Talk:Erotophilia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Preyessanchez. Peer reviewers: Jfvrbes, DCHWave.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs Improvement

 * this article is lacking in useful information and could use a "tune up." The article has room for improvement an, as it stands, can not be a valuable source. The article is also lacking in any plausible information that proves this behavior is real or how the behavior is caused.

Mschepker93 (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the edit done by User:Flyer22 because the topic is not medical and in no way am I trying to give medical advice, therefore primary sources should be okay to use. Let me know if there are any further questions. Thank you Preyessanchez (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Preyessanchez, and you were reverted by another editor because psychology and psychiatry do fall under WP:MEDRS. Psychology is intertwined with "medical," which is why we adhere to WP:MEDRS for psychological disorders...and is why the American Psychological Association is a medical source (with regard to mental health and mental processes). Not all medical material needs to strictly adhere to WP:MEDRS. And, in some cases, "medical" might be differentiated from "biomedical." But you clearly added material that falls under WP:MEDRS. And even if you did not, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which I also pointed you to on your talk page, clearly begins by stating, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." This does not mean, "Well, if you don't have a secondary or tertiary source for your content, then go ahead and add the material supported by one or more primary sources." A source being peer reviewed doesn't mean it's a good source to use. It's certainly not the same thing as a literature review. If the content you added is not replicated or covered in secondary or tertiary sources, then there is a need to question it. And if it will never be supported by a secondary or tertiary source, then we shouldn't add it. Waiting for material like this to be noted in secondary or tertiary sources is how we help keep articles in decent, good, or great shape. There can be a lot of primary studies on a topic, but this doesn't mean that we should include all of those studies in our articles. In fact, we obviously don't. If a study hasn't been replicated or mentioned in secondary or tertiary sources, then we ask ourselves why we should even include the material. Studies also conflict all of the time, which is why we generally stick to material that has significant support in the literature or has been widely reported on. And this approach doesn't only apply to medical articles. WP:MEDRS isn't about giving medical advice. Regardless of whether or not you are trying to give medical advice here, your material should be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)