the entire medicine project and MEDRS.  That is, you don’t get to have it both ways.  Either you follow the guideline for sourcing health content, or you don’t, but Quackwatch is not the kind of sourcing either SPS or MEDRS intended. I oppose these attempts because they will weaken a guideline we have and need, and suggest that an overfixation by medical editors on alt-med topics is undermining overall medicine project work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The accusation of a COI was never proven. I have never worked for or edited the Quackwatch website. That's an urban legend. The fact that I share POV with QW (and thus all scientific skeptics) is not a COI. The fact that I have written a few emails to Barrett seeking information, is not a COI. I usually got no positive result. Frankly he's not always very nice, at least not in print. I have never spoken to him or met him. So, the COI idea is really a very bad faith accusation which needs to be laid to rest.
 * I and QW, were indeed vindicated by a later revision of that decision.
 * I did respond to many extremely libelous attacks by the banned editor, sometimes in an uncivil manner, and that was the extent of my offense. I doubt you would have fared better when being driven to near suicide. It was horrible. The lies were horrendous.
 * The "additions" of QW turned out, upon examination of each instance, to nearly always be restorations of improper deletions of that source. There were editors then who, like yourself, hate QW. They went around and systematically deleted every single QW reference they could find. When I discovered that, I (and others) examined each instance and restored those which should have been restored. There were a few instances where I did NOT restore them. The community deemed the inclusions to be good, and my actions were within proper behavior. My attacker falsely accused me of "adding" lots of QW edits, when I was only restoring them. Those were the findings of fact. Another editor defended me and did the work of examining it and presenting that evidence. Keep in mind that a charge is not evidence of a misdeed. The charges were listed, but not always found to be true. Yet the wording of the charges was left in place, and the wordings were made before ANY evidence had ever been presented!
 * FYI, I am not "pushing" for inclusion of QW in MEDRS. I saw what was happening here and decided to propose some wording. It's really not that big a deal to me, since RS is good enough to cover it most of the time. I have just been defending it against false charges from several editors, including yourself. I happen to understand the subject better than you. Next time try asking before making uninformed accusations and assumptions about QW. If I can't answer, I'll research it and get back to you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't my first rodeo. Many of us were active on Usenet in the 90s, some of us even have more than one stalker from whom we aren't separated by oceans, some of us even alerted the arbs to certain internet personalities well before that arbcase.  You are not telling me anything I didn't already know and haven't experienced likely in more frightening proximity than yourself. But not all of us resort to suicidal hyperbole when recalling internet issues and threats and stalking. I'm sorry you felt so threatened, but Wikipedia guidelines and their talk pages and Wikipedia articles are not the place to resolve off-Wikipedia trauma and conflict. This is a page where we are discussing one of the most important guidelines that affects our medical content, and consequently affects real people's lives.  Your personal attempts to pull at people's heartstrings in article, guideline and content discussions need to stop; this is not Usenet or a message board or another internet forum you frequent-- we have work to do. and our work has a serious impact on real people. So, I am going to ask you for the last time.  You have, as far as I can tell, an arb caution still in place. It doesn't appear to me that you are respecting the intent of their findings. Not only are you quite aggressively dominating this conversation and misrepresenting facts and intimidating people (who end up topic banned) with statements that you present as fact about Quackwatch but are quite dubious, in your attempt to push your views into an important guideline; but you are most certainly quite aggressively pushing your views into articles as well, and not always even using reliable sources.  Please re-read the arb caution.  And, again, I am asking you formally to stop filling the page with walls of text, back off, and allow editors who are neutral with respect to Quackwatch to have a reasoned discussion. Your posts here are over the top, and should. Just. Stop.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This cuts both ways, so WP:POT obviously applies. When you present misunderstandings as fact, I just responded. BTW, I'm not sure about your Usenet references. I stayed away from it. I was referring to Arbcom, right here. You happen to be treating me the same way I was unfairly treated at Arbcom. Try AGF and dropping that. It doesn't increase collegiality. I'd rather see that here.
 * BTW, I can't even recall the last time I ever added a QW reference. It's been a very, very long time, so the caution has always been working. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a question about this dialog, but i'll put it down here to simplify matters. Specifically, i'm wondering about what the topic would be of an expert in this domain. Is it medical science in general? Or is it sociology of quackery? I ask because the website describes itself as "an international network of people who are concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere." So, it is *about* a sociological phenomenon that involves various medical fields. Secondly, if the expert is an expert on medicine, then does that mean a dentist can write on Quackwatch about a topic in gynecology, or vice versa, and have it be approved as a source here in Wikipedia on a level that would satisfy MEDRS guidelines and the general need to very solidly source any claims regarding human health etiology? Ping and  as the two primary discussants above. SageRad (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You raise and excellent point, SageRad. MEDRS even states "Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are... [that] its content being outside the journal's normal scope (for instance, an article on the efficacy of a new cancer treatment in a psychiatric journal or the surgical techniques for hip replacement in a urology journal)." And that is how we handle biomedical journals. So to elevate activist web based newsletters such as Quackwatch to a level we wouldn't accept for a prestigious journal like Urology is really a stretch. LesVegas (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Authoritative nature of Quackwatch
QW is more than Barrett. Many different authors contribute, each with their own forms of expertise. Some we would not use, and others we would. Some content is documents from the government, others are legal documents, and others historical. Some of those sources may be housed at QW, but QW really has nothing to do with the evaluation. Again, judge and use each on a case by case basis, as with ALL sources, including JAMA and NEJM.

As for Barrett, he is a recognized expert and authority in the field of health care consumer protection, more specifically as an expert on pseudoscience, quackery, health fraud, nutrition, and alternative medicine. Some of these are not typical academic or scientific fields of knowledge, so you likely won't find lots of peer reviewed research about every one of them, although he has been published in many venues, including in peer reviewed journals. Much of his recognition and fame comes from recognition by other experts in legal, scientific, educational, governmental, and consumer protection areas. The amount of documentation for this recognition is touched on in his bio here and in the QW article. It's definitely enough for us to recognize him as an expert, and all RfCs and ArbCom discussions, decisions, and rulings have recognized this. Another hallmark of the authoritative nature of QW is that all quacks and pushers of pseudoscience oppose QW. That's a badge of honor. Invariably, you will find that those who criticize QW are on the wrong side of the issues.

Use of QW content is governed by normal RS policies, and in some cases the content would also qualify as MEDRS compliant, and as with all sources, we use common sense and judge each use on a case by case basis.

In the beginning days of Wikipedia, sourcing wasn't always as careful, content was much different, there were far fewer policies and guidelines, and there weren't as many eyes. There was careless use of all kinds of sources, including QW, and examples of such careless use were found and removed. Since then we've been much more careful. All current uses have survived that winnowing process, and current attempts to remove them because they are from QW are simply disruptive and based on failures to understand our sourcing policies and the good reputation of QW as a source. Unfortunately we have a couple admins who consistently back pseudoscience and talk bad about QW, including on this page. Ignore them. They have no credibility when it comes to this type of content.

