Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 35 days are automatically archived.
• Want to be kept up-to-date? Sign up to the newsletter!

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179

Interest in a MEDRS edit check?

We now have the ability to create our own WP:edit checks. New editors usually meet quite a disappointing start when editing medical articles. They often add primary sources and are reverted rapidly due to the diligent work of reviewers. Reverts are unfortunately quite impactful on new editors, who might not know better.

The edit checks we can create are still somewhat limited, that is, we can write text that is shown shown for everyone who writes certain phrases like "laboratory mice", "phase I clinical trial", but the software doesn't allow us to match text in the source title yet. E.g. we can have something shown for this diff, but only because the person included enough details to identify this as a primary source.

In contrast to edit filters, we cannot do a period of testing either iirc, where hits are logged but nothing is shown to users yet.

Would people be open to having a MEDRS edit check? If people are, would it be worth opening a phab to ask for the development of text matching in titles of sources? I've not done a proper search, but I imagine we might be able to catch 15% of improper additions in the current set-up, and maybe 25% once source TextMatch is a thing.

Pinging Zefr and MrOllie as two of our key patrollers.

Potential keywords that could be matched:

• dose-finding trial
• dose-escalation trial
• mouse model
• murine model
• rat model
• open-label study
• single-blind

In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Does the match allow regex? If so, then picking up recruiting and clinical trial within the same line might be helpful.

My main concern is writing an accurate message. "Analysts say that the startup's Round B funding is dependent upon recruiting enough participants for the upcoming first-in-human clinical trial", cited to an ordinary newspaper or magazine article, is fine. "The company is recruiting participants for a clinical trial" is not so fine, but not necessarily a MEDRS violation. And "The Phase 1 dose-ranging clinical trial proved that the drug safely and effectively cures cancer" needs to be killed with fire, but it's only a MEDRS violation if the source is the original report about the Phase 1 trial, and not a later review that mentions it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Regex is allowed, we can do a couple of direct text matches and regex matches. My suggestion is that we focus the search terms on the very early stage research. A phase III clinical trial is mentioned often in reviews, and can even be MEDRS under certain circumstances when cited directly. Whereas stage I or preclinical stuff is rarely ready for mentioning. I imagine the false positive rate can be relatively low for those earlier stage bits of research. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I've made a first attempt at creating this: MediaWiki:Editcheck-config-textmatch-medrs.json. Feel free to add terms and remove ones that might get us false positives. Once we're happy, we can set this to experimental and test it out with some TAs / low-editcount socks. If we're happy it works, I'll enable for new editors. I looked at the last 18 edits Zefr reverted using MEDRS in the edit summary, and this one would have caught 2 of them, with 2 or 3 more caught if we had the ability to textmatch in source titles.

The text is now:

"This phrase might indicate you are using a primary source to make claim about biomedical information. Note that medical claims require recent secondary sources." In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I've enabled it for testing. When you edit an article in VE, you can add &ecenable=experimental to the url, type in any of the words (like preclinical) from this check and the check appears. Hooray. I'll be going on holiday now, so hope on more feedback before I'm back.

1. What mode do we want to enable (currently it's dismiss, but we can also give users a one-click option to revert their additions)
2. Is the current selection of words good. Anything missing? Anything at risk of a false positive?
3. What should the text say? I've now changed it to "This phrase might indicate you are using a primary source to make a medical claim. To ensure high-quality sourcing, please use a recent secondary sources such as review articles for medical information"

In reviewing Zefr's MEDRS reversions, I noticed a different category of edits are reverted: those citing unreliable journals. Opinions differ on what sources are unreliable, and which are in the grey area, but Zefr, if there are journals that are squarely in the 'unreliable' bucket, we can have these added to a list for a different edit check. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources "squarely in the 'unreliable' bucket", but the Frontiers (journal series) and MDPI aren't some of them per Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1.

Similarly, you will occasionally see an editor claim that a journal is unreliable because it's not indexed in MEDLINE. However, MEDRS doesn't require MEDLINE indexing. MEDLINE only indexes ~5200 journals, skewed towards US and English-language publications. MEDLINE is meant to be somewhat representative, and although it is a good indicator of better journals, it has also included some amazingly bad journals over the years (e.g., Medical Hypotheses during its AIDS denialism phase) and – importantly for our purposes – excludes some very good ones, often simply due to geography or language. For example, Breathe (journal) is not MEDLINE indexed. It's ranked in the top quarter and is an acceptable MEDRS-quality journal. It's probably not indexed because it's published by the European Respiratory Society, and MEDLINE discriminates against non-US journals.

BTW, if ~5200 journals sounds like a lot, then note that Elsevier alone publishes half that many journals. Popular estimates say that there are 20,000–30,000 science journals and about twice that if you include non-science journals (which would be relevant because of e.g., Medical humanities). Requiring all journals to be MEDLINE indexed would mean rejecting about three-quarters of science journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Trying to get more feedback here before potentially progressing towards deploying it. Pinging some frequent flyers here on WT:MED: @Choucas, Maltazarian, Ozzie10aaaa, Little pob, IntentionallyDense, and D6194c-1cc: In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't exactly call myself a frequent flyer, unless you count automatic RM notifications sent here when I'm trying to scramble together a consensus to close with, but I won't turn down an opportunity to help out.

