Talk:Samuel H. Wood

File:Samuel H. Wood, MD. PhD.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Samuel H. Wood, MD. PhD.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Samuel H. Wood, MD. PhD.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Self published tag

The level of education in our society- lack of- regarding science is astounding re: your claims of self-publication sam wood, md, phd. Journals that publish research are editorial based and accept or reject articles based on extremely strict scientific criteria. A scientist/physician scientist cannot 'self publish' these articles. This is how the scientific community works. So when you see articles from, for example, Nature Journal, this is not a self-published work. You really need to familiarize yourself with the scientific peer process before making claims against scientists that they are self-publishing. This is an extremely serious claim you are making against Dr. Wood.Kmhistory (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The self-published tag on Wikipedia does not refer to articles being self-published in the current sense - it refers to unacceptable references to articles written by the subject himself, not independent third-party coverage of those items, which is preferable. Are you denying that Wood wrote those papers? I doubt it, thus, since there are not references to independent coverage of those papers but direct links to article written by Wood, the tag is valid. Once again, it is YOU who misunderstands how Wikipedia functions. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability page regarding the definitions of "self-published" and "reliable" sources. Note the examples of "self-published sources": "For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Self-published sources are contrasted with "reliable sources": "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." The primary sources used in this particular article are from academic, peer-reviewed publications in the fields of medicine and science. It doesn't get any more reliable than that! The other sources are from mainstream newspapers or magazines. This is what the Wikipedia:Verifiability page has to say on that subject: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." Thus, all sources in the article are, by the Wikipedia definition, "reliable." There is not a single source that even vaguely meets the Wikipedia definition of a "self-published" source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory (talk • contribs) 22:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline for this circumstance is not the one on self-published sources, but on primary sources. In part, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

At a glance, I don't really see many problems with the sourcing, especially since many are third-party and non-SPS. To clarify, SPS does not apply to Samuel's works, but the references we use.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Mike, if you still disagree can you identify which self-published sources are used in the article? VQuakr (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources?

Mike also believes this article uses too many primary sources, which I don't agree with.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)