These disruptive attempts to demote QW are to be seen for what they are. QW is the canary in the coal mine when it comes to exposing pseudoscience, quackery, and health fraud. Enemies of anti-quackery efforts always attack QW. That's a big red flag. Anyone who does that should be watchlisted, as their actions against QW undermine the goal of Wikipedia to favor sources aligned with mainstream RS. These people tend to favor use of unreliable sources. Anyone who is against the anti-quackery efforts of QW is by definition pro-quackery. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention another factor about QW - it is not peer-reviewed. DrChrissy (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * More IDHT behavior. This has been addressed before, so your lack of competence is showing. I will refer you to my previous explanation above. You know better than to raise this issue. Websites aren't peer reviewed (only one strictly online medical journal has that status, that I know of), so that is not a legitimate objection. Websites are considered usable and often reliable sources here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A few comments to the long - but well descriptive - post by BullRangifer:
 * "Again, judge and use each on a case by case basis, as with ALL sources, including JAMA and NEJM.": I am glad to see that you accept this now. As it's been voiced out by many editors, the reliability of a source always depends on the context. So yes, QuackWatch is not reliable per se, and there is a strong consensus for that.
 * "Some of these are not typical academic or scientific fields of knowledge, so you likely won't find lots of peer reviewed research about every one of them": Exactly, BullRangifer. On such cases QuackWatch is an excellent sources. But on some other topic areas, such as acupuncture, where plenty of scientific literature exists, we shouldn't really use QuackWatch. Especially for claims that have not passed the peer-review process.
 * "It's definitely enough for us to recognize him as an expert, and all RfCs and ArbCom discussions, decisions, and rulings have recognized this.": I don't think anyone is trying to claim otherwise. Instead, the question is whether QuackWatch is a reliable source (yes, but not per se) and on what occasions it might be used.
 * "Another hallmark of the authoritative nature of QW is that all quacks and pushers of pseudoscience oppose QW.": Well, that might be the case as well. But when we have real sound scientific literature available on the subject, we should use those instead of a self-published blog. The scientific world can be rough, I know, and if you can't make your ideas pass the peer-review process of a notable journal, well it's not really helping your career and giving you a lot of merit - retired or in working-life.
 * "These disruptive attempts to demote QW are to be seen for what they are. QW is the canary in the coal mine when it comes to exposing pseudoscience, quackery, and health fraud.": I agree with you here BullRangifer, and by the way I like your parable of miners canary that you are using :-) Anyway, on areas where the sons and daughters of mainstream science have taken over, we can spare the poor bird, don't you think? ;-)
 * "Enemies of anti-quackery efforts always attack QW.": I wouldn't over simplify the issue like that, even though it might be the case sometimes, BullRangifer. That starts to sound like strongly dualistisc world view where the forces of Good and Evil are engaged in an eternal struggle. I think most of the editors are concerned with QuackWatch being a self-published source that is making claims that have not passed any peer-review process. Although QuackWatch might be used in areas that have not been able to attract enough scientific attention, just like user The Four Deuces demonstrated, in areas that have, we simply have better sources, i.e. sources that have passed the scientific process.
 * "These people tend to favor use of unreliable sources.": BullRangifer, the unreliable sources will be removed per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.That will happen independent from QuackWatch. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm traveling over many time zones for the next many hours, so I'll just start with point one: I have been saying that for years. It's always been my opinion. Case by case. So your statement is such a false implication as to be malicious personal attack. Strike the whole thing. Also, you have it backwards: We approach QW as basically a RS until proven otherwise. Also, there is not a large (or any) consensus against QW. On the contrary. Your repetition of that lie doesn't make it so. More later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal attack? No, not even. As you said, "case by case". In other words, the reliability depends on the context, i.e. QuackWatch - like any source - is not reliable per se. Reliability is not an intrinsic attribute of a source. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely - we do not even say that JAMA is 100% reliable per se - it is a case-by-case basis. DrChrissy (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jayaguru-Shishya, you wrote: "I am glad to see that you accept this now." Your clear implication is that I haven't done that before. Who the heck do you think has been championing that expression for a decade here at Wikipedia when referring to QW? You're looking at him. I have ALWAYS held that position. It is not "reliability" which depends on context, but usage. QW is reliable (as in true or untrue) until proven otherwise, but it's usage is dependent on the context. Just because it might not be appropriate in some situations does not make it unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof always lies on the party who makes a claim, not the contrary. That's the problem with self-published sources actually: they are out of reach of scientific scrutinizing. That's why emphasizing the context becomes so important, and I am glad we agree with that BullRangifer. We should always seek first, however, for independent scholarly secondary sources. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I believe we do seek such sources first. If they are found later, they can be added. In some cases QW becomes superfluous and has been removed, and in some cases the new source has been added while keeping QW. BTW, there is an interesting phenomenon which has often occurred with QW and other such scientific skeptic websites. They have often been the first in the trenches to call out and expose dubious claims and health fraud. That's their unique contribution as sources, and why we use them. Research scientists don't usually deal with such matters. Later, as more research is done, direct, peer reviewed evidence comes to light absolutely backing up what QW has been saying all along. That's happened a number of times. Only a couple times has Barrett had to revise or retract his views, and he has done it. One of the latest examples is the research showing that typical use of vitamins and dietary supplements is often doing more harm than good. QW has been saying that for years. Barrett's expertise in nutrition earned him honorary membership in the ADA, and his book "The Vitamin Pushers" is excellent. All three of these books were well ahead of the curve and quite accurate:


 * The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America, Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, eds. (1993). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-855-4
 * The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods, Barrett SJ, Herbert V (1991). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-909-7
 * Vitamins and Minerals: Help or Harm?, Marshall CW (1983). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins ISBN 0-397-53060-9 (edited by Barrett, won the American Medical Writers Association award for best book of 1983 for the general public, republished by Consumer Reports Books).
 * We usually attribute QW and Barret's opinions until research has confirmed their views. After that we include the evidence backing up their authoritative views and even use Wikipedia's voice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2. You wrote: "But on some other topic areas, such as acupuncture, where plenty of scientific literature exists, we shouldn't really use QuackWatch. Especially for claims that have not passed the peer-review process." Wrong again, and this has been explained to you, so this is IDHT behavior. QW presents a different angle on the subject. Discussion of controversies and notable opinions are definitely allowable content, even on highly researched subjects. Controversies and notable opinions don't go through any peer review process, and they are allowable content. You don't get to eliminate opposing POV. That's whitewashing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite. If we have two angles to the subject, one of a high-quality secondary source and another of QuackWatch, we should go with the former. BullRangifer, even if other editors might not agree with you 100 percent, could you please try to keep your cool? As you can read from the discussion, it has been voiced out by many editors that QuackWatch is an appropriate source when better sources are not available. This is the case with some topics, but not all. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3. Already addressed above.
 * 4. You called QW a "blog" again. Wrong again, and this has been explained to you, so this is IDHT behavior. There is zero evidence that QW is a blog. You need to get your facts right. You don't seem to know what a blog is. Stop saying that. Even if it were a blog, it would be a blog from a subject expert, and therefore allowable under our RS rules, and especially per PARITY, but that's a moot point because it's not a blog. It's been around since before blogs started their existence anyway and bears no resemblance to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Many of your statements imply that nothing but peer reviewed literature is allowed in medical and other articles. That's not true. Opinions are also allowed. Our medical articles contain content based on ordinary RS rules and content based on MEDRS. Much of QW content would be under the first, but some would even qualify under the second. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, you have a COI here. I am formally asking you to stand aside and let neutral editors decide this matter.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have a COI in regard to QW, as explained above. Please stop making claims without evidence. That's a very short answer to your latest wall of text. -- BullRangifer (talk)


 * The FDA apparently recognise Barrett's expertise: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm137284.htm Guy (Help!) 23:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I posed a question above for you, : I would like to know where you stand on Fyslee/BullRangifer's editing in relation to the caution issued by the arbs in 2007, neutral editing, and also this matter of QW. Now, if you all want to establish that QW meets SPS, here is a sample of what the G&S WikiProject did for
 * WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography.
 * If that's what you want to do, do it right. That means no more walls of text from partisan Fyslee here (BR is not neutral on this topic, yet is dominating the conversation). We simply should not have someone who has already been cautioned for this kind of editing by the arbs making claims on this page like, "These disruptive attempts to demote QW are to be seen for what they are"; what the arbs said about QuackWatch is plain and clear. Put together a page like that and take it to the entire community (WP:RSN maybe?) so as not to push something through here with a small group that endorses MEDRS only when convenient, and that will undermine the years-long efforts that yielded a widely accepted medical sourcing guideline. MEDRS is needed for areas beyond alt-med and should not be undermined by overstretching beyond what the broader community will accept. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see some problems with BR's past comments (although no complaints about his article edits were substantiated; however, QW is considered expert in fringe phenomena, and should be considered reliable under WP:SPS in any subject generally (or even often) considered pseudoscience. This includes the articles mentioned above by SV.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed non-reliable sources that were added by BullRangifer from articles. When an arb caution is in place, it applies to all editing, not just in the one article that prompted the arbcase. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Public maintenance
Just a few questions and request to keep the course of discussion more clear. Thanks!


