Edit with VisualEditor

This page has beenmentioned by a media organization: Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024)."Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault".Al Jazeera English. RetrievedJune 14, 2024.Wikipedia was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

Anyone care to have a look atoxygen cocktail, especially if anyone speaks Russian? I suspect it’s way outside MEDRS guidelines but I don’t speak Russian so I wasn’t sure how to proceed.Innisfree987 (talk)05:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A very strange set of sources and links to them. I checked one of them using whois:[1], the domain isn't even registered yet. And I can't find anything like "Эффективность энтеральной оксигенации в комплексной профилактике и лечении ранней плацентарной недостаточности при невынашивании" in the Вестник РГМУ journal using Google ([2]). But there is a similar article in РМЖ ([3]):[4] (the link is to a translation into English using Google Translate). Also I'll just mention the term used in this source in English: "enteral oxygenation". It looks like some kind ofalternative medicine.D6194c-1cc (talk)07:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I found the "Эффективность энтеральной оксигенации в комплексной профилактике и лечении ранней плацентарной недостаточности при невынашивании" article in the Вестник РГМУ, but manually, searching in the index of the journal number:[5], it's on page 338. It's a primary research without any details on how the research was conducted, and without any calculations. It just says that there were 40 people, 25 of which were administered with the oxygen cocktail. And it just claims based on thedoppler ultrasonography that the cocktail was effective in prevention ofplacental insufficiency. Using this source violatesWP:MEDPRI. I removed it from the article.D6194c-1cc (talk)12:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the unregistered domain, according to the web.archive.org, it was used by a commercial company calledVikom Ltd:[6]. The source doesn't have any link or name of the research it describes. So it's an unreliable source of information (the company doesn't even deal with medicine) and the source can be safely removed.D6194c-1cc (talk)13:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much much for going through these, I really appreciate it. At this point I’m wondering if it’s even a notable topic?Innisfree987 (talk)22:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only reliable source in English I have found that mentions oxygen cocktails research:[7]. All others are either from unreliable Russian journals or outdated. Mongolians use some kind of oxygen cocktails, but I don't know whether these are the same oxygen cocktails:[8].

But I found some official sources in Russian (letters fromRospotrebnadzor):[9],[10].

Also, I found some outdated sources in Russian which date back to the USSR:

• Энтеральная оксигенотерапия. Научно-практическая конференция. 1968 г. Киев.
  • Сиротинин Н.Н. Влияние на организм перорального введения кислородной пены. Энтеральная оксигенотерапия. — Киев, 1968 (Google Scholar)
  • ...

These conference findings are uploaded to z-detstvo.ru as scans, but I doubt that they are uploaded legally in terms of author rights, so I won't provide a link.

Also, I found a review in the press:[11]. It describes the history of research and mentions some valuable data like research history and research from 2005 which is cited many times on the internet and which I didn't find on the internet. It might be helpful in finding reliable sources.

The topic might be notable if the USSR articles could be considered reliable. But those sources are outdated, so they are not appropriate sources to describe efficacy perWP:MEDDATE, as I think.

//To read online sources in Russian, you can use Google Translator. Just copy the link and paste it into the entry in the "Sites" tab.D6194c-1cc (talk)12:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to search for more broad topic "oxygenated drinks" and found some interesting articles:

• “Oxygenated” water and athletic performance,
• Health effects of alkaline, oxygenated, and demineralized water compared to mineral water among healthy population: a systematic review,
• Enhancing key broiler welfare indicators, meat quality, and gut microbiome composition using oxygen-enriched drinking water under commercially relevant housing conditions,
• Ingestion of oxygenated water enhances lactate clearance kinetics in trained runners (the Introduction section has some valuable data).

Also, there is an ongoing randomized trial:[12]. Some other sources that might have some useful information:[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21].

This source has some history about the cocktail:[22]. And some history on oxygenated drinks:[23],[24],[25].

So there are 3 possible articles:"Oxygenated drinks" (or "Oxygenated beverages"),"Oxygenated water" (including "Super-oxygenated water") and"Oxygen cocktail". They are highly overlapping. "Oxygenated drinks" can encompass the other two, but I didn't find review articles that review both topics. "Oxygenated water" is notable enough, as I think. "Oxygen cocktail" is more about USSR and Russia, since it's not just oxygenated water and might have different health effects that need to be checked by independent from Russia researchers.D6194c-1cc (talk)10:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, theРусский медицинский журнал journal (not to be confused with theРоссийский медицинский журнал journal) is not a reliable source. Take a look at this article:[26], and search for "Witek". The authors claim thatcommon cold symptoms are being developed after 24 hours fromexposure to cold temperature (Google Translator translated "переохлаждение" ashypothermia, but the authors meant just cold temperature exposure). Probably, it's because many Russians believe that common cold can be due to exposure to cold temperatures (as a factor or as a reason). And also the article promotes some drugs that are used as a treatment in my country. Or another example:[27]. They claim thatcramps is a term to describe asyndrome of painful muscle contractions (and they transliterated the English term to Russian as "крампи" despite the fact that Russian language has its own term "судороги" for that). I doubt that any article from that journal was peer-reviewed by competent experts. All the claims made by that journal can be removed.

@Headbomb: consider adding this journal to the predatory journals list. You can useDissernet to check information about the journal reliability.D6194c-1cc (talk)18:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with Dissernet, and since I don't speak russian, I can't really evaluate that journal either. I don't usually add a journal for a single bad paper, there needs to be a pattern of crappiness, or a consensus of editors that the journal's reliability isn't comparable to that of other journals.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}19:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can find many more interesting articles like this one:[28]. It promotes a certain interferon rectal drug as an effective treatment for COVID-19, but the article is supposed to be a review one according to the title. A few years ago, I investigated the possibility of that rectal administration of interferon might be an effective delivery mechanism, but I didn't find any evidence in reliable sources. In my country, many drugs are used as a kind of tradition going back to the USSR, and it's just a big money business, as I think. And here are some articles promotinghomeopathy:[29] (see[30] for explanation).

