User talk:Neuromath99

Welcome!
Hello, Neuromath99, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
Hi, Neuromath99. Regarding material like this, it should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, not WP:Primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for checking into my sources. I have consulted the librarian specializing in natural sciences sources and she told me that the source is indeed secondary. It was published in the journal Current Opinion in Behavior Sciences vol. 14 in 2017. Neuromath99 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Neuromath99, Doc James and Jytdog can better explain WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, in Wikipedia it is not secondary (the way we use the terms "primary" and "secondary" is technical here in WP, and not how they are used generally). Please read WP:MEDDEF. Please do the training here. Please also see the message below. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That page was full of badly sourced content which was providing bad examples of what is OK and normal here; I have cleaned out the primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the reference articles and have done the training and I still fail to see how the source is primary. I could see that the rest of the article was almost completely comprised of primary sources and original research. However, the source I used was a review of primary sources and the authors did not directly participate in any original research, which according to WP:MEDDEF makes it a secondary source. I just don't see the logic behind how it is primary. Neuromath99 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! You are correct; I looked at it closer, and it is a review. Sorry about that.
 * However, it is not indexed by MEDLINE which is not a good sign (this is why there is no PMID).
 * but it does seem like an OK ref, and I've added back content based on it, loosely based on your edit, in these diffs. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the edit gets the jist of what I was saying. I am going to be adding a section about the neuroscience of gender differences since this page is a redirect from that search. Any thoughts on where to put it? Neuromath99 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
 * 6) More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
 * 7) Citation details are important:
 * 8) *Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
 * 9) *Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
 * 10) *Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
 * 11) *Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 12) We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 13) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
 * 14) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 15) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review the message above. Wspecially the importance of citing the PMID, and the instructions on formatting citations at WP:MEDHOW. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Note on a source
You used PMID 29739126 in a recent edit. This journal is not MEDLINE-indexed. In addition, the English is barely passable and discussion is more or less completely out of dialogue with the literature on the topic of GD and how to manage it. I recommend that you don't use it.Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, regarding this and this, when you state that "the English is barely passable," do you mean the source's language or Neuromath99's? Also, what do you mean by "more or less completely out of dialogue with the literature on the topic of GD"? I'm iffy on the source since it does review the literature, makes some important points on it, and research on the causes of transsexuality is not as active as research on many other topics. So reviews on it, such as this one, are not abundant. The Causes of transsexuality article is currently filled with primary sources that try to make out some arguments as strong or stronger than others. It's true that the causes of transsexuality are inconclusive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the english in the source, and the lack of dialogue with existing literature in the source. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not clear on what is meant by "the lack of dialogue with existing literature." But I do understand your concern about the source not being MEDLINE-indexed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion and conclusion and their recommendations for helping people are very unclear to me and they don't cite any literature on standard approaches for that stuff; so -- weird and not in dialogue with the literature. In a low quality journal. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. But the source does address the neuroscience, and the Wikipedia article in question is about neuroscience. Helping people with gender dysphoria would belong in the Gender dysphoria article. Any thoughts on this review I pointed to? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that I'm not endorsing the source's opinions, including its conclusion. I'm not stating that the source should be used in the Gender dysphoria article. I'm only stating that it does review the literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PMID 26429593 looks fine. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that the English reads fine for a translated article, and a "weird" vibe or feeling is not sufficient justification for excluding a source when that source fits Wikipedia guidelines. Neuromath99 (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)