Talk:Electrical brain stimulation

Neuroscience Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the brain, nerves and nervous system.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

air force primary source and popular media[edit]

User:Fixuture about 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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