User talk:C.chi.han

Welcome!

Hello, C.chi.han, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Welcome

I am a member of the medicine and neuroscience wikiprojects. I find your term project very interesting, so I only wanted to say hello, and offer my help for any questions you have (either about neuroscience, although my field is neuropsychology and not basic neuroscience, or about wikipedia in general). Feel free to post any questions or requests at my talk page and try to have fun around here... Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Neurolaw

Hi. Just wanted to say you are doing good work. One thing you may want to keep in mind is to focus your writing on a narrow scope, primarily about neurolaw and technological applications. Let me know if I can be of any help. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you tried to clarify the legal context in at least one instance. The problem is Wikipedia is strict about WP:NOR, or no original research. This means, as an encyclopedia we write primarily from secondary sources that have already covered the topic. What you want to do is find sources about the military, technology, and neurolaw, and rely on those exclusively. Use primary sources sparingly in this case, unless they are already discussed in the secondary. That way, when someone questions you about an argument or evidence, you can point them to the secondary source that has already discussed it. This style may be new for you, so don't worry about making a few mistakes. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, thanks for making this clear; I am currently researching more secondary sources rather than primary in order to strengthen the points I make. Regarding the DARPA information, do you think it would be more appropriate if I delete the DARPA paragraph altogether and simply mention DARPA in my discussion of the specific military applications? Thank you again for guiding us through this Wikipedia experience! C.chi.han (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. The easiest thing to do at this point is look at what you have already done and reverse the process. In other words, you have attempted to start out with a broad overview of your subtopic, but you did this without citing sources that gave the topic a narrow treatment. So, look at what you have done and work backwards, going from a narrow treatment of the subject based on sources that explicitly discuss your topic in the context of neurolaw. Right now, review the sources you have and start working with the most narrow ones about neurolaw alone. From there, branch out if necessary. For example, instead of getting right into a discussion of DARPA with sources that aren't explicitly about or in the context of neurolaw, start over with a very specialized treatment of how neurolaw, the military, technology, and ethical issues interact, using sources that directly discuss it. From your narrow thesis, "spin out", like a flower opening its petals, into related topics. It's sort of strange, but if you think about the article as a living organism it is easier to see how the parts interact with each other.

Anyway, enough of that. Let's get back to your original proposal:

With the advent of novel technological innovations such as the fMRI and the EEG, both the legal system and the military has begun to anticipate specific uses for such neuroscience research. The United States military, for instance, is already actively using brain-imaging technologies to facilitate interrogation methods by analyzing cognitive activity that occurs in deception. However, because these approaches are still innovatory and early in development, the results and the consequences of those results can be questioned on their validity and legitimacy. This section will discuss current and potential military applications of neuroscience research, as well as the laws and controls needed to regulate the prevalence of such applications.

Review your sources and identify those which directly discuss and make the connection between neuroscience and legal issues, and start there. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)