As for Dissernet, if a journal is marked as with serious violations ("с грубыми нарушениями"), it probably can't be considered as reliable:[31]. At least it's the only way to check a Russian journal I know about, and it's not ideal, because it doesn't deal with the content.D6194c-1cc (talk)22:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this journal is used two more times in English Wikipedia:[32] (for the history and for further reading).D6194c-1cc (talk)12:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any sort of rule/guideline that an article in English should only cite references that are in English (or available as a translation)? Citing a work that can't evaluated critically by most readers seems... odd.BetsyRogers (talk)05:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's not such a rule, in fact the opposite - seeWP:NONENGLISH:English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. As far as I know, there hasn't really been any serious discussion over changing this, as it'd greatly hamper our ability to cover topics outside the English world for which English language sources haven't taken a notice.

The general rule of thumb is that if whether a non-English source supports article content or not is in dispute, that the person who added the source should work with those disputing it to provide quotations (including translation) if at all possible. There's alsoWP:TRANSLATORS who can be approached on their talkpages if the user who added the content is unavailable or unable to provide a translation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!06:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, readers are at least 300x as likely to read (part of) an article than to read any sources at all, so for at least 299 out of 300 readers, what really matters is getting the Wikipedia article's text correct.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then it goes back to @D6194c-1cc's original question of whether the source(s) are reliable (and whether the Wikipedia article itself is reliable?).BetsyRogers (talk)21:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main question is whether this one is reliable:[33],2008 (it could be translated into English using Google Translator, the Document tab), it is used as a source titled"Применение кислородных коктейлей, при профилактике и лечении бронхолегочных заболеваний у детей. Пособие для врачей (Russian)". This manual was approved byAlexander Baranov ([34],[35]) who was the chief of the Union of Pediatricians of Russia (see[36] for what it is).

As for Alexander Baranov, I examined two books in which he participated. Inone (2009), is was said that homeopathy ("гомеопатические ЛС") is used in Russia, and there were even some instructions about the doses and the length of the treatment (without any claims about efficiency), but theanother book (2015) stated that there was no evidence that such a treatment is effective (in the context of Anaferon treatment), referring to the MEDLINE.D6194c-1cc (talk)15:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should mention that this manual relies on three articles from the "Русский медицинский журнал", which can't be considered reliable (see above).D6194c-1cc (talk)15:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I invite users here to provide feedback inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. It is to discuss if yearly articles for Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine are necessary. Recently, the 2025 article was removed.ReyHahn (talk)20:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, anyone who's interested in how Wikipedia handles Nobels might want to keep an eye onUser:Markus Pössel/Nobel Laureates and Wikipedia Pages. I update it when I remember to, but anyone can.WhatamIdoing (talk)22:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rationale for deleting? I looked on the relevant talk page(s) and couldn't find an explanation. Have all of the other articles listing laureates for a given year been nominated as well? I ran some searches and there are a LOT of articles like this (laureates for one specific year and one specific prize). There's also a lot of overlap between other articles (e.g. a list of all laureates for a specific year, a list of all laureates for a specific prize, etc). ... Just wondering, why this article specifically?BetsyRogers (talk)05:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Network physiology is tagged for needing attention in various respects.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)18:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That new article feels rather spammy (e.g.,MOS:DOCTOR violations). It might well be a notable subject, despite needing a lot of clean up.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's an actual subject underneath all the spam, or if it's just a few people finding a trendy way to say "body parts are interconnected".Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)16:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article impresses as a vanity project for the proponent of thenetwork physiology concept, Plamen Ch Ivanov, professor, founder, and director of the Keck Laboratory for Network Physiology, Department of Physics, Boston University. Ivanov has coined the termphysiolome used inthis 2021 review in the journal founded in 2021,Frontiers of Network Physiology, for which he is the editor-in-chief.Frontiers of Network Physiology isnot MEDLINE-indexed.

A draft page for the Frontiers journal has been submitted byAlexYP123, reviewed, and declined, as of 13 Oct. AlexYP123 is also the page creator for theNetwork physiology article. Seems aWP:COI declaration is in order.Zefr (talk)17:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also this where AlexYP123 is conamed with Plamen Ch Ivanov. Have left an autobiography notice on the user's talk page.Zefr (talk)18:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the page with Earwig and found copyvio all over the place. The article is now tagged accordingly.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)22:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.WhatamIdoing (talk)00:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the term "Network Physiology" was introduced in a 2012 Nature Communication paper (Network physiology reveals relations between network topology and physiological function | Nature Communications) and the term Human Physiolome project was introduced in a February 2016 articleRevealing the network within – Physics World — a comprehensive atlas of dynamic maps representing all the interactions between organs and systems in the human body. Investigations in the field of Network Physiology provide the building blocks of a first atlas of dynamic organ interactions (see 2016 paper:Focus on the emerging new fields of network physiology and network medicine - IOPscience)AlexYP123 (talk)15:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the journal Frontiers in Network Physiology is indexed byPubMed, PMC, Web of Science Core Collection Emerging Sources Citation Index with impact factor 3, andScopus with cirescore 4.4AlexYP123 (talk)15:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a young researcher who is interested and considering entering the field but have not published yet on Network Physiology. I am also not affiliated or connected with the journal, Frontiers in Network Physiology — I noticed such journal exists as other Frontiers journals in physics, biomedical engineering, physiology and medicine. I have no conflict of interests. I am just fascinated and interested in this relatively new field.

I am surprised that the Wikipedia webpage on Network Physiology has been taken down. There are multiple reasons why a Wikipedia page on Network Physiology should exist:

1. Network Physiology is an established field that exists for more than 15 years with specific focus, fundamental questions, and methodology that distinguish it from other scientific fields and research areas.
2. As any other scientific field and research area, Network Physiology deserves to have a wikipedia page
3. There are thousands of researchers working in this field; simple Google Scholar search on “Network Physiology”, gives > 3,700 articles and documents that mention the term Network Physiology
4. There were multiple international scientific meetings on Network Physiology and whole-body research in the past years:

• International Summer Institute on Network Physiology (ISINP) 2017, 2019, 2022, 2025
• The U.S. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) workshop in 2021 to explore methodological synergies for systemic health research
• EMPOWER 2024 workshop on multi-disciplinary pathways and opportunities for whole-body research
• The Physiological Society (UK) international Webinar Series on Network Physiology in 2025

5. There is a scientific journal publishing (with impact factor) in the field of Network Physiology - Frontiers in Network Physiology.