 * 1) SandyGeorgia, you said that you oppose all three proposals (I guess you meant the "Refinements"). How about the original proposal, "Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline"? Do you oppose that one as well?
 * 2) CorporateM, LesVegas and Jess, could I ask you to strike the votes that you are not in support of anymore? For example, CorporateM and LesVegas have changed their support from "Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline" to "Quackwatch: Refinement #1", and Jess from "Quackwatch: Refinement #1" and "Quackwatch: Refinement #2" to "Quackwatch: Refinement #3".
 * 3) QuackGuru, you supported both "Quackwatch: Refinement #2" and "Quackwatch: Refinement #3". Later you said, however, "This version is better written than my proposal." So I guess you are in favour of "Quackwatch: Refinement #3" then? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just couldn't help noticing that some editors seems to be supporting multiple options whereas we'd need to go with one! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree; I support both proposals and do not see them as intrinsically in opposition of each other such that supporting one means opposing the other. CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's entirely normal to support more than one proposal in a discussion like this. I have a preference (which I've spelled out), but I'm also comfortable with several alternates.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , regarding the idea that we need to "go with one", no we don't. We don't need to mention Quackwatch at all in this guideline, and doing so is a stretch that will weaken this guideline. I explained further here.  Quackwatch does not meet MEDRS.  It is an SPS. If anyone wants to use it anywhere, they can discuss at WP:RSN whether that specific use (dependent on context) is in line with WP:V.  I am opposed to any wording in this guideline about how QW might be used as a source because that is already covered by WP:V. It should not be used in acupuncture, and if it truly is the only source on some fringe topic, then we shouldn't have an article.  This guideline does not need to be weakened by discussing every marginal source (like Quackwatch, Mayo Clinic, so on.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you know what happens when someone takes a marginal use of Quackwatch to RSN? They're told that Quackwatch is absolutely reliable for any use that any skeptic wants to use it for, and that anyone who disagrees is welcome to read the archives to prove that The Community™ has always held this view.  They're also directed to read WP:PARITY, which is the excuse for using low-quality sources to disagree with anything that isn't sufficiently "mainstream" or "evidence-based" or "Western", and to discuss it at WP:FTN, so that people whose personal POV happens to align very closely with Quackwatch can repeat the message that Quackwatch is an ideal source for discussing any subject that can't boast a Cochrane review.  The RSN discussions on this subject do not seem to consider complicated subjects like "context" and "self-published (expert) websites".  I believe that this is the most recent time that Quackwatch was mentioned at RSN (although the main subject is a blog with a similar POV).  I'm sure it's a very enlightening discussion, if you want to learn things like "FRINGE trumps MEDRS".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Naturally (it's Wikipedia-- you've just described its essence-- dysfunctional). So here we are, talking about Reiki, when we have thousands of medical articles that need attention to fundamentals. Why are we allowing fringe topics of marginal consequence to drive the Medicine Project?  So, Wikipedia is consensus driven, and on the internet, no one knows you're a dog, and anyone can say anything (including at the RSN).  We can't fix that.  We have WP:V and WP:RSN, and if they don't work, well, we can't fix it by extending this page beyond what the dysfunction in this place supports. At some point, they're all going to end up before arbcom.  But damaging MEDRS for folks fighting fringe topics isn't the way to benefit our medical content across the board.   MEDRS needs to stay rational for the rest of our medical articles; not fall prey to what is overtaking the entire Wikiproject Medicine (or as you say, even the noticeboards.)  So, I guess that is what this is about?  By the way, WP:PARITY is indecipherable.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing table of contents
Why isn't there a table of contents on this talk page? Sizeofint (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The FAQ borked the TOC.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording clarification
The overreach of this snippet is causing problems (like the ongoing e-cig case at ArbCom):


 * medical }}

Undisputed material is shown in grey. This should be changed to the following (wikilinked as needed):


 * scientific journals (especially medical journals, and other peer-reviewed journals that routinely publish medical material); ;

Rationale: Many prestigious journals include medical articles, and having one published in such a journal may be more, not less, evidence of reliability than publication in a highly specialized, subtopical medical journal. Furthermore, a large number of journals often include reliable material of a medical or multidisciplinary biomedical nature, but are not typically classified as "medical journals". The wording has been sculpted to exclude the odd case of something like a humanities journal publishing an ostensibly medical article for some reason.

I believe that the intent of MEDRS has never been to exclude medical material published in reputable science journals that are not technically medical journals, and per WP:CONLEVEL policy it probably exclude it because the more general guideline at WP:RS permits it. Nevertheless, people are editwarring half to death over this wording, and it needs to stop. While ArbCom can rein in individual behavior problems in the particular dispute linked to above, it cannot rule on content matters, so this kind of dispute will continue to arise if the wording here is not corrected to stop accidentally conflicting so obviously and so sharply with WP:RS.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed copyediting, including resolution of conflicts with NOR policy
1. The "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" part is vague and overbroad, as it would include any position statement on anything issued by such an organization, including political positions. Such statements are primary sources by definition (a definition controlled by policy, not guidelines, at WP:NOR). I what is meant here is position statements about particular medical facts or research, based on systematic reviews and a consensus in the field, but it may simply be best to trim out the part about "position statements" so that the passage reads "medical guidelines from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies", then adding something about "position statements" outside the "ideal sources" sentence. It's not actually conceivable that we would treat a simple position statement (probably years, maybe even decades old) by a medical organisation as more reliable than current research supported by peer-reviewed sources like literature reviews; at best we'd quote or paraphrase and then attribute the statement as a primary source, if a WP:DUE analysis indicated we should include the organization's stance along with that of the other material being cited. Giving it more weight would be a WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOR / WP:PSTS problem.

2. Also, "respected publisher" is made-up wording that does not reflect our standard language on this criterion, at WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc., which is "reputable publisher" ("reputably published", etc.), so the wording here should be changed to conform. The distinction is subtle but important: Respect is something that an individual entity confers on something, while reputation is something determined broadly in the aggregate by the combined public effect of many entities' choices to confer [or withhold] respect. Thus, "respected" is subject to WP:GAMING, by reliance on declarations of "respect" by particular cherry-picked entities, which does not actually amount to overall reputability. While usually not spelled out as clearly as I've stated it here, this issue actually comes up quite frequently, and we do not want this matter to become confused, most especially with regard to medical sourcing (perhaps only in WP:BLP sourcing is it more important to get source reliability correct).

3. More trivially, a systematic review is a of literature review, so the "including literature reviews or systematic reviews" wording is awkward and illogical (like writing "vegetables or asparagus"), and would be better as "including literature reviews (not limited to systematic reviews)".

