Talk:Miguel Nicolelis

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Brazil: Education and science Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Education and Science in Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Has There Been Any Criticism?[edit]

I'm wondering if there has been any criticism to his ideas from privacy advocates? Wouldn't this technology amount to mind-reading? AVKent882 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New information[edit]

I added some information about dr. Nicolelis's big project concerning the 2014 FIFA World Cup, as well as the reference for it. GratoGuilherme (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brain to Brain Criticism[edit]

I removed the following sentences of the Brain to Brain section: "This work comes with its critics who state that there are flaws in their scientific methods and that there is lack of controls. They claim that some of the scientific claims are rendered "far-fetched at best." One researcher stated the work was similar to a "poor Hollywood science fiction script." [7]"

I removed them because this is material poorly sources (no source for the first two sentences) and the third one is potentially libellous and harmful, and makes no contribution at all to a scientific discussion about the matter, but is rather derogatory and sarcastic. I understand this is a policy of Wikipedia, and since this material has been repeatedly inserted, I am reporting this to the noticeboard. Iinnels (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iinnels (talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source at the end of the removed material adequately sources the entire statement. To the extent that negative information is from reliable sources, it can be appropriate to have it in the article. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientist is a reliable source and the quoted content is in the article, so it is not potentially libelous in anyway. It is also a critique about the research not Nicolelis. @Iinnels, I realize that you may have a connection with Nicolelis, but I wouldn't worry much about the reporting of scientific criticism he is getting on Wikipedia. How this ultimately affects his research depends on how the relevant scientific community views his research.I am One of Many (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miguel Nicolelis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Would it make sense to combine notes and resources or not? And does it make sense to add a section about how hes been on TED, daily show, SA Board of Advisors etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NihalAbbu (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]