Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Electromagnetic radiation and health. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Revert
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My edit here was reverted by @Roxy the dog: with the comment "Primary source (Sprague-Dawley rats)". I reverted it because there is a secondary source at the end of the paragraph that covers the same study. Praemonitus (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- It was reverted again, so I removed the primary source. It is still covered by the secondary source, but I find this behavior to be unhelpful. The cited study is available from the NCBI here. Praemonitus (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Well curious people like me and my co-workers will have to find this information elsewhere then. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes Wikipedia mirrors accepted knowledge. For dodgy stuff the wider web offers a lot of choices! Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, that's not true. Wikipedia covers content with reliable sources, including what you consider dodgy stuff. In this case these appear to be large studies with reliable sources. From my perspective, the only thing being stifled here are studies that are not yet scientific dogma. Praemonitus (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't that word means what you think it means. Alexbrn (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't that word means what you think it means. Alexbrn (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, that's not true. Wikipedia covers content with reliable sources, including what you consider dodgy stuff. In this case these appear to be large studies with reliable sources. From my perspective, the only thing being stifled here are studies that are not yet scientific dogma. Praemonitus (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes Wikipedia mirrors accepted knowledge. For dodgy stuff the wider web offers a lot of choices! Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Well curious people like me and my co-workers will have to find this information elsewhere then. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Geomagnetic storms?
@Alexbrn: Given this revert, I'd like to understand why the article discusses geomagnetic storms. This appears contradictory. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps it shouldn't! Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's probably enough notable content out there for a parallel article on Magnetic fields and health, so that might be a better place for it. Praemonitus (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)