Such copyediting is distinct from the larger issue being raised in the thread above this one, and should be dealt with independently. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We use lots of press releases from the FDA and WHO and I consider these to be suitable sources. Happy with suggestion 3. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They are surely suitable sources, but all press releases are primary by definition. The guideline segment in question begins "Ideal sources for biomedical content include ...."  I do not believe it is possible for a primary source to be an idea source for medical information of any kind, and policy backs me up on that. We are permitted to use primary sources for some things, "with extreme caution", but they cannot ever be used for WP:AEIS claims.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider this so be more than a press release. It is the position of the FDA. And as such it is also an ideal source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still a primary source about what the FDA's position is; it doesn't constitute a secondary source, and it presents little in the way of usable medical information; what information it contains is essentially an abstract, the sources for which are entirely unclear (in that sense, it's a tertiary source for facts, and a primary source for FDA stance, but it's a secondary source for nothing whatsoever). As I said below to Jytdog, the issue isn't "can we ever cite organizational statements?" (of course we can, with caution), it's "why is this in the sentence about 'ideal sources'?" It needs to move; that's all. Its inclusion in that sentence directly contradicts the one following it: "Primary sources should generally not be used for biomedical content."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That stretches the definition of a primary source. Everything that an author publishes is a primary source for that author's views. But when the FDA issues a directive about a drug, it is not a primary source of information about that drug. What the policy seeks to prevent is, for example, drug companies being used as sources for their own products, or researchers used as sources for their own cinical trials. The policy requires a degree of independence, which is what the FDA offers. Sarah (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My response to Jydog below (beginning "Lit. reviews are secondary because") addresses all of these points.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * on 1) "position statements" is important useful and different. this is a medical guideline; this is a position statement, as is this and this.
 * on 2) this is actually important - we discuss the "respectability" of publishers all the time. There are crappy journals that publish crappy reviews that push some POV (the "Frontiers" series is infamous for having vanity issues with reviews that don't even try to be neutral), and we need ways to deal with that variability in the biomedical literature for the "reviews" arm of secondary sources.  It is similar to how we say "major" medical/scientific bodies, not just "any"
 * on 3), ok by me Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) See response to Doc James above; this section is about "ideal sources"; none of those position statements appear to qualify. They're all primary sources we must use with "extreme caution". I.e., the fact that we can sometimes use such statements by medical organization needs to move to somewhere outside the "ideal sources" sentence. That's why I included it in this basic-copyediting thread. These statements tell us what these organizations' (largely socio-political) stance on something is, not medical facts about anything. 2) I know it's important; that's why I brought it up. :-) Changing this to "reputable" instead of subjectively "respectable" the distinction you're trying to draw. It's the very reason that the change was made on the other pages. The point is not to try to dictate what word people use on talk pages or whatever, but to have all our sourcing policies and guidelines agreeing on a standardized term tied to an  and not partial and GAMEable idea of reputability, even if some-not-all editors want to approach the words as synonymous in their own writing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WRT 1) I view the sources that Jyt linked as ideal. They are generated by a review of the literature by a well respected medical body that has than come out with an evidence based position. This is how MEDRS has been interpreted for years. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting circular so I'm not going to continue back-and-forthing with you, but let others weigh in. WP:AEIS policy states very clearly that primary sources cannot be used for much; it doesn't matter who organizationally authored them or on what basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish you are coming in charging but you don't seem to have any awareness of how we actually source health content, nor of the long series of discussions of how we got here. This all goes back to the mission of WP to express "accepted knowledge."  there are two ways we get to that.  Reviews in the biomedical literature, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies that synthesize all the information out there and present the mainstream, authoritative view on it  (which is what secondary sources do).  Those are the two places where we can trust that we can find "accepted knowledge" about health as well as the state of play with regard to various views on issues.  You are coming into this, it seems to me, with the e-cig battleground in your head.  Please do take some time and review the archives of this Talk page and you will see the wisdom of the community in action (it came together long before I arrived on the scene) Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how long it would take before someone came in with the "you are not one of us" angle [sigh]. I'm quite well aware of how these articles have been sourced, and have been working on them (albeit not as a focus) for years.  The e-cig mess actually has nothing at all to do with this in any way; it's part of why I forked this into a separate thread, as the concern raised here (which maybe I should have put in a third thread, distinct from the "respected"/"reputable" and "literature/systemic" stuff, has been on my mind for a couple of years; I expected it to have been addressed by now, but it's actually been spreading misuse of primary sources outside of medical topics into other science topics.  I'm not questioning the wisdom of the community, or of the WP:MED project.  There's a problem here of differing definitions of "primary sources"; people coming to WP from medicine and medical academia have a sense of what that means in their field, and this does not align perfectly with how that term is defined as it applies to WP, at WP:PSTS policy.  Organizational statements like this may be incredibly good primary sources, but they are still primary, so their application, as sources, is limited on WP. It's misleading to label them as "ideal sources". What they're really, actually ideal for is WP:UNDUE analysis; they speak strongly to what mainstream medical views are, but they don't tell us much about specific medical facts and the research basis behind them. And they don't age well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay so I agree that we having differing definitions of what is a primary source. Consensus here has been that position statements from health care organizations are secondary sources with respect to health care content. These organizations typically look at all the available sources and than come out with a statement. They are not personally in a lab running rats through mazes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally different kind of primary source. So is an eyewitness account of something. So is an editorial. It's not about whether the source is trustworthy (that about whether it's a high-quality vs. low-quality source, not primary/secondary, which is about editorial review of the statement. My response to Jydog below (beginning "Lit. reviews are secondary because") addresses this in more detail.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you keep describing the statements/guidelines as PRIMARY and they aren't. This goes way, way back to 2008 (archive 1 - search for "major") - these statements synthesize all the literature that is out there and present the authoritative read by the institutions in our society that conduct science and medicine. Calling them PRIMARY is just so wrong-headed. By your reasoining the authors who write reviews, are also writing PRIMARY sources.  What you are saying just doesn't make sense.  Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lit. reviews are secondary because they're subject to external editorial control (peer review committee). A book from a reputable academic publisher is secondary for the same reason (editorial review and revision by a process that has earned the publisher a reputation for quality output). No one second-guesses what the AMA or the FDA say about position. To the extent they're reporting "these are the medical facts", not a  on them from a policy perspective, they're tertiary sources.  Policy is clear on what primary/secondary/tertiary means . I know that "primary source" means something different in medical referencing, and that in science publishing in general primary sources are sought and secondary considered of less value in many contexts, especially if not peer-reviewed; various fields from humanities to law have their own ideas, in their own publications, what these terms mean and how to use such sources. But they don't apply here. There's a confusion going on between "is this a high-quality or low quality source because of the reputation of who's making this statement?" vs. "is this a secondary or primary source?", which is entirely about editorial control  the statement. WP wants secondary sources (and high-quality ones) for any WP:AEIS claims because they've been through an editorial control process independent of the author.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the positions of the FDA, WHO, AMA etc. are discussed and reviewed extremely extensively, far more so than any review paper. Often you will see 40-50 authors, and you can bet each and every sentence in the WHO Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance 2014 was debated and analyzed (the review group alone consists of no less than 18 individuals). The WHO position statement on Varicella vaccition remains one of the most well researched papers on the topic, and by your definition it isn't even a secondary source.
 * You previously linked WP:COMPETENCE and I will do the same, because your arguments point to a clear lack of understanding when it comes to scientific publishing. I suggest you read up on academic publishing and the background to position statements by these organizations. There is long standing consensus behind this clause and it won't be changed on a whim, you're wasting time. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I lay out in the bullet points below (see subtopic) why it's fallacious to try to apply certain expectations regarding external scientific publishing directly to WP, and what fallout this is having.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I fully support to accept peer reviewed studies. 06:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)prokaryotes (talk)
 * Per "because they're subject to external editorial control"? No peer review does not make something a secondary source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes it a reliable one (or more likely to be reliable, depending on the reputability of the publisher) instead of a self-published one we would not use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are different peer-review criteria, but established medicine peer-reviewed journals such as PLOS (See their information on it) should be allowed, because of high standards. MEDRS states: Primary sources should generally not be used for biomedical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles. Instead of this clause there could be an info when required, that this is i.e. preliminary study, only in vitro etc. Thus the policy should make clear to proper point out what kind of study is discussed, instead to prevent information sharing. prokaryotes (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to point to WP:WHYMEDRS. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 17:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, people are already aware about new studies in medicine, they read about them every day in the main stream media. The arguments brought up at WHYMEDRS are just opinion, such as not reliable, or that people could confuse information with health advice etc. These are just baseless claims. Wikipedia has already standards to make sure that content is presented in a proper way. Peer-reviewed articles from established journals are therefore acceptable. Additionally, if it turns out that a study in fact is not promising, this info will then be later added as well. Then you can see oh this was promising, but then trials happened and it didn't worked. It's not like that study translates into readily available for abuse. There is no reason to withheld information on Wikipedia about scientific research. I would even argue it hurts more then it helps. prokaryotes (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , the definition of secondary source does not depend on there being a review process (though of course it's good when there is one), and primary sources are preferred in the humanities too. Also, it isn't correct that the terms are used in a special way on Wikipedia; sources are primary or secondary depending on what they're used to support. Rather than discussing definitions, can you say what you see the problem as, i.e. what is happening that ought not to be happening ? Sarah (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking of definition rather than, yes, a secondary source is just one that engages in WP:AEIS based on prior sources. But for WP purposes it does depend on an editorial review process, because a secondary source without one is not , so we wouldn't use it anyway; if it had no editorial review process it would be a self-published source; that the review process exists is essentially a pre-requisite for it to be a .  It is quite correct to say that these WP:PSTS terms are used in a particular way on WP; that policy spells out what these terms mean here and how they're used here; PSTS does not exactly agree with any particular external field's approach, but is tailored to our own needs. I agree of course that a source is primary or secondary contextually; a book or journal paper is a secondary source for the AEIS] material in it based on previous sources, primary for whatever unique ideas the author(s) advances in it, and even tertiary for any data just summarized, without AEIS, from other sources; a source can sometimes even be primary or secondary for the same fact depending on how it's being used. But things can also categorically be primary for certain things (e.g. an organization's press release is categorically a primary source for their own position).  As for what the problems are: They're numerous and varied, and too much to cover here in detail. This subthread (copyediting point #1 of 3), is about nothing more than  a few words so that the one sentence does not directly contradict both NOR policy, and the sentence immediately following the one in question.  Yes, I can outline what I see the problems are, but will do that under a new heading.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Long replies
"position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" part is vague and overbroad... Such statements are primary sources by definition" and "Organizational statements like this may be incredibly good primary sources, but they are still primary" – It’s clear that your area of expertise lies outside of medicine. Perhaps you have confused this with the sort of position statements that political candidates release.  In fact, if you look at actual medical position statements, like  or  or, you’ll see that they’re published in peer-reviewed journals and labeled as being review articles.  I just looked through about 20 recent position statements at PubMed, and of those that gave any publication type at all, all but one (one that is still pre-publication) explicitly listed the article as being a review.  These are widely accepted as reliable, and even authoritative, secondary sources, even if the name makes it sound like something else. These actually are “ideal sources” – far better, in fact, that lit reviews by some random university instructor who needs to get a few more publication credits on the résumé.

