User talk:204.148.76.54

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!


Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED). We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:


 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
 * The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Zefr (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Withania somnifera revisions
Hello - on my talk page you said: ''"I noticed you revered my additions to the Withania somnifera article briefly detailing the pharmacology. You stated that there was misleading content from weak journals and that there was speculation in the text, but I can assure you that every piece of information I gave was cited and that the journals I used were reputable (e.g. Medicine, Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, Indian Journal of Medical Research). Even if you thought this wasn't that case, reverting to the old version was certainly more misleading as the current article is claiming that there is no evidence that Withania somnifera has clinical efficacy, which is a bad characterization of the current state of the literature, and the only citations to this effect come from a single 2009 article on drugs.com. It seems as though the old article actually suffers from the critiques you levy at the revisions.

''I don't personally take Withania somnifera, nor am I associated with any manufacturer, but I am a neuroscientist and based on the chemical action of the plant and the reported clinical efficacy it is fair to say that the revisions more accurately classify the current state of knowledge. Removing all the revisions rather than individual points without specific criticism is unscientific and misleading for anyone looking to investigate the pharmacology of the plant."''
 * The journals you used are weak for medical content in an encyclopedia, which is not a place for writing all possible research on a topic. It's not about what research has been tried or found to have possible effects, but rather whether evidence-based medicine has been established for the subject or supposed remedy. We don't cite alternative or traditional medicine publications, including reviews, because these generally are not reputable, as they are typically based on quackery; see WP:CITEWATCH. The Medline summary adequaetely covers the status, as of August 2020, as does the Drugs.com review, which addresses some of the preliminary pharmacology (updated Nov 2020). Review the sections of WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:WHYMEDRS. Those guides represent the standard of sourcing needed for Wikipedia's medical content. The sources you offered don't provide sufficient evidence quality. Preliminary pharmacology could be mentioned if there are no MEDRS-quality reviews (I am unaware of any), as long as there is no suggestion of clinical efficacy, which doesn't exist by reputable standards. Thanks for your considerate message, and good luck in your editing. You can respond here, if you wish. Zefr (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)