User talk:Jasper good

Welcome!
Hi Jasper good! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Any claim about medicine or health must use the strongest sourcing possible. Only use specialist up-to-date comprehensive medical sources and do not use isolated studies, journal articles, or older works.  Do not use general news sources even if those sources would otherwise be reliable.
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, science-based medicine isn't the same as "western medicine." Traditional western medicine includes practices like Homeopathy and there's plenty of non-western science-based medicine practitioners. I mean, the dude on the 1000 yen bill figured out what syphilis really was, and we've got dozens of articles about famous Chinese pharmacologists, Indian cardiologists, Ugandan public health doctors, Japanese dermatologists; and several on Egyptian and Pakistani surgeons, Malaysian GPs, and Nigerian gynecologists -- so it's rather colonialist to act like only the west has science-based medicine (and that's what you're doing when you call science-based medicine "western"). The entire paradigm of "western vs traditional medicine" was ultimately Maoist propaganda that some western quacks found useful (causing them to obscure western traditional medicine by claiming it originated elsewhere and corrupting other regions' traditional medicines in the process). A lot of science-based medicine does examine traditional medicine for its chemical basis, and when it finds something useful it isolates the active ingredient. That's why we take Asperin instead of white willow tea (same active ingredient). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)