Devon.evanovich
| This user is a student editor in University_of_California_Santa_Cruz/World_History_of_Science_(Summer_2018) . |
Welcome! edit
Hello, Devon.evanovich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —PaleoNeonate – 06:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome! edit
Hello, Devon.evanovich, 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Page names are case sensitive, so the sandbox you moved to User:Devon.Evanovich is not in your user space. Where would you like it moved within your userspace? —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I would like it moved to user:Devon.evanovich
Notes edit
Hi Devon! I just wanted to drop a quick note and a hello. Since it looks like you're debating creating an article on the medical soul, I wanted to give a little advice on this end. I'm not really sure what the topic area is, since there's no clear definition of the term "medical soul", where the term came from, or so on. It's kind of nebulous and covers a lot of content already in the soul article. We can only summarize what has already been stated in reliable sources, as opposed to drawing our own conclusions. Here are my basic concerns:
- First and foremost, you need a source that explicitly defines the medical soul. Your definition here is a bit vague. I can't tell if this was a term these philosophers used or if this is something that you came up with on your own. There's already a mention of biology and the soul, which should encompass any material about medicine's beliefs about the soul or its location.
- With the term in specific, make sure that the term is explicitly used in the source material. This can be by the people themselves using the term or via a secondary source that considers their work to cover the "medical soul". The term must be used since otherwise it can be seen as a created neologism. Classifying any work on the human soul that mentions the body or utilizes medicine related tools as falling under the banner of the medical soul will be considered original research unless the term is very specifically used.
I kind of get the impression that you're looking to create an article on the attempts to locate the physical location/presence of the soul in the human body or at least the history of this. If this is the case, this is something that could merit its own article or subsection, however it has to be approached very carefully. It needs to be clear as to what it would be and you also need to think about how the content would be more than just a re-stating of the content written earlier in the article. Make sure that your sourcing is very, very good on this end and that you avoid language that is unclear or gives off the impression of original research. I can give more advice, but I want to determine which area you're going for. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Shalor,
Thanks for the feedback, I definitely see where you are coming from. Im thinking that I could present the same information and instead call it the "History of the location of the soul", "medical soul" is definitely a term that I created. One issue I could see with this is that the word used for "soul" is called "pneuma". Some secondary sources then say that the term "soul" and "pneuma" are the same thing. Would this also be considered too original to put the title as soul?
In my mind this is an appropriate topic and seems to not be addressed elsewhere on wikipedia. However I take your advice seriously and have been trained for the last 4 years to write original research. Does it seem like I am barking up the wrong tree and the reason that this information is not on wikipedia is because it is too hard to not do original research on it?
If it is I think that I can adapt it to fit into what is written already under the "biology" subheading to the soul.
Thanks for any feedback and help! Devon (student) 10:02, 21 July 2018
- Hi Devon, and welcome to Wikipedia.
It seems that you've grasped the issue. Avoiding the commission of wp:Original research can be difficult for someone who is used to academic writing elsewhere, but WP exists to be a tertiary source. Much of what you've done so far could be considered to be synthesis, a rather pernicious kind of original publication. You may find that the best approach is to vary your writing methodology from what you would use off-wiki.
For the creation of a de novo article, here is what I would suggest.
Starting with a subject area, look for several current, high-quality secondary publications addressing that subject in a substantial manner. A good guide to this is wp:MEDRS. Compile a list of the refs you think meet this in your sandbox, then run it by some experienced wikipedians for feedback. Identify the major assertions on your topic made in those refs, then rewrite them in your own words, avoiding wp:close paraphrasing, except where short direct quotations are needed. Keep track of the refs that source each statement you make. The simplest practice is to cite them as you go. When you have a few dozen statements, group them in some logical way while being careful not to impose an editorial viewpoint. This care is particularly important when your topic has a metaphysical tone, as this one does. A chronologic or geographic structure may be suitably neutral. Ask yourself if you agree or disagree with each statement and why: this may reveal biases you had not before noticed. Remember that what you personally think should not matter, you are writing in the voice of the encyclopedia. Now, edit for flow and add linkages to other articles. Check spelling and grammar. Summarize the major points into a wp:LEDE, add the reference and category plumbing and wiring needed, and it's time to move from your sandbox to mainspace. (Particularly for the first few times, you may want to get some feedback from others before the move.) Add some links in from related topic articles so yours is not an orphan.
Congratulations, your work is now up for reading and revision by anyone. Click "Watch this page" to put it in your watchlist and click "history" to see the changes made. Learn from them when you can. Discuss changes you don't understand on the article's talkpage. Revert true vandalism, but avoid the temptation to call other constructive editors vandals. See them as collaborators, even if they are pseudonymous, and you'll enjoy the experience much more.
Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 17:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)