"More trivially, a systematic review is a type of literature review" – I’m not convinced that this is correct. Sure, a systematic review does involve reviewing the literature, but that’s like saying anyone who is tired all the time has Chronic fatigue syndrome. This is jargon, not plain English, and the two terms are used in opposition.

"all press releases are primary by definition" – I think you’ll find that it’s more complicated than that. A press release that repeats material from a critical analysis does not magically transform that analytical work back into a primary source. Primary does not mean self-published.

"Lit. reviews are secondary because they're subject to external editorial control (peer review committee). A book from a reputable academic publisher is secondary for the same reason" – Garbage. Really: That is 100% wrong. You will never find a reliable source that says applying peer review to a description of an experiment makes it secondary (because those get peer-reviewed by the same process and the same people, you know) or that failing to apply peer review to a synthetic work makes the synthetic work magically quit being synthesized. You will never find a reliable source that says all books published by university presses are secondary. Editorial control does not make something become secondary! Editorial control often makes something a good source for Wikipedia, but it does not make it secondary. Literature reviews are secondary because they apply critical analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthetic thought to pre-existing material. That's what WP:AEIS stands for: Analysis, Interpretation, Evaluation, and Synthesis. If the author didn't incorporate at least one of those kinds of thinking, then it's not secondary, full stop.

Also: I believe I’ve explained this concept to you several times. WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Secondary does not mean that a good editing process was involved. Secondary means that the creator transformed pre-existing material into something new. You can create a secondary source and never show it to a single human. It's still secondary, even if it never reaches the hands of an editor. And an autobiography is still primary, even if it gets published by a university press and the editor was the patron saint of publishing.

It feels like you have been involved in this kind of discussion on multiple pages this year, and it always ends with everyone disagreeing with your definition of primary source. "We have differing definitions" is perhaps the politest way that I've seen that put for a while. I urge you to figure out what AEIS actually says. Please pay close attention to the presence of these words: "It [a secondary source] contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources." and to the total absence of any word about peer review, editorial control, the publication process, or even whether the source has been published. (A completely different policy statement prohibits editors from using unpublished sources, but whether the source is published has no bearing on whether the source is primary, secondary, or tertiary.)

I agree with what Sarah said. I also agree with what you say about the definition and its misuse. "Secondary" is not some wikijargon for "reliable". When we define primary and secondary sources in all of our policies and guidelines, our goal is to explain which sources are properly classified in which category. Secondary is "WP:NOTGOODSOURCE" – it's not a fancy way of saying "good source". If you see people misusing that term when they mean "good source", then please gently correct their mistake, rather than trying to re-write the policies and guidelines to endorse their ignorance (ignorance that we've at least aided and abetted, if not outright created over the years). We need to remember that primary sources can be reliable, and that secondary sources can be unreliable. The publication process tells us a lot about reliability. The historiographical classification tells us relatively little about reliability. Let's not conflate the concepts, and let's not perpetuate this error that all generally reliable sources are secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"What is happening that ought not to be happening?" regarding copyedit #1
A brief glimpse at some of the problems (the first one tied directly to this copy-editing proposal, the others illustrative of the issue under broader discussion:
 * Citation of organizational position statements as if of the same quality as literature reviews. They are not, because they are frequently tainted by political and PR concerns, and there's essentially no why to determine when they are and when, by chance they are (rarely) neutral and just-the-facts. This is among multiple reasons that they must be treated as primary sources. I'll illustrate this pointedly (though not POINTily :-) below, along with why all this "moral panic" about not being able to treat them as secondary is not necessary.


 * Citation of unreproduced research claims and conclusions as if secondary. "We did this following experiment, and here is what we concluded from it" is primary, both as to the data collected and what the authors are deciding to conclude (the same paper may also contain secondary "mini-review" information, of course). If you don't think anyone could be confused on this point, guess again, and see a huge thread still ongoing at WT:NOR, where several long-term Wikipedians just  that the brand-spanking-new, untested conclusions published in a paper reporting on the authors' own research isn't a primary source. It would boggle the mind, but it's all traceable right back to the problem that some people just, also, will not believe that WP means something WP-specific when it says "secondary source" and does not mean "how 'secondary source' is used when my colleagues and I are communicating in our field". There is a genuine belief held by a minority, but very active minority of Wikipedians that the PSTS terms means something completely different, on WP, depending on the topic of the article. It simply is not true and cannot possibly be true.
 * Confusion of a "reliable source" and reliable' publisher" (actually a reputable publisher). This cognitive dissonance is also widespread, and amounts to be belief that as long as the publisher is "reliable" everything they produced is equally and automatically reliable. This fallacy is palpably at work in this discussion, and below I demonstrate why it won't work. Publisher reputability is just a in determining source reliability.
 * Confusion that a "secondary source" means a secondary publication, i.e. that all material published in a multi-author work, that is mostly characterized by generally secondary material, is automatically secondary source material from cover to cover. I encounter this one all the time. You may not want to believe this, but various non-noob editors are not only convinced that  published in a newspaper is secondary source material.  You'd probably be shocked that they even further assert that a primary source to converted into a secondary source if it's republished in what they imagine is "a secondary publication". I'm not making this up. Someone actually tried to turn WP:NOR policy on its ear recently with the specific intent of building this loophole into the policy. It would mean that any blockquoted claim, no matter how wild, that someone quoted (for any reason) in secondary source material would magically become itself secondary source material and would not longer have to be attributed. This fallacy is frequently combined with one above, to suppose that everything published in a reputable publication mostly consisting of secondary material (which the editor has confused with "reliable, secondary source") is all reliable. Both of these fallacies can be shown be absurd: The crossword puzzle in the newspaper is neither a reliable source nor a secondary source, for anything.
 * (Side note) We see this one all the time. Anything peer-reviewed is a review article, right?  Also, the pervasiveness of this problem is why I wrote WP:PRIMARYNEWS.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sheer disbelief that WP policy means what it says, that WP prefers and relies on secondary sources, not primary, if this isn't what they do themselves professionally. I frequently encounter this from academic and research scientists (including biomed), who are convinced that it just cannot be true that WP wants you to cite literature reviews ("homework") and books from the academic press ("popularization junk"), and that we should instead cite the original, primary papers. They're approaching this from a variant of the WP:TRUTH fallacy. "Why would I cite someone summarizing the research when I can just cite the research?!"  It's  someone else has summarized it, and it's not coming straight from the primary horse's mouth.  WP absolutely really does want to you to cite the secondary source, even if you also helpfully add citations to the primary sources behind it (if you've actually read them). WP is not a journal, and we do not approach this the way science publishing does.  As a consequence of this disbelief and refusal to cooperate, innumerable science articles on WP have little or no secondary sourcing; some editors use literature reviews (being convenient) to dig up the primary material and cite it, often without in-text attribution, and intentionally leave out any citation of the lit. rev. they were working from.