6. There is an NIH institute in the USA — National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, NCCIH — which is devoted to fostering research/clinical funding programs in whole-body research and Network Physiology

I am happy to address any suggestions and editorial comments to improve the page, but the page on Network Physiology should be restored, as it presents information about an existing and actively developing field, with its own specific focus, fundamental questions and methodology, as also evidenced by >100 references to publications included in the page. By the way, all points above, containing factual information, were included on the Wikipedia page.

I'm sure, if the page is left on, many others working in the field would make edits and contribute content to the page. Please provide editorial guidelines to restore the page.AlexYP123 (talk)15:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of space to expandphysiology with well-written content on 'Systems Physiology' and its synonyms; orphysiome.Klbrain (talk)17:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, the topic is notable:[37],[38], so the article can be created. The previous page was deleted because ofcopyright violations, not because it wasn't notable.D6194c-1cc (talk)19:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem with the first attempt was copy/pasting from other publications. Editors need toWikipedia:Use our own words. Just like an assignment you would write for a university class, the wording must be 100% original to you: no copy/pasting from sources, noclose paraphrasing, noplagiarism, no AI-generated paragraphs – just your own words.WhatamIdoing (talk)22:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those specific sources should count towards notability. The latter is obviouslyWP:PRIMARY, since it's by the inventor of the term, and the former was edited by him and published in a journal for whichhe leads the editorial board. The article must be based uponmedically reliable sources that areindependent of Plamen Ch. Ivanov.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)17:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also,NCCIH has been criticized for legitimizing quackery, andFrontiers Media is widely seen as a sub-par publisher ("Very much hit-and-miss" perWikipedia CiteWatch). A case for notability should be built on more solid stuff than this.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)17:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NCCIH and Frontiers situations are about whether the claims about the subject are "true". Whether the subject qualifies for aWikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article is about how much coverage it gets inindependent sources, not about things like whether those sources are "legitimizing quackery". Even outrightsnake oil can be notable – if it gets enough press.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that outright snake oil can be notable, but we can only build a notability case using reliable sources. Whether anything from NCCIH should be deemed "reliable" is a gray area at best; likewise journals such asFrontiers in Network Physiology (which also fails the independence requirement).Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)00:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is still interested in the topic, here's a way to search for unaffiliated review articles:[39].D6194c-1cc (talk)07:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But as for affiliation, journals sometimes publish editorials, which are the same as if someone who leads the editorial publishes an article in that journal. I sometimes use editorials, because they can have valuable information. And the editorial usually broadly explains the topic that is in focus of the journal. I don't see much difference between an editorial and an article that explains the field of the journal. In case of an article, it was still peer-reviewed. So, is is only the notability thought to be questionable in such affiliations? If the other source still covers the topic, then the affiliated article is acceptable for Wikipedia, am I right?D6194c-1cc (talk)08:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't notice that such an article is already marked as editorial:[40].D6194c-1cc (talk)08:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article heavily relies on a paper by Horvath which has an errata. The errata is substantial, and it honestly too dense for my non-expert eyes to make any sense of it. If someone could review the errata and the article, make any updates, or simply add|checked=yes to the erratum template if things are all cool, that would be great. I'll also notifyWP:MCB.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}04:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience:erratum andRetraction Watch articleCambrianCrab (talk)pleaseping me in replies!23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two editorswho wrote much of that material have both been inactive for a few years, so I don't expect to get help that way.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's a significant error. Thank you for catching that! That's really unfortunate the author(s) didn't catch this mistake sooner before publishing. This sort of thing can create such a mess, since it also "contaminates" articles/reviews that rely on the retracted data/conclusions.

Personally, I would eliminate that as a reference entirely. Others might disagree, but this is for a general audience, and the average reader won't be able to (and shouldn't have to) sort through the information in the paper and decide what to take as valid and what to ignore. The Wikipedia article can be fixed, but if you leave the reference there, you (we) are saying it's a reliable source of information, when unfortunately it's not really.

Are there other references that can be used in place of this? If there's anything (unrelated to the retraction) that's been repeated & confirmed by another group, perhaps those references could be used instead. I'm almost wondering if there should be a small section at the end for "retracted work" or something like that (the paper itself wasn't retracted but the errata did say they're "retracting" certain conclusions). That way the error can be pointed out clearly, so if it's cited within one of the other references, people will know there's an issue with the paper and proceed with caution.BetsyRogers (talk)19:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRogers, are you able to start the clean up work on that?WhatamIdoing (talk)22:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a try. To be honest, the article needs a lot of work. My concern is that if I start editing it and can't finish in a timely manner (my time is limited these days) it could end up being more confusing. Then again, I'm a bit of a perfectionist so I might be overthinking it. :)BetsyRogers (talk)02:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work there.WhatamIdoing (talk)02:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I'm trying to support the project by working through theStub Sorting page. Should I limit the changes to the stubs on that page, or can I also use the widerHealth stubs?TodaysFilter (talk)12:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TodaysFilter The disease stubs are fairly well organized (at least last time i checked) but occasionally people will mess up the genetic diseases. As far as sorting uncategorized stubs, feel free to throw any disease into the disease stub category and i or someone else can further subcategorize them. the other important ones are the medical treatment stubs, pharmacology stubs, medical signs stubs, and psychology stubs. Take a browse through those and see if they are overcluttered. usually there’s enough context clues from even just a stub to categorize into a more specific category.IntentionallyDense^(Contribs)20:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about this: The guidelines say "if article is no longer a stub, please remove the stub-related templates." Can anyone suggest a good way to decide if an article is no longer a stub? I found this page aboutcontent assessment but (as they acknowledge) it's pretty subjective. Any suggestions?BetsyRogers (talk)19:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The usual rules of thumb are: more than 250 wordsor more than 10 sentencesor having multiple sections. It's much more important to get stub tags off of articles that are obviously not stubs than to worry about whether that's 240 or 260 words, or if 11 short sentences is as good as 10 short ones, etc.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an article that's tagged with a category for Molecular Biology articles of "unknown importance" ({{Category:Unknown-importance_Molecular_Biology_articles}}). I clicked on the link and apparently there are 32,334(!) articles in this category. I saw something on the list that I recognize, but I'm not sure what the guidelines are for adding or removing this category, or what it's even used for. If anyone knows more about this, any info would be appreciated. Is there a recommended/requested action to take if we see this tag?BetsyRogers (talk)19:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment for our criteria. We have 2,000 such articles at the moment. A significant number of ours could be classified by bot, if we made a list of biographies, businesses, schools, laws, books, etc. (because those are all|importance=Low |society=yes for us). I should probably make the list and take it toWikipedia:Bot requests.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need a volunteer to look through this list of about 1,500 articles:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&oldid=1318981619

and remove anything that is not a person, a publication, an organization, or otherwise involves a single country. When in doubt, please boldly take it out. Once another pair of eyes has looked through the list, then I'll go to BOTREQ and ask then to tag them all as|importance=Low |society=yes.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can do some of this.BetsyRogers (talk)08:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, how did you generate that list? Was it some sort of search/filter?BetsyRogers (talk)08:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I did this, I ran aWikipedia:PetScan search, to combineCategory:Unknown-importance medicine articles with pages that are already tagged as being BLPs.

However, that misses a lot of articles, so this time I did it manually. I started with the entire list and removed articles that either I knew weren't low-importance or whose namemight not have been a low-importance article. (Because getting the tags wrong is worse than leaving it untagged, I was generous with removal.)

Doing it manually is why I want a second pair of eyeballs on it: I'm pretty sure I overlooked some articles that should have been removed, and anyway, you should never try to proofread your own work. I really appreciate your help, and would be happy to have others take a look, too.WhatamIdoing (talk)17:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that's impressive. :)

I'm just now having some distraction-free time (its been a crazy day) so I'll take a closer look. One question: I noticed several items that are government legislation (e.g."Access to Health Records Act 1990"). Do you want those left in?BetsyRogers (talk)06:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I think I might be doing this wrong. I just realized there's a longer list of importance/priority criteria listed on theassessment page (near the bottom) that I didn't see before. I had removed some things from yourlist that should in fact be low priority. I'll revert those. Just wanted to let you know what that was about. Sorry for any confusion.BetsyRogers (talk)01:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the list a few times, and I think it looks good! In the end I only removed a couple of things.BetsyRogers (talk)03:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really appreciate it. I'll take it to BOTREQ. (For this kind of action, I strongly prefer erring on the side of caution. When in doubt, take it out!)WhatamIdoing (talk)16:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is done now, andCategory:Unknown-importance medicine articles now has less than 600 articles in it that need manual ratings. The correspondingCategory:Unassessed medicine articles has less than 300 in need of quality ratings (probably half are obvious stubs).

The next time we ask for a bot to tag articles, we need to remember that the{{WPMED}} redirect is still being used, and not just the long form of{{WikiProject Medicine}}. It took a second run to get the whole list done.WhatamIdoing (talk)05:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created the articlerectosigmoid sphincter (previouslySphincter of O'Beirne), based on a number of medical papers that mention it (see the many cites in the article for details).

However, I can't see it on any lists of standard anatomical terms; I'm wondering whether this should be merged into a newrectosigmoid junction article where the whole matter can be gone into in more detail (does it exist? - apparently yes - is is a true sphincter or a functional sphincter - and so on).

I'm not a medical professional, so can someone knowledgeable please review it (and check its citations)? Also, is it significant enough to add to the{{Gastrointestinal tract}} template?

—The Anome (talk)15:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be in the TA -Terminologia Anatomica if it's generally accepted, and I do agree that it should be merged if it is only a hypothesized structure. Also ping to @Tom (LT) who may want to introduce you toWP:ANATOMY.CFCF (talk)11:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Unfortunately, Tom's most recent edit was a few months ago.)WhatamIdoing (talk)16:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article name should be Rectosigmoid junction as that is a more acceptable and used terminology.

That being said, what is the purpose of the article? why do you think this particular junction of the colon deserves an article for itself?DrTheHistorian✎16:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my layman's perspective, was what caught my attention and made me think the topic might be notable was the controversy over what I would have thought was a relatively simple matter that would be easy to resolve through observation. I find it fascinating that we are still finding new things, centuries after the beginning of the science of anatomy. —The Anome (talk)19:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medical field is evolving rapidly and new things are being found and it is very fascinating, specially in the molecular level. Still don't see enough information for the need of a sole article other than this is a watershed area. Unless you find some ground breaking stuff that has been discovered.

Suggesting maybe add this on theColon article and we can grow it there.DrTheHistorian✎22:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic might be notable if a secondary source exists that reviews the topic. I found a primary study that probably fits this criteria, but in the context of research history:[41]. Even its Introduction section can be considered secondary for the information about the history of research, it's debatable whether it makes the topic notable because it's still a primary study. But another source probably makes the topic notable:[42]. Also, some useful information about the names and the definition of the sphincter problem:[43],[44],[45],[46].D6194c-1cc (talk)08:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. My approach would be that if a topic meets our notability guidelines, then it would deserve to be an article, noting that like in other areas there will certainly be some structures in anatomy that are not universally accepted as such - however, we're not the arbiter of truth but here to cover what is considered notable. I would also suggest to follow the general WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE guidelines so, if this article is likely to be a couple of sentences, it may be better mentioned in the same article as something related, such as the rectosigmoid junction rather than piecemeal. Regarding the template, I don't think it would be appropriate to either mention it in the broad topical navbox nor put that navbox in the article; an appropriately granular navbox would be best, something mentioned in MEDMOS.Tom (LT) (talk)06:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome, if you are still interested in the article, you can try to write a more detailed article using the sources I provided.

But there is still a problem of defining the scope of animals. Currently (in the context of the sources), it is written about humans (in the sources). And also,WP:MEDDATE should be considered because the source I have found is really old and not actual.D6194c-1cc (talk)11:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)(updated at 14:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Anti-inflamantory medications (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Ithink this is a new article, though there have been several page moves, making the history a bit confusing. Regardless, it is poorly-written (or re-written?), by someone with a poor grasp of English, and apparently no familiarity whatsoever withWP:MEDRS. I also suspect that a LLM may well have been involved in the writing. Could one of the regulars here perhaps take a look?AndyTheGrump (talk)21:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article forNSAIDs, dont see why another one was made. It does seem that they took the information straight fromAnti-inflamantory page and that page needs a lot of attention and work. Not familiar with deletions but don't see a reason why we need two of the same article.DrTheHistorian✎23:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be pushing it a little, but there's a part of me that wants to see all usage of 'Anti-inflamantory' on Wikipedia REVDEl'ed, on the basis that there ain't no such word, nohow.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did make a spelling mistake on the "inflammatory" in my cm above while tagging it.

Well some drugs do have anti-inflammatory purposes, NSAIDs being the most known one, some such asGlucocorticoids (eg:prednisone) can also have anti-inflammatory effects. So deleting all of them would'nt be wise :)

It is also a word, see:Merriam-Webster Dictionary.DrTheHistorian✎00:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-post the link to the article? I'm seeing a red link in your initial comment, and a search for "Anti-inflammatory medication" redirects toAnti-inflammatory (which does need some work but I don't think that's the article you were referring to).BetsyRogers (talk)06:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all the page moves etc, I think the problematic version has now been deleted, and we are back to something acceptable. An admin should be able to figure out where it went an send you a copy if you need to see it. There was a lot more wrong with it that just the misspelled title.AndyTheGrump (talk)12:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought that might be what happened. Sounds like a good call. Thanks for flagging that!BetsyRogers (talk)18:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the articleAnti-inflammatory should be moved toAnti-inflammatory drugs and describe the mechanism of action of steroid and non-steroid drugs. I don't have access to these sources:[47],[48],[49], but they might be making the topic notable.D6194c-1cc (talk)08:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-inflammatory diet redirects there, and that is 'a thing' in medicine,even if it got blanked for saying things like "A 2022 meta study found thatplant-based diets such as a vegan, vegetarian, or mediterranean diet or theDASH diet are associated with lower inflammation levels" ...which I'd have thought to be pretty unobjectionable.WhatamIdoing (talk)16:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mediterranean-type diet is associated with longer life, it's not surprising that it is associated with anti-inflammatory effects ([50]) rather than any plant-based. Vegetarian and vegan diets have some problems like possible B12-deficiency and smaller amounts of essential amino acids in consumed food. But information like this should be in theAnti-inflammatory diet article.Anti-inflammatory is about the property, so there's not much to say about it, I doubt that it is even notable.D6194c-1cc (talk)17:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Anti-inflammatory diet is definitely a mainstream medical thing that doctors (including mine!) are starting to recommend for patients (like me) with chronic pain. There's some solid data on certain types of foods being associated with higher levels of inflammatory markers as well. I could understand removing that section if the article was specifically about "anti inflammatory medications", because dietary modification isn't medication. Honestly I think it makes more sense to have an article that's just for anti-inflammatory drugs. "Anti-inflammatory" is a very broad term. (Also it's an adjective, not a noun).BetsyRogers (talk)18:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest a change in the title for the article to "Anti-inflammatory drugs"? I can't find an article with that title (or "Anti-inflammatory medicines" etc). It just redirects to this article. Also is there a way to figure out how many redirects are going to that page?BetsyRogers (talk)18:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i should put that "proposal" in the talk section for the article...BetsyRogers (talk)18:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether we want that page to be aWikipedia:Broad-concept article ("multiple things called anti-inflammatory"), or if we want that page to be only about medications ("only drugs claimed to be anti-inflammatory"). I suppose it could also be aWikipedia:Disambiguation page.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support having three pages:

- a broad concept article for "anti-inflammatory" that explains multiple things are considered anti-inflammatory (medications, foods, ice etc) and why (e.g. causes reductions in biomarkers, reduction in signs etc)

- "anti-inflammatory drugs" for medicines

- "anti-inflammatory diet" for discussion of foods/diets that have been proposed as anti-inflammatory.Daphne Morrow (talk)01:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daphne Morrow I posted on the talk page (see"Proposed title change to "Anti-inflammatory drugs" (or restore some of the deleted sections)" ) before I saw your reply here. That's a good suggestion to consider. Maybe you could re-reply on the article talk page?BetsyRogers (talk)05:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To have a page about anti-inflammatory as a broad topic, one have to find a source that reviews it in such a way, seeWikipedia:Notability. I tried to search a little, but didn't find anything.D6194c-1cc (talk)05:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, we shouldn't have a page titled "anti-inflammatory" at all, because it's an adjective, andarticle titles should be nouns. But it should be obvious that various efforts to reduce inflammation are discussed as a whole; "take some NSAIDS" is followed closely by "get some exercise" and "eat a healthful diet", because all of these things treat inflammation. The only real question in my mind is what to name the page.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding suitable recent secondary sources

a) an overall source discussing anti-inflammatories in general. I'm not sure if a immunology textbook might discuss interventions for chronic inflammation?

b) specific sources for diet, exercise, sleep, and ice interventions. (for NSAIDs, steroids and fibre I don't expect to have any trouble). A lot of these came from one trove of research on the topic:

I've got this 2022 review of omega-3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1567576922005884

This 2019 review of the mediterranean diet that mentions the anti-inflammatory hypotheses and associations:https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.313348

I've maybe got this from 2019 for tumeric:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043661818319236

and this from 2023:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043466623000224

I've got this finding exercise intensity did not affect chronic inflammation from 2021:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1440244020307830

Sleep from 2024:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09727531241275347Daphne Morrow (talk)23:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried turning it around, and instead of searching for "anti-inflammatory", searching for something like "treatments for inflammation" or "inflammation reduction"? The common lay-person word isn't necessarily the term that medical sources will use.WhatamIdoing (talk)00:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I'll add it to my to-do list.

I'm also finding reviews of pro-inflammatory interventions, but I will add any info from those to the article on inflammation.Daphne Morrow (talk)00:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think having separate pages for drugs and diets is a good idea. It keeps the topics more focused and makes it clearer for readers what kind of evidence applies where. The mechanisms, sources, and clinical relevance are pretty different, so splitting them would make it easier to organize reliable sources and maintain accuracy over time.Evathedutch (talk)03:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you putIce andExercise?WhatamIdoing (talk)18:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article (Neurotherapy) could do with some attention from project members. There are general areas I would feel confident editing, but I have no familiarity with the subject so feel unable to assess much of the actual content. At a quick glance some of it sounds like it could be pseudoscience to my untrained eyeBeevil (talk)19:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beevil, aquick trip to PubMed suggests that the wordneurotherapy is used for a wide variety things, including being a synonym forNeurofeedback and any drug intended to affect nerves.

If @Tryptofish can find time to look it over, that might be best.WhatamIdoing (talk)16:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. It looks to me like commercial jargon, rather than really being "a thing", more like an assortment of other stuff that waspulled together under a dubious name. There is probably stuff there that could be merged into other pages, but I don't think it should be a standalone page. In particular, the Medical uses and Types sections of the page make it sound to me like thereal topic isNeuromodulation (medicine). --Tryptofish (talk)22:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe aWikipedia:Disambiguation page? It could list

• Neuromodulation (medicine)
• Stroke rehabilitation
• Neurofeedback
• Neuropharmacology
• Category:Drugs acting on the nervous system

etc.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see it more as a redirect. Pharmacol/drugs is really a stretch. --Tryptofish (talk)23:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I've tagged the pages for a merge. Depending on how much the two articles overlap, then aWikipedia:Blank and redirect might be the right option.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has raised objections at the merge discussion (Talk:Neuromodulation (medicine)#Proposed merge of Neurotherapy into Neuromodulation (medicine)), so it would be helpful to have more eyes there. --Tryptofish (talk)23:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of our project goals is to reach B-class in all 100 top-importance articles. After doing some minor reclassifying between high and top importance based on pageviews + the Global Burden of Disease studies, I ran my source age script on this set of articles. Where the median source age was 2011 or older and the article mostly had biomedical content, I changed B class into C class. I haven't looked yet at the articles with more mixed content that might also be overly dated. I would love to put in the preparations for a big push to get all of our core articles to B class or higher, and one step is to (1) find new maintainers for GA/FAs using their reassessment processes and (2) reclass in the absence of a maintainer.

Could people here help out with checking old GAs and FAs and putting notifications on the talk page and contacting the old nominator if they're still around? The articles likely in need of a notification:

1.  DoneHerpes.—Femke 🐦 (talk)15:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Meningitis
3. Obesity
4. Vitamin
5. Alcoholism
6. Croup
7. Hepatitis B
8. Gastroenteritis
9. HIV/AIDS
10. Anaphylaxis
11.  DoneAsthma.—Femke 🐦 (talk)13:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12. Birth control
13. Hepatitis C
14. Pneumonia
15. Bacteria.

—Femke 🐦 (talk)15:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this! I wonder if it would help to create a separate page somewhere for listing just the high-priority/class articles to help focus efforts and keep track of progress? (Unless there already is one. I looked around on the project page and didn't see one.) I'm new here and don't want to step on any toes, but if there were a list like that, I think it would be very useful.BetsyRogers (talk)19:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, @BetsyRogers. There's different ways to do the prioritization. Here, I've taken the articles in theCategory:Top-importance_medicine_articles, with some tweaks removing odd entries and moving in a few bigger topics. But I imagine that the top-importance articles aren't quite the most important articles, and that if we go for multi-year pageviews, we can have more of an impact. What kind of articles would you include? I noticed that there's little relationship between pageviews and disease burden, if we want a third way of prioritizing.—Femke 🐦 (talk)19:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hadn't seen that list before. Does it say somewhere how the list is made? (i.e. specific criteria used?).BetsyRogers (talk)21:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the history of the list (also somewhat new at this WikiProject), but the criteria are listed atWP:MEDIMP. That describes pageviews as a key criterion, so we might be able to tweak the list further to align with reader interest.A study from 8 years ago suggested some changes I've been tempted to make, like downgrading themajor trauma article (which has low pageviews), and possibly upgradingCrohn's disease. Using themass pageviews for the category, you can find out which ones might need a downgrade. A similar search in the high-importance article gives us candidates for articles to switch in. Some articles might get low pageviews because they have cryptic names (likeHypercholesterolemia), so it's not the only criterion.—Femke 🐦 (talk)22:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't thoroughly reviewed the articles in those categories for a long while. Just follow the directions, use some common sense, and don't worry too much about perfection on the borderline subjects. If you're really stuck and don't want to make a decision, you can list an article atWikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment, where someone will eventually see it.

