Talk:Electrical brain stimulation

40px This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

{{small|Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}

User:Fixuture about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electrical_brain_stimulation&type=revision&diff=758512130&oldid=758507693 this] what part of WP:MEDDEF and WP:MEDREV do you not understand? And the Daily Mail?? Just oy Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

:{{ping|Jytdog}} Hello, per WP:MEDDEF and WP:MEDREV it should be fine or at least I can't see why it wouldn't: those are all secondary sources and I'm not using information from the primary source. Or am I getting sth wrong here? The only thing which might be problematic is WP:MEDPOP (I guess that's what you're referring to with "And the Daily Mail??"). Is that the case? And MEDPOP doesn't say that one can't add any information to any medical-related article without a review-type ref - e.g. it states things like "use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines". And for the short info that I added / the claims in it I think the many (yes that is a factor) reliable refs I used suffice. --Fixuture (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

::The content you added makes claims about health. MEDPOP says reliable sources per WP:RS can be used for "history" or "society and culture"; but this content is neither of those. So which source there is a literature review or a statement by a major medical/scientific body? (that is the definition of "secondary source" in WP:MEDDEF.) (and if you don't know that the community spits on Daily Mail as a reliable source for pretty much anything, please educate yourself by reading the many, many entries [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22daily+mail%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=akhz50z6gdm9ttkgn97v3mvsm here]. Please don't ever use it.) As I noted in both my edit notes, WP:MEDREV specifically talks about primary sources that get hyped in the popular press, and that is exactly what is going on here.

::If you don't understand why the community put MEDRS in place, please see WP:Why MEDRS? which explains some of it. It specifically talks about the MEDREV thing and gives an example of someone rushing to add content about a "hot off the press" paper that was later retracted. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Jytdog}} Alright, thank you for remaining calm and explaining me your point. I'll see if I can find a source that meets the guidelines later. --Fixuture (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

::::::Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)