I've been concerned about all them for a long time, but trusting that they would just sort themselves out. They're not. These confusions are spreading and deepening. Several threads at both WT:NOR and WP:RS clearly show this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have about half a dozen more of these, all still evidenced very recently, but also all going back years and years.
 * Most of us have no illusions regarding their being a perfect source out their. Are their problems with some positions statements, sure. Are their problems with some literature reviews, yup. I still support these sources as ideal sources wrt writing Wikipedia's medical content as their or more problems with other sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Demonstration of the issue regarding copyedit #1, and why making it will have no ill effect
Why this is a big deal but fixing it will not be: Seriously, all I'm suggesting is from an inappropriate location. Well, sure, it would require constructing a new sentence in which to put them a bit after where they are now, e.g. "Position statements by such organizations are also valuable primary sources, when attributed, for the acceptance of particular conclusions within different segments of the medical research and health regulatory sectors.", or something like that. This is really not much to ask at all. If you will not accept calling them primary sources, you could even drop "primary", as long as "when attributed" was retained, and all would be well. It's not necessary to apply the label if the effect on the article is the same. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC) PS: I think I'll just leave it at this unless people want to discuss it more. Clearly a consensus won't suddenly emerge to make copyedit #1, though I hope #2 and #3 will be made, and that the issues raised in #1 will be food for thought until some time later. The point of this quasi-essay has been to lay out reasoning, not to suddenly change minds. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Demonstration of the issue: Ironically, even though the ongoing e-cigs ArbCom case had nothing at all to do with the concerns I'm raising here (only with the thread above this one), by blind coincidence that case actually provides an illustration of the problem most central to copyedit #1, above. Someone recently posted there with material demonstrating that the health sector is sharply divided, along major-organization (national, even international) lines, issuing directly contradictory statements all based on the same "extensive reviews of the literature": The FDA and WHO are convinced that e-cigs should be banned because the health risks are uncertain, because e-cigs are attracting new "smokers" would might otherwise not have gone there, because ingredients are not regulated, and insert half a dozen other reasons supported by research.  Meanwhile European and many other authorities are largely taking the opposite view, that e-cigs are of great value in smoking-cessation programs, than it's virtual impossible for the health risks to outweigh those of real cigarette smoking, and insert various other reasons, also well supported in the literature.  These statements are primary sources from top to bottom. They are statements of socio-political opinion and positioning based on cherry-picked findings, aimed to satisfy a particular constituency, regulatory environment, internal set of priorities, etc., in a way that is not fact-checked by anyone. The fact that they consulted a bunch of [some of] the literature in the process of coming to these advocacy stances doesn't make them secondary. What they are doing is not AEIS of previously published research, it's selective usage of prior work to support an agenda.  Such sources are not "ideal sources" for anything but what  of these bodies is. (And, as noted earlier, they're useful internally as an editorial tool to help gauge WP:UNDUE weight.)
 * Demonstration that the sky is will not fall: All this resistance to moving the words "position statements" out of the "Ideal sources" sentence is predicated on the idea that it somehow means we can't use organizational position statements. But that would not be the case.  We'd just have to use them with caution, and with attribution.  It's  to write "E-cigarettes increase the likelihood that teens will pick up some form of smoking.[1]" and have that just be a bare citation to an FDA position statement. It's equally wrong to write "E-cigarettes are demonstrably effective in smoking cessation programs.[2]", and have that be a bare citation to the UK General Medical Council's position statement.  We could write "According to the FDA ...".  We could also just cite actual secondary sources (e.g. literature reviews) for such a claim, and tack on an FDA citation as supporting material. But we cannot rely on such a press release/advisory/position paper, without attribution, for any AEIS claim.  Primary sources are  banned, just used cautiously and not misleadingly. MEDRS's consensus that organizations of this level are reputable (mis-termed "respected"; see copyedit #2) means they are "high quality" primary sources; we don't have to be very cautious about choosing to use them, just cautious about how we use them and for what. Note that WP:NOR policy doesn't forbid all use of AEIS claims from primary sources, just making them "in Wikipedia's voice"; that requires solidly reliable, independent, secondary sources.  So just attribute, and be happy.
 * I agree that in the context outlined above authorities can be understand as a primary source. An issue seems to be that sometimes press releases contain a summary of primary sources, thus are clearly a secondary source, but sometimes not. Maybe this issue can be resolved with a list of entities which is considered acceptable (same for acceptable peer-reviewed journals). If you think that peer-reviewed journals should be discussed in another discussion please let me know. Also i suggest you make the changes you suggest more clear. Thus, add a clear change x to y paragraph. prokaryotes (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it can be resolved by moving two words, as proposed. :-) Because the summarization of the state of the literature in these statements is so compressed and selective, without (usually) any indication what the sources are, it should be treated as tertiary, like an encyclopedia entry.  We consider mainstream, research-based journalism in major newspapers, and monographs published by reputable academic presses, to be reliable secondary sources, because they cite their own sources. News  (on-the-scene stuff), editorials, and most columns are primary; press releases [from everyone else in every field/topic!] are clearly primary; third-party abstracts of research found in peer-reviewed journals are tertiary; and so on. It's the combination of WP:AEIS in the source, knowing what original sources for the facts behind that AEIS came from, and knowing that it's been through a reputable editorial review process independent of the author before it was released, that make a source secondary  reliable. We don't have any of those for AMA position statements and the like, only the reputability of the organizational author. But, I said I was going to move on, so I guess I should zip it, unless I'm pinged.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please post the complete revised version you suggest above? I have trouble to understand the part, "then adding something about "position statements" outside the "ideal sources" sentence." prokaryotes (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I support the change from systemic review to literature review.prokaryotes (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Demonstration of the issue" – You seem to be under the misapprehension that a secondary source cannot be, or should not be, biased. This is not true.  In this case, DUE weight comes from balancing all of the contradictory sources and providing INTEXT attribution, rather than from anointing one (especially a less authoritative one, like a lit review by a single author) as The Voice of Neutrality™.  This is a classic case for WP:YESPOV (which is an actual policy requirement, not some disputed essay) Also, on the substance of your example, the authorities you're citing don't actually seem to disagree with each other.  They just care about different aspects.  Americans care more about keeping teens from inhaling nicotine for the first time than Europeans, but less about getting existing smokers to quit than Europeans.  To merit in-text attribution, you should be able to contrast positions:  The FDA says that the existence of ecigs increases the likelihood of (American) teens being exposed to nicotine, but the UK says that the existence of ecigs has no effect on (British) teens being exposed to nicotine (cultures noted, because culture matters for behaviors like this).  AFAICT from your comments, there is no disagreement about whether a few teens will try an ecig who wouldn't have tried an old-fashioned cigarette.  Also, if you don’t know what sources they're citing in position statements, then you're not reading the position statement.   I just checked a dozen.  Every single one, no matter how niche the topic, included inline citations.  The range was 20 to almost 200 inline citations per paper (most around 60 to 80).
 * "Demonstration that the sky will not fall" – The sky will fall if you make the definition of secondary circular with reliable or neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that we let random groups of editors decide what are "reliable sources"
This comment just got collapsed on the talkpage of the IRS/Noticeboard. Ostensible reason was that it violates WP:NOTAFORUM. See what you think.

If the NPOV expanded guideline WP:WEIGHT is not to be overlooked we need “reliable sources” and cannot simply trust WP editors’ opinions on matters of “commonly accepted fact.” But that also includes commonly accepted facts about what are reliable sources. To quote directly from policy on WP:NPOV: “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.” Okay, fine, but finding the prevalence of belief among Wikipedia editors (or that subset who regularly turn up at the RS noticeboard) is very often exactly how we arrive at what we CONSIDER reliable sources, to begin with(!) In what world does that make sense?

There are places where this little conundrum has been noticed, and my favorite place where WP tries desperately to avoid the contradiction in epistemology, is at WP:FRINGE, a guideline referenced at WP:NPOV. There, the editors of that article take on the problem in a bold statement and footnote (8):

'''“A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal. (footnote) A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal.”'''