The general hope is to limit the Top- category to 100 articles, High- to about 1,000, and Mid- to about 10,000.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably not great way to do this but I've often wondered if there's a way to determine which medical/science articles are most frequently polluted with misinformation (i.e. using some quantitative parameters). Some are obvious like vaccines, covid-19, anything related to climate change, etc, but I suspect there are a lot that I haven't thought of.BetsyRogers (talk)00:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Switched out a couple more. I tried to make pair-wise switches where both pageviews and disease burden were higher, which meant I'm keeping some low-pageview ones in there likechronic pain. I don't know how much pageviews change with the article title, but there's a few I hope will pick on numbers after a move (likemyopia andhigh cholesterol). In terms of misinformation: conditions with less scientific understanding (like a lot of women-dominant conditions), are prone to promoting alternative medicine viewpoints.—Femke 🐦 (talk)09:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a few more suggestions on theWikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment page that I'm less sure about. Would be good if someone else can have a look as well tothe entire list (compared to theHigh-importance most-read articles). When we're happy, I will create a subpage for a project to push all of them to B-class and above (including the outdated GAs etc).—Femke 🐦 (talk)16:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried contacting the noms for the GAs and FAs? Or even the reviewers, as many of them are also good editors? For example, I'm pretty sure that @Doc James did the work that resulted inObesity reaching GA. Given what I see in the news (about a proposed multi-factorial change to the what it's measured), that might require a little more work than just swapping in a more recent source.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm asking help for now. Leaving a message on both the old GA/FA where appropriate, and the nominator's talk page if they're still around. Doc James wrote a fair bit of these GAs, so started a conversation, but others are still to follow. Good idea to also find the reviewer.—Femke 🐦 (talk)06:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I have grown exhausted with health policy and have collected my efforts in thehealthcare in New York State article, and I wish to move on to other issues. Health policy is only part of theNew York state government, and although important, there are other government and law topics that also cause distress to many and are woefully underdeveloped.

Most of my work has been in the stateDepartment of Health, stateOffice of Mental Health, stateOffice of Addiction Services and Supports, and stateEducation Department articles where most technical details can be found.

I invite my betters to take over. I cannot see the forest for the trees at this point, given the breadth and depth that this topic contains. Much of this won't be found in one place anywhere else besides Wikipedia. Here. Us. (Certainly notGrokipedia.) Without such articles, I think articles only dealing with the United States or Earth will traffic in vagaries and generalizations, given that healthcare policy isreserved to the states and the People under our Constitution.

I think we are closest with New York, so I urge completion by people in the know. I think it's complicated enough that even politicians and journalists need this. Let's get this buttoned up and fold the information into US and other states' articles at a technical level. This is only the beginning.@Bluerasberry:@Nightscream: thank you, and thanks all.int21h (talk ·contribs ·email)01:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Int21h: Hi, Int21h. Have we interacted on WP before?Nightscream (talk)02:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. You created theNew York State Office of Mental Health article. Minimal as though it may have been, 'twas important.int21h (talk ·contribs ·email)02:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By way of more detail, I feel like it tookalot of sleuthing to figure out some random 1977–1978 uncodified state statute created this very important core department of government. Not sure that without your creation it would ever have led to this. It's one page in or so in all of the major government books that this "office" was in fact a de facto department of government. (The state is limited by their constitution from having too many departments, so they apparently just call them offices. An end run around the Constitution that causes much confusion.)int21h (talk ·contribs ·email)03:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to fix my earlier comment where I said 1997 instead of 1977–1978, I note that the 1977–1978 law or laws are stillnot accessible. How crazy is that, we are required to known the law. No way I'd have seen it.Your weight mattered. The law itself is not accessible to anyone, yet because of you, we have breached the unknown. So hello and thank you.int21h (talk ·contribs ·email)03:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Int21h: I still develop related content but I am not in this exact space.

I left most Wikipedia development of government agencies, but am trying to model Wikidata for this. For NY state checkd:Wikidata:WikiProject Govdirectory/United States of America/New York and compare to the more developedd:Wikidata:WikiProject Govdirectory/United States of America/North Carolina. The goal is to do this for every government agency in the world. When we do that, then it becomes easier to compare agencies in a specific field, like all state level health agencies in the United States.

For policy, I have university research access to thehttps://www.overton.io/ policy database. Withmeta:Wikidata:WikiCite I am trying to do Wikimedia indexing of policies, but curation at scale of this is halted for about a year for technical development as the Wikimedia Foundation replaces Wikidata's backend with an entirely new database architecture.

For years the state of the art has been on cusp of providing easy public access to identification of all agencies, lists of all their outputs, and relating their documents and policies to their outputs, but not yet. I would be happy to talk with you about this if this kind of infrastructure interested you.

To promote the development you have done tohealthcare in New York (state), I have cross-posted this conversation to the talk page at the Wikidata United States GovDirectory. Bluerasberry(talk)14:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The short description forPsychodermatology says that psychodermatology is an "Unproven, pseudo-medicine treatment of skin disorders". The article itself does not give me any such impression; rather it seems to treat psychodermatology as a legitimate practice. This suggests to me that either the short description or the content of the article is biased.Surtsicna (talk)17:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the short description to a more neutral one. Apparently, there is pseudoscientific misinformation around this (saying you can cure skin disorders with your mind), but PubMed gives a lot of legitimate search results as well.—Femke 🐦 (talk)17:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer pain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)00:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)12:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Andrew Huberman#RfC: Lead of Andrew HubermanDolyaIskrina (talk)18:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested thatHypercholesterolemia be moved toHigh cholesterol, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate inthe move discussion.—Femke 🐦 (talk)08:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)12:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seehere for a guideline rewrite relevant to WP:MED.@Colin:SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject Medicine editors,

I have prepared a new, fully sourced draft for an article on endocrinologist **Philip E. Cryer, MD (1940–2024)**, a longtime Washington University researcher known for his work on glucose counter-regulation and hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure.

The draft is here: RPK2000:User talk:RPK2000 - Wikipedia

It cites peer-reviewed journals (JCI, Diabetes, NEJM) and Washington University sources. Could someone please review it for neutrality and notability and, if appropriate, move it to main space? I worked with him and believed his contributions should be more widely recognized but am not an independent objective author due to my work with him. BTW this is my first attempt, and I am considering doing more once I learn the culture and the correct way to become engaged as an editor.

Thank you very much for your time and guidance! ~~~~RPK2000 (talk)09:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use AI for drafting articles. Large language models hallucinate sources. And please readWP:Conflict of interest and make the appropriate declarations.—Femke 🐦 (talk)10:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RPK2000 has already disclosed a connection, but as the connection is having worked with the subject, who died last year, several decades ago, I'm not entirely sure that it would be considered a significant COI any longer.

