PubMed
Using_sources - Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.
WP:DUE - Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
WP:NPOV - Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
| WP:NOR | WP:RS-WP:N | WP:V | Search Wikipedia | WP:NOTOR |
| WP:NPA | WP:CON Consensus | WP:LIVING WP:BLP Biographical | WP:FRINGE | |
| User:Crohnie | WP:TALK | Logs | WP:WEB Notable | WP:MFD Deletion |
| WP:PSCI Templates | WP:CIT Templates | WP:ANI Admin Notice/Incidents | WP:SELFPUB | WP:VERIFIABILITY |
| Warnings overview | WP:PEACOCK | WP:RSN | Pseudoscience | WP:PROVEIT |
Article
editBarnstar
edit
|
The Barnstar of Peace | |
| For reporting an issue, and later dealing with a temporary block, with extreme calmness. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
Leads
editWP Projects
editTopics
editHistory of alternative medicine, Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Manual therapy, Herbalism, [[:Category:Alternative medicine stubs|Alternative medicine stubs]]
Peer Review
edit
Partisan sites
editQuackwatch
NCAHF
Topics
editI think part of the problem is the constant assumption of POV pushing or assumption of what editor's beliefs are. That's often the first reaction in content disputes, "Oh, you're a POV pusher or a true believer and as such you don't have a valid opinion on the subject." The real problem of having to adequately address both beliefs and scientific reality in a neutral way gets lost in the process. It's not a small problem we're addressing here. Sense and soul have been at odds with each other since people first started thinking about our place in the universe. As the sum total of human knowledge, Wikipedia wants to cover both, when both are always at odds with each other. Honestly, I've only seen a handful of actual agenda-driven editors, editors that are here to promote a product or sell a belief. Most (in my opinion) are in good faith trying their best to accomplish what has historically been an extremely difficult or even impossible task, to cover both sense and soul in one place. Most edits on these articles I've seen aren't POV pushing, they're reactions to a perceived POV push from across the aisle. It's a push back. That's why I believe in WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as good principles. If there were actually a way to use them in practice a lot of problems on these articles would disappear. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace
WP:NPR Neutrality Project
Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#
WP:RFO request for oversight
WP:UTM Templates
Counts
editIdeally you have access to Web of Science, the standard source covering the natural sciences and "hard" social sciences. Then you search for the author using the author finder feature, display the articles, sort by citations. Ignore any by other people that got left in there. Gets citations from the major English language Euroamerican journals. Scopus is an alternative, if the record doesnt go back before 1996; it's also more complete for social science in European journals. Google Scholar is tricky, you can't just use their numbers, you have to actually look yourself at each one to see what citations listed are from regular journals, because it includes a lot of other material. It is weak before 2000, & doesnt include everything. But it's the only available source for humanities, or where books are involved. In physics you can use arXiv, in computer science Citebase, in economics RePEc, in Biomedicine PubMed, but they are all incomplete. The number you get there will be a minimum. Use the free ones if you dont have WoS or Scopus, though--much better than nothing--if it's critical to notability I'll run it for you in WoS. And feel free to ask for more help if its anything tricky.
Talk Page
edit