Aha! So, in order to tell if a journal is reliable, one must find out if it is peer-reviewed, and treated as a reliable peer-reviewed journal in other reliable peer-reviewed sources. Thus, (to compress this thought) we simply need reliable sources that tell us (directly or indirectly) what other reliable sources are. If we have a reliable source that treat another source as reliable, we’re home free.

Or not. For then we’d need a reliable source for which sources are reliable in judging primary sources to be reliable. And then a reliable source for that judgment. You go down this rat hole infinitely (it’s turtles all the way down), until finally you give up and go here to the RS noticeboard and find out what the consensus is, of random guys who show up here. Hmmm. That’s what we do for “yesterday’s news from Gaza” or whatever. The only alternative is simply to weight things for NPOV based on mass circulation numbers of the news source (but what do we do for CNN?). If some example of tabloid journalism has large circulation numbers, we have to trust it (or give it NPOV “weight”) to that circulation extent.

By the way, the tabloid journalism article I notice is lacking in citations about the reliability of tabloid journalism, which it claims is low. And is heavily tagged as lacking citations. So indeed, how do we know reliability of tabloids are low? What reliable sources say they are low, and (more importantly) HOW DO THEY KNOW? The lack of citations and presence of citation-needed tags in this article is telling. Or at least I think it is. Funny, too. ;’p

The alternative for science matters is to look for “commonly accepted textbooks” (if only we had a method of telling what those are—sales? But undergrad physics texts do better than graduate student texts). In medicine, where we’d like to do things at a level a little sooner and finer than it takes to get into medical student textbooks, Doc James and his crowd over at WP:MEDRS are trying to get editors to recognize secondary reviews over tertiary ones, and says that “The best evidence comes primarily from meta analysis of randomized controlled [human] trials.” This is often true, but not always. Where is the citation for it? In a reliable source? Would it be a source that uses meta analysis of randomized controlled trials? No? Then just what is the Gold Standard of Medical Truth by which this statement stands? (My reservations about this are on the basis of an academic background which I cannot prove to you, and which officially doesn’t count here anyway).

Why (in light of official policy) do we have nameless anonymous WP editors, whose medical knowledge we do not trust, poking about the journals for “meta analysis of randomized controlled trials”? Do we only trust Doc James to do this? Why? Is it the “Doc” in this username? Does that help? Here is some irony: one of the papers cited in this very policy which now gives primacy to meta analyses also gives some weight to Eysenck’s criticism that meta analyses of trials in medicine can give an impression of weight which hides bias, and sometimes the (supposed) reliability of meta analyses is NOT borne out by single very large trials, which are taken by the medical community as better. (For example, the meta analysis on magnesium for heart attacks looked good, but the ISIS-4 trial showed it was no good, so now we don’t believe it.) At this point, you’re all saying: “But that’s a matter for the particular subject”. Wrong. It’s a matter for the whole WP:MEDRS policy, which shouldn’t be trying to do what it is trying to do, without admitting that WP’s RS policy is mocked thereby.

The point here is that we’re not (or should not be) prepared to argue the fine details of evidence-based medicine, as policy for reporting medical "fact" on WP, when the very wonks who push for evidence based medicine in the real world, cannot agree among themselves. Are we? I’ll be glad to argue it, but do any of you know anything about it? WP can report on points of view about this, but ultimately to go beyond that, must trust in the expertise of its editors (Doc James, I see) to see that that some point of view about “truthiness” (which is proxied by “reliability”) is translated into WP:MEDRS policy. This goes double in other areas: WP obviously is relying on some kind of expertise or judgment of its editors about sources, to resolve WP:RS questions here, about yesterday’s news, on a case-by-case basis. So why not just admit this? An editor (or group of interested editors) that can be trusted to tell if a source is itself “reliable” can just as easily be trusted to tell if the source’s statements of fact are reliable. No? One question about "reliability" ("likely to be true" = probably Truth) is no different than the other. Can I hear from those who think they are different? S B Harris 02:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I edit by trying to provide the range of positions found in "high quality sources". In this I typically includes sources from WHO, the US government and other governments. Systamtic reviews by Cochrane and the USPSTF, Literature reviews in major journals such as the Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, Annals, and Clinics of North America series. And some major medical textbooks.
 * I cover the non medical aspects such as history, society and cultural factors with textbooks found on google books. I try to balance this hierachy of sources and how new the sources are. Yes their is some judgement in this and we will never be able to put together a rule for picking the one true source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Random groups of editors only means having the article affected by random biases, and those biases can be significant when scholarly views diverge from "general public" views. I would be sorry to see such a system employed on any (even moderately) controversial article.  I wrote Breast cancer awareness a couple of years ago, and it gets "attacked" by well-meaning editors who are surprised to find that high-quality independent reliable sources are pretty sour on the subject (this decade, at least).  Even the ones who show up for the express purpose of finding criticism are surprised.  As far as they're concerned, "neutral" means even-Steven, so we need to "balance" the article with fluffy testimonials from local human interest stories or mission statements from organizations that exploit the movement to sell merchandise or raise money for themselves.
 * If we talk about sourcing in the abstract, then everyone agrees: I'll go to a library and check out the three most recent books that meet all of these qualifications:
 * they were written on this subject specifically (e.g., not mostly about a company that sells pink-colored stuff),
 * the author is not, and was never, employed by Komen or any other fundraising outfit,
 * the author is a scholar or medical professional (in any field that is plausibly relevant), and
 * the book was published by a university press.
 * Everyone can agree to that. But then you show them the three books, and the tune changes:  "No, not that book!  That author is biased!  That book has the wrong POV!  Her book is not neutral!"  The discouraging conclusion is that for some editors, "neutral" means "the material agrees with the prejudices I've acquired through self-interested pink-ribbon marketing", rather than "describes the views of high-quality sources".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy epistemological crisis Batman. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. We're building castles in the air. I think one key is that every editor should be able to textualize why a source is good. For example, if one wanted to use a recent research study to enrich a section about a substance's biochemistry, then they should be able to explain why it's useful and relevant, and why it's likely to be sound. If the journal is a good one, or the researchers have a record of solid research, or if the editor happens to specialize in the topic and knows the chatter in the field about the research, these would all be reasons that can be explained as to why a source seems reliable for a statement.
 * There seems to be a good core of respected sources. We all probably have some respect for the New York Times. We wouldn't question the integrity of Nature on science matters very quickly. There is a core of sources pretty much known to be reliable. Then there are other sources less known and/or having a mission or point of view. Sometimes these get excluded because someone disagrees with their mission and declares that it's POV pushing to use that source. I would argue to the contrary, we need to include points of view that are not fringe but not necessarily majority opinions. There is room to represent different points of view, explicitly. Therefore, sources with points of view should not be excluded prima facia. They should be examined in the context of their point of view and in the context of the debate in the field.
 * My main issue is hyper-questioning of sourcing. I see some behavior that is quite obsessed with sourcing and seems to use it as a reason to push points of view by removing statements that don't agree with their agenda. I also sometimes see ganging-up behavior, in which several editors push for a conservative interpretation of policy and/or source quality to exclude an addition to a page, usually done in a conservative direction.
 * We're basically doing a cluster analysis of sourcing opinions of a semi-random sampling of people who are editing an article. If that sampling is really random, then it's sort of a democratic way of mediating what is printed in Wikipedia to represent reality. On the other hand, if there is gang behavior and lawyering instead of dialogue, then we can see a conservative bias in the outcomes. (I admit it's also possible to see an activist or fringe-wing viewpoint from this same dynamic, though most of what i've seen is in the establishment direction.) This is some basic sociology of the dynamics of sourcing arguments on Wikipedia that i have observed, as a sociologist. SageRad (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * all of this epistemological anxiety is profoundly unwikipedian - this is late-night-dorm-room-pot-smoking-PoMo bullshit.  We are doing serious work here and the policies and guidelines about sourcing, and the traditions within WP from which those policies and guidelines arose and are constantly renewed, and the ongoing discussions about sources at RSN and elsewhere, are the product of a rugged and robust realism.  The community, acting within its traditions, can and does make good-enough decisions about the reliability of sources.

