Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm curious as to the intent of this page; do you seek to create an exhaustive list of magazines and books to use as resources? Or is this page a group of examples, in which case I wonder why it is needed in addition to the normal pages like WP:RS? (Radiant) 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- This page started as a place to put the "reliable sources" portion of the WP:MEDMOS, which I felt were not style issues and should go elsewhere. It is not intended to have exhaustive list and certainy not for all books/journals as there are simply too many that are of excellent quality. The only reason to list a handful of top journals is to highight those that are regarded as the cream.
- Recent discussions on talk WP Medicine have asked:
- Are primary sources better than secondary sources? In particular, editors who cite papers covering basic science possibly being interpreted for its affects in the human population.
- Is XYZ a reliable web site that we should consider either using as a reference or providing external links?
- This page could be used to capture consensus on those issues. I could also serve as a resource of sites useful to WP Medicine editors. It is currently very much a work-in-progress. I hoped that others might contribute. Perhaps the links to it are too subtle at present. Colin°Talk 14:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on the matter of medicine, but if you want consensus on this page you're definitely going to need more input. While you're technically correct about source matters not belonging in the MOS, if that page is more active than this one it's not a big problem - it is common on Wikipedia for pages to have a somewhat broader scope than their title suggests. (Radiant) 15:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
