User talk:Ideakas

Welcome!
Hello, Ideakas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Hippophae goniocarpa. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! &mdash;  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 07:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
I'm little puzzled about the citing principles regarding the use of basic research articles as these to my understanding are regarded as primary sources. Let's say as an example that there was an article with a result "product X reduces LDL cholesterol in mice".

I assume that it is against Wikipedia principles to state "product X could lower the risk of cardio-vascular disease" if this statement was based solely on the primary source and was made by the editor. However, is it regarded appropriate if it is only stated "In animal models, product X reduced LDL cholesterol"?

Ideakas (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A source is primary if it comes from the producer of the product or an entity that would also gain from such promotion. If a newspaper article such as the NEw York Times stated, "product X reduces LDL cholesterol in mice" then it would be fully admissible. Original research is something important to avoid. While the statement "In animal models, product X reduced LDL cholesterol" is technically correct because mice are animals, it also suggests that it has an affect on animals other than mice. If there's no source to suggest it works in other animals than mice, then that statement should not be used. Also, it's important to note, especially with medicine, that whole lowering LDL cholesterol may reduced cardio-vascular disease, that's not what the source states. Perhaps it lowers cholesterol but the rates of cardio-vascular disease is not reduced. I'm not saying that's the case, but unless the source expressly states that fact as well, then it could be removed as being a unsupported statement, i.e. lacking a reliable source. The reason the policy is so broad is because not everyone is familiar with all subjects, so something obvious to one editor with knowledge of the subject may not be for someone else who has no history. Further, it prevents editors with little knowledge of a subject making assumptions or theories based upon what they read rather than the literal meaning of the fact stated in the source. Hope this help you, Mkdw talk 07:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)