Listen - the mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with accepted knowledge via a crowd-sourced community run by consensus. The community worked out WP:OR, [[WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV trying to figure out what the hell "accepted knowledge" means and how to actually achieve articles that communicate it. We get POV-pushers from all sides who come here wanting to change what is accepted knowledge or who live in kooky little bubbles where "accepted knowledge" is local and contradicts the mainstream.  Yes, Dorothy, there is a mainstream.  The institutions that make up and maintain the mainstream  are what produce and define "accepted knowledge." You can bring all your alternative-news and other bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping source hoo-ha til you are blue in the face and it will go no where, because that is not what we are about here.  Wikipedia is deeply "establishment" with regard to respecting our knowledge-producing institutions.   If it were not, this place would be awash with bullshit of every color in the rainbow (even more than it is too often). None of that says that reality is black and white or that we "know" much. It isn't black and white very often and we don't know that much.  Reality is generally muddy and grey, and if you really dig in and listen to mainstream sources, you hear that.  Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL doin’ SRS WERK here? “…late-night-dorm-room-pot-smoking-PoMo bullshit,” you say? But I know somebody with 900 words of opinion on epistemology on WT:IRS a year ago, 1200 words of opinion about it on a personal talk page, and has an 8,000 word essay on it up at WP:Why MEDRS?. So (boggle my mind) what kind of pot-smoking dormers are the intended audience for all that wall-o-txt? Personally, MEGO, but if this particular “epistemological anxiety” discussion is boring you now, I think you can avert your eyes without damage. Meanwhile, I still have things to say about people writing about subjects they do not understand. No secondary source will save them, because they do not understand the secondary sources, either. And as for giving opinions on the reliability of news sources they can’t possibly know anything about, the fact that WP lets people do this, does not make it “the product of a rugged and robust realism.” Not even if somebody takes 10,000 words to say otherwise. I want an admission of that, even if there is no alternative. I want it for honesty, for integrity's sake. I want to see the people who made this policy admit that it does not work, and theoretically cannot work, since it relies on totally uninformed opinion, like crowdsourcing the color of Alpha Centaurians. As for what is “unwikipedian” or not, many of us have been here a longer time, and have seen things come and go. Take a look at WP:CRED and at this    to see Jimbo Wales argue for an administrator credentialing system, and the TALK page of that, to see the community shoot it down, as predicted by WP’s other founder, Larry Sanger , who has also been in favor of it. Jimbo, normally anti-elitist himself, wanted credentials checked because he hadn't bothered to even minimally check the elite credentials of über-editor Essjay, and got badly burned (trivia: I got singed a bit also, as I myself was once indef blocked by Essjay, but somebody else undid it). So now, it’s profoundly Wikipedian to check into the RL status of all upper WP functionaries like stewards, whereas it wasn’t before Essjay. What was once totally unwikipedian, is suddenly, magically... well... Wikipedian. You’d think this happens by consensus, but what actually happens is that anything that would embarrass Jimbo Wales or the WMF, happens by fiat, and everything else that would embarrass you and me (see Reliability of Wikipedia) about the quality of WP gets left in the hands of users, to play with. Because realistically, who cares? It’s no longer a money issue, ever since the best fancruft picked itself up and went to Wikia, per WP:CRUFT, and strangely in the face of WP:NOTPAPER, which used to rule. S  B Harris 08:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, where were you to define the "mainstream" when we had the wars about a simple topic like weight and whether or not weight decreases in a descending elevator or increases in a centrifuge, or indeed if centrifugal force is even a real thing? Or the same for thermal energy content? Which is to say, can an object hold heat? And if so, how do you tell how much is in there, even if you don't call it heat? Indeed reality is muddy and gray. A shame we have no expert review-- which is what Wikipedia was originally intended to feed. S  B Harris 08:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia actually "deeply establishment" or is that POV pushing as well? A neutral point of view includes presenting various points of view on controversial topics. It avoids taking a position of any one point of view, in itself, in the article. It describes the world, and part of the world's reality is that different people have different views. Significant points of view ought to be represented. Here's Jimbo's early words on this. SageRad (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no grasp of WP:NPOV or the mission of this place. Again - we are here to provide the public with accepted knowledge'  - not to advocate for FRINGE science perspectives on the risk of chemicals.  We determine what is "accepted knowledge" based on the reliable sources produced by the institutions of our society, and we give WEIGHT based on what those sources say.  The more controversial the topic, the higher - not lower  - the quality of the sources we should bring.  "Higher quality" means more respected within the knowledge-producing function of our culture.  Accepted knowledge -  not "what this advocate thinks is Really Important to Save the World"   So yes, at base, very, very conservative, very mainstream, very Establishment.    You would turn this place into a cesspool of FRINGE content with your efforts to generate content and give it WEIGHT based on bottom-of-the-barrel sourcing and that is not going to happen.  You have no idea what Wikipedia is all about. Stop abusing it. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there's a disconnect here. I don't think you're actually hearing what i said. Note that i did not use the word "fringe" and i spoke about multiple points of view existing. Research on potential harmful effects of chemicals is real research, and it's not fringe. Fringe would be more like flat earthers, or Holocaust denial. I cited Jimbo on the topic of NPOV and you say i have no grasp of the mission of this place. And, i was speaking in general principles here, and you come in with your interpretations of my editing. Note that in the real world, there are many people, who have different perspectives. Some are fringe and some are "mainstream" and some are somewhere in the middle. There are significant non-mainstream opinions and points of view that can be represented explicitly, in the way that Jimmy Wales recommended in that link. In scientific matters, there are also sometimes differing opinions and hypotheses, and these can also be represented as accurately as possible by editors who collaborate and work together. SageRad (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, this sounds kind of uncivil (and untrue) to me: "You would turn this place into a cesspool of FRINGE content with your efforts to generate content and give it WEIGHT based on bottom-of-the-barrel sourcing and that is not going to happen. You have no idea what Wikipedia is all about." SageRad (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * what Jimbo wrote a zillion years ago is not super relevant to what WP is today. I have rehearsed this for you before - here it is again. You keep trying to add science-based content into WIkipedia about some supposed effect of glyphosate using inappropriate sources.  We've been through this a few times now.  It started with the gut bacteria thing, where you first just added it unsourced and then  again unsourced and again unsourced with an edit note referencing "the truth" (I won't list all those), then used a primary source about cows, and then used news about a lawsuit... all with the same goal of adding content along the lines of "glyphosate inhibits microflora in the human gut".  You then did the same thing at the crop desiccation article - trying to make a claim that desiccation with glyphosate affects beta-glucan content (and thus human health), using sources that aren't appropriate.  And that is just a small slice.  You are here for one reason, and that is advocating FRINGE crap based on what you personally believe is Very Important to Save the World and you will add it unsourced, or on whatever crap source you can lay your hands on, and you will push and push and push.   You are WP:NOTHERE to create a NPOV reliable place for the public to find accepted knowledge - you care way more about your advocacy than WP's mission.  You keep driving directly toward an indefinite block, despite many people taking the time to warn you. Your PoMo assault on the community's traditions (including the consensus-based policies and guidelines) for determining the reliability of sources is just more of the same.


 * What you cannot see is that you are exactly the same as other people who abuse WP for advocacy. You are exactly like the Medtronic employees who kept trying to promote their products here; you are exactly like the UK MP who was indeffed for trying to whitewash his article. The kind of arguments you make in favor of lowering source quality are exactly the same as the arguments all advocates - conflicted (including paid) or just passionate - make in order to try to realize their mission here.   One of the clearest "tells" of an advocate is their reaching for low-quality sources and arguing vehemently for content based on them. We see that over and over and over.   WP:NOTADVOCACY. Read it and get it through your head already.   Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

MDR(multi drug resistance tuberculosis)
it is said tuberculosis is a curable disease if diagonesed in early stage and by taking continiousaly drug(medicines) for a prescribed period BUT IT IS NOT HAPPENS IN ALL CASES OF T.B.. THERE IS A KIND OF T.B./IN WHICH DRUGS GIVEN TO PATIENT DOES HELP VICTIM TO CURE DISEASE AND SITUATION KEEPS ON GOING WORSE AND MORE WORSE I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE ALL THE SPECIAL BRAIN OF MEDICAL SCIENCE TO LET ME KNOW MORE AND MORE ABOUT MDR TUBERCULOSIS AND RESEARCHES GOING ON IT PRINCYRANJEET (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

RANJEET