Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:45, 25 March 2015

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Lewrockwell.com

is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexbrn 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

celebritytonic.com

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

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

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

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

endgame.org

Was used at Citizens for a Sound Economy for the claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publishers at reiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't western medicine vs eastern medicine, this is scientific medicine versus magic. The western equivalent of Reiki is not medical science, it's stuff along the lines of Radionics or Orgone "therapy." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

^You said, "I am not talking about B&N or Random House". I know that, but I am using it for comparison. Would you use the same standard of dismissing both B&N, Random House and most of the other major publishers completely as "unreliable" since they publish self-help books, religious awakening books, etc., that include claims that have not been scientific tested and sound pretty far fetched? If not, I don't see how you can dismiss the publishers in question here for publishing works that are equally unscientific in nature. These are not works of fiction like comic books. As I said below, if the sources make claims about either health or science that are testable, one could put them in quotes and put them adjacent to Western medical experts take on the practice. That would be NPOV. Entirely eliminating anything said by Reiki Masters about Reiki because they are not scientists or medical doctors or self-proclaimed "skeptics" is absurd. If the book is written by a Reiki Master (possibly even if it is self-published), it is likely reliable for describing Reiki, unless that Master is minority or WP:Fringe within the Reiki community of experts. That a Reiki Master's writing is published by these various presses is not a prima facie showing that the work in question is unreliable any more than if it was published by B&N, Random House or any of the other major publishers in the U.S. IMHO. David Tornheim (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"...one could put them in quotes and put them adjacent to Western medical experts take on the practice. That would be NPOV." - No, that'd be WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You are essentially saying that every source is reliable, unless we can prove it isn't. How do we know an author is a "fringe" reiki source or not a "legitimate" Reiki Master? Because they disagree with other reiki sources? Well, now those sources disagree with other reiki sources. Lotus Press does not say, "Reiki practitioners believe reiki energy is unlimited." Their books say, "Reiki energy is unlimited." They are, at best, primary sources for what their authors say. I would love to find academic sources discussing reiki objectively. If you can find some, that would be great. Lotus Press is not such a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Reiki makes scientifically testable claims regarding healing, and yet there are no WP:MEDRSs supporting it. It claims to be the "The miraculous medicine for all diseases," and has no scientific studies demonstrating this. It claims to be able to treat respiratory disorders, digestive disorders, circulatory disorders, anemia, nephritis, and even Typhoid fever. It is not just a spiritual belief, there are scientifically testable claims about it. Also, a spiritual belief is not automatic immunity to being disproven by science. Young Earth Creationism, Flat Earth, and Geocentrism are both spiritual beliefs and scientific frauds.

It is either complete ignorance or dishonesty (intellectual or commercial) to claim that Reiki does not make scientifically testable claims, and doubly so to pretend that such claims lack proof. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

The continued push for the idea that magical energy healing with no scientific backing and no WP:MEDRSs supporting it is not pseudoscience is a bigger problem. The citation to reiki.org about 1 million practitioners is a Argumentum ad populum from vested interest, pure and simple. That you cited it suggests a concerning a priori bias in favor of Reiki.

In "favor" of Reiki? What does that mean? I am neither for nor against Reiki. I am neither for nor against Western Medicine either. I want you be honest about what Reiki is using the descriptions of the experts in the field rather than people whose only goal is to dismiss it a priori as pseudo-science without any real effort to understand what it is actually about. It's a bit like saying that things in the Bible didn't actually happen exactly as described in Genesis and scientifically could not occur--e.g. Creation--and hence the entire Bible is pseudo-science and no Christians should comment on it because they are WP:Fringe and unreliable reporters and only scientists should comment on what in the Bible. Or that praying to God (a being that cannot be proven to exist) is pseudo-science. Many Christians (I am not one) understand that the events in Genesis and timeline of 4,000 years does not match scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean that the mythology of the Book of Genesis is completely worthless. For one, it's a much better written story than the Big Bang is, even if the Big Bang is more scientifically accurate, it doesn't mean the Genesis story has no truth and is nothing but pseudo-science. Ask any Scholar of Literature and they will tell you there is much truth in stories that has nothing to do with science. As Mythology, one might even argue that Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang Theory. Many Christians know that Genesis is not science and are not threatened by the Big Bang Theory. This is what you are doing with Reiki, trying to make it like science. It is more like the Book of Genesis. Scholars in Christian studies should explain what their religion is about, not scientists who think it is all bogus and magic. That's what you all are doing with Reiki.David Tornheim (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Until valid WP:MEDRSs are presented that discuss Reiki as a valid medical practice, it is pseudoscience and falls under WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiki claims there is an invisible, undetectable energy. It is unlimited. It can treat ANY condition. It can treat anyone, anywhere at any point in time FROM any location and FROM any point in time. If I don't respond to this thread quickly enough, assume I (in the United States) am busy treating people with malaria in Africa who died 200 years ago. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

SummerPhd says: "Reiki claims there is an invisible, undetectable energy. It is unlimited. It is unlimited. It can treat ANY condition. It can treat anyone, anywhere at any point in time FROM any location and FROM any point in time." You keep saying this. Do you have an RS that says that? Or are you getting this from some skeptic who does not know what they are talking about? I should point out there are many particles and waves both in both Classical and Quantum Physics that have equally bizarre properties that are not understood. Consider the Neutrino originally was considered to have neither mass nor energy, but spin: How could such a thing even exist? Gravity as a "force" is particularly difficult to deal with, even though the formulas for its use are easy enough to describe, Physicists can not explain what it is. They have postulated the existence of Gravitons, but no one has ever seen such a thing. Is that pseudo-science or dealing with something one does not fully understand? David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources used in the GamerGate Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No objection here (but relevance?).

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

The actual observation taken from Singal's article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Fact Monster"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naturopathy

I was told this is not a reliable source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this good enough for medical claims?

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

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

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

It has no in text referencing, this disclaimer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NCCIH

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

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

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

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

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

Usadojo.com

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

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

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

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

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

An IP removed text from the article Pallywood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something to consider, which underscores the highly partisan if not fringe nature of Larry Derfner -- he was fired from his position at The Jerusalem Post in 2011 "after he penned a controversial blog post justifying terrorist attacks against Israelis". That's why he's at a highly partisan outfit like +972 Mag, which is quite open about its activist role. One has to wonder why Nishidani wouldn't mention this quite relevant information. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Article submission for Q-Collection Comic Book Preservation Project

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

Sources:

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

Article: Draft:Q-Collection

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

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

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

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

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

Al Masdar News

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

Citing youtube

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

Including such a reference seems wrong on many levels:

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution