User talk:Nuance.is.great

August 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Withania somnifera, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Don't put quackery into the encyclopedia - read and use WP:MEDRS sources. See WP:WHYMEDRS.'' Zefr (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I used reliable sources including your own. You chose to ignore the other half of the intro sentence on drugs.com which is not a very scholarly source to begin with. You know the part after the semicolon. It’s not quackery there are plenty of reputable published peer reviewed studies supporting the beneficial effect of the plant and you are presenting a biased picture. Nuance.is.great (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to make a research section sections of the articles listing only facts about what has been PROVEN by in vitro and animal studies. Ok? Nuance.is.great (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Censorship and bias
Please read the Sloan Kettering article on ashwagandha. Especially the section for professionals citing all the evidence for possible therapeutic benefits including the mechanism of action and make the appropriate edits to your horribly biased presentation of the information. Nuance.is.great (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia states established facts, i.e., ashwagandha has no proven effects, which are correctly presented here. 'Possible' benefits are not science, but blog information that might occur, so remain doubtful until established with a WP:MEDRS review. See this and WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That is an absolutely ridiculous claim. By this logic only proven empirical facts belong an in an encyclopedia and anyone that’s picked up an encyclopedia understands it is much more than that. Should we delete all the “theories” out of the encyclopedia? All the philosophy and religion? This is total nonsense. All science does it test ‘possibilities’ and when several reputable sources recognize that science demonstrates likely possible benefits that should be part of the article. How about adding a research section? If you don’t want to call it medicinal benefits fine but the large body of research showing all the possible benefits should not outrightly censored as you are trying to do. Nuance.is.great (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The context is your and other edits claiming medicinal uses established by science and published as reviews in respected clinical journals. This is a listing of 'review' articles, not one of which is in a reputable clinical publication. It is contrary to encyclopedic medical (or medical research) content to use sources from low-quality, non-clinical publications; see WP:MEDREV. Zefr (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So you think Sloan Kettering is spreading quackery? You think that is not a reputable source? But “drugs.com” is? Nuance.is.great (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Under the "Healthcare Professionals" section, MSKCC says it is used in Ayurveda, which is quackery nonsense. Drugs.com provides the same general summary. No serious science has been done on it, and it wouldn't pass muster as a serious topic for grant-funding, which is probably why there are no reputable reviews shown in the PubMed search indicating any antidisease or health effect of ashwagandha. Zefr (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)