User talk:Rahman1708

July 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Pornography addiction. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Unreliable medical source" has a special meaning inside Wikipedia. This meaning is explained at WP:MEDRS. Briefly, a source has to be peer-reviewed, print-published, high-quality (i.e. MedLine indexed) and a review (i.e. a secondary source) in order to be allowed to make medical claims inside Wikipedia. Sometimes primary medical sources are allowed to expand upon some claims made by MEDRS sources. Anyway, primary sources are to be used with high caution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I saw the MEDRS but I found the paper on PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24693355. How else do you verify a medical claim? (Please note: I am a new user). I mean to say that the burden of proof should be on the other "side". Right? Rahman1708 (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources marked there are weak: either they aren't reviews or they aren't MedLine indexed. Usually such sources are disallowed, but the article would become extremely short in such a case. It is not taking sides: both the claim and its refutation fail WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are MedLine indexed when PubMed states "Indexed for MedLine" or something like that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]