The draft is atUser:RPK2000/sandbox.ERcheck has already looked it over. TheWikipedia:Articles for creation process is not mandatory; anyexperienced editor who believes the subject is notable (Wikipedia:Notability (academics), or maybeWP:NAUTHOR, since he wrote "more than 400 peer-reviewed papers and 10 books or monographs") and the article not at risk ofWikipedia:Speedy deletion canWP:MOVE the sandbox to the mainspace whenever they want. I suggest adding more links to help out readers who don't know what all of those long words mean, and of course after it's in the mainspace, it should get the usualcategories added.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what I wrote before, the article is eligible for speedy deletion underWP:G15, with multiple nonsensical citations. The topic does seem notable however.—Femke 🐦 (talk)19:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a nonsensical citation? Every ref inDraft:Philip E. Cryer has a working URL that leads to a page containing his name, so the sources exist. I checked the first four refs (in the lead), and each of them directly support the sentence they follow.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 5 and 8 resolves to a different article related to him. Citation 6 and 7 do not resolve. Two of the working citations were added by ERcheck.—Femke 🐦 (talk)20:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 5 contains four links, which point to three different pages (alternately relevant, broken, and irrelevant).

Citation 7 only has a bad link. The paper is athttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002870381904087.WhatamIdoing (talk)21:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing RfC atNPOVN on whether gender exploratory therapy should be described as a form of conversion therapy. Editors interested in the issue are welcome to comment.Gitz (talk) (contribs)16:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors, as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf ofCedars-Sinai Medical Center, I am proposing updates to the Cedars-Sinai article that I believe will help streamline and be an overall improvement. Editors here might be interested inmy request to update its early history. Thanks!Danilo Two (talk)21:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article onClostridial necrotizing enteritis (CNE) and we have an article onNecrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).

The articleClostridial necrotizing enteritis seems to switch indiscriminately between using the abbreviation CNE and using the abbreviation NEC. Is this wrong or confusing?

Should these articles be merged or the relationship between CNE and NEC be made more clear?

-~2025-33172-44 (talk)00:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-33172-44, CNE and NEC are different things. All of the NEC information wasadded to CNE by a new editor, and none of it belongs in the CNE article. You couldWP:SPLIT it out to the NEC article (assuming that it's not already duplicated there).WhatamIdoing (talk)20:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a brief article forPremethylenomycin C lactone. Looks like it may potentially solve the drug resistant bacteria crisis.Thriley (talk)04:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing RfC atNPOVN on whether gender exploratory therapy should be described as a form of conversion therapy. Editors interested in the issue are welcome to comment.TarnishedPath^talk06:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-specific effect of vaccines(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch

I notice ripples have been cause by the publication of

• Støvring H, Ekstrøm CT, Schneider JW, Strøm C (November 2025). "What is actually the emerging evidence about non-specific vaccine effects in randomized trials from the Bandim Health Project?".Vaccine: 127937.doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127937.PMID 41233263.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

which says that the outputs of Drs Benn and Aaby of theBandim Health Project may exhibit some rather startling instances of questionable research practice.

OurNon-specific effect of vaccines article is quite reliant on their output (often in non-WP:MEDRS sources), and make some very bold claims indeed about the impact of vaccine NSEs. I am concerned we may not be properly reflecting accepted knowledge in this field or – worse – amplifying someWP:EXCEPTIONALLY questionable/fringe views about vaccines.Bon courage (talk)03:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please seeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CDC revises stance on vaccines and autism.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleHelicobacter pylori eradication protocols  has been flagged for having multiple issues, one of which is a general lack of citations. Separately, it seems (to me) that some of the content might be AI-generated, which raises other concerns since AI can sometimes "imagine" things that are patently false.

But there's also a separate, larger article onHelicobacter pylori that's in pretty good shape, and it includes a entire section on H.pyloritreatments. So is the other article really needed?  I would propose a merge, but there's so much unsourced material in the "H.pylori eradication" article that a simple move/merge would just send those problems to the larger article.

Maybe an expert on this could take a look at the ""Helicobacter pylori eradication protocols"" article first to look for any general accuracy issues? Are there are any gastroenterologists (or similar) here who might do this?BetsyRogers (talk)06:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A merge proposal is probably the right thing here, with a note it should be a very selective merge. I've done merges before where I'm only preserving two sentences and even find newer sources for those. The main article is up-to-date, the subarticle isn't really.

The subarticle was created in 2007, so AI does not seem to be a big problem here I don't think.—Femke 🐦 (talk)07:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of our WikiProject's goal is to get all of our top-importance articles up to B-class or above. TheWikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign is the attempt to reach that goal by the end of 2026.

You can now sign up as a participant or as a co-organiser!—Femke 🐦 (talk)10:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems pretty problematic and potentially dangerous to me. It includes a lot of uncited info about mixing illicit substances, and without extensive reliable sourcing this kind of stuff can kill people. I started a deletion discussion back in June because I was concerned with the fact that the page seemingly promotes the mixing of drugs in ways that they are not prescribed, but the page was kept. I thought I would bring this up here because if the page must be kept, it should at the very least be heavily monitored and edited by people who know about medicine.ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk)18:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Number of page watchers who visited in the last 30 days" for this article is just two (2). If you keep up with your watchlist, please consider adding this to you list.

@Zefr, would you mind taking a look at the sourcing in this article?WhatamIdoing (talk)16:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the total 36 sources, there might be 4 worth keeping. Most of the others are poor-quality websites with dubious titles like TRIPS, The Bluntness, Erowid, Narconon, Vice, Zamnesia, American Songwriter, etc., i.e., unreliable. Others are primary research, a decade plus out of date, or in low-quality journals. Seven sources deal with cannabis, seven with MDMA, and about half of the table entries are unsourced,WP:OR.

A mess of an article, with overlap toLacing (drugs).Zefr (talk)18:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note thatEmergency management, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of theArticles for improvement. The article isscheduled to appear on Wikipedia'sCommunity portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by—MusikBottalk00:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

• Wikipedia pages referenced by the press