I would consider "preliminary" with words like "studies", "trials", "findings" etc. as another indicator of primary research being added. I will think about further ideas. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

One difficulty is that we might get false positive hits outside of medical claims. What I might be able to do is a regex hit, where the editcheck hits with the combination "preliminary study/trial with X patients", where X is a number under 50. That ensures it's likely an earlier-stage study. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, and I was also thinking the ones you've already done can have variants with preliminary added.

You're right that "preliminary findings" should not cause a hit on its own, that's a bad idea. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I sometimes use primary sources to cite some information from their Introduction section if there aren't any other sources to cite (it would be a secondary source for such information). An example that possibly might appear in Wikipedia:
Antoine Persello; Fouzia Souab; Thomas Dupas; et al. (2023). "A Rat Model of Clinically Relevant Extracorporeal Circulation Develops Early Organ Dysfunctions". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 24 (8) 7338. doi:10.3390/ijms24087338. PMC 10139167. PMID 37108501. Wikidata Q141245178..

Using keywords will generate false positives. So the edit filter should mention that for an Introduction section it might be OK, but still less reliable than the review sources if any. D6194c-1cc (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

At the moment, the keyword does not work for the cite templates yet, but this one to keep an eye out for when we do get the technical ability to search in templates. The reverse can also happen: I've added content about mice studies from secondary sources into FAs. This would get flagged to the new editors. The text I'm proposing we show is somewhat hesitant: "This phrase might indicate you are using a primary source to make a medical claim. To ensure high-quality sourcing, please use a recent secondary sources such as review articles for medical information". I don't like the flow of the second sentence. And note, this is an edit check, not a edit filter :). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

"While occasional use of primary sources is acceptable, most of the sources in an article should be secondary sources, such as review articles and medical textbooks"? Also, I'd suggest WP:MEDPRI as the target link (and maybe link review article as well, because people get confused about peer-reviewed article vs review article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Provo Canyon School's classification

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Provo Canyon School § therapeutic boarding school. There is an ongoing discussion concerning how Provo Canyon School should be described and classified. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

same topic/article below--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Provo Canyon School has an RfC

Provo Canyon School, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for MOS:LEAD. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Source for biographies

Basic and Clinical Immunology by Names From the Biblical Time Until the Present is a 2022 book published by Springer that will be helpful to editors writing about eponymous diseases. It contains descriptions of both the disease and the researcher. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter, Issue 27

Issue 27—September 2026

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter
Greetings from WikiProject Medicine.

---

WPMED news and help

---

	Free books for editors The Wikimedia Foundation is offering a free book or similar source to experienced editors through their Resource support pilot. The source must be important for your work on Wikipedia, and it must not already be available through The Wikipedia Library or through the WikiProject Resource Exchange.
	Ban on AI-written articles: Since the last newsletter, the community has adopted and expanded a ban on writing articles with any AI tools (aka chatbots and LLMs). See Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models for more information.

---

Work to do

---

	The Vital Signs campaign: Can you help too? Adopt an article! Or if you have less time, adopt a section of an article (epidemiology is great to get started) or integrate recent guidelines. Assess if it now meets the B-class criteria in the progress table.
	100% sourced: Last year, WikiProject Medicine became one of the few groups that has ever managed to have zero {{unreferenced}} articles. Please check this PetScan report to see if any unreferenced articles have recently been tagged for our group. Add one or more sources, and then remove the tag. It often takes only a few minutes, and many hands make light work!
	Bad site: The community has deprecated a web archiving service called archive.today. New links are not allowed, and old links are being removed and replaced. A list of all affected WikiProject Medicine articles is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service. The list is updated by bot. We also have a report listing only popular articles. Thanks to long-time WikiProject Medicine editor Netha Hussain, you can scan individual articles and categories at https://fixarchive.toolforge.org/.
	Can you help answer questions? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions for a list of new discussions on article talk pages. It's updated frequently by a bot.
	Tools you can use: HotCat If you're interested in organizing categories for articles, make sure you've gone to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets-gadget-section-editing and enabled HotCat. This will allow you to add and remove categories to articles directly, by clicking + or – buttons at the bottom of the page.

---

See also

Newsletter comments and suggestions welcome.

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Quick update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service is under 2,000 articles now (thanks, and please keep it up!), and there are only five unsourced articles at this time: two lists: List of diseases (S), List of diseases (T) for which https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/a-to-z/ will be useful, plus three pages about medical schools: List of medical schools in Iran, List of medical schools in Israel, Suzuka University of Medical Science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Immunoparasitology

The article at Immunoparasitology seems to be LLM-generated, but I don't know enough about this subject to evaluate whether there's anything salvageable there or if it should be stubbed so that somebody can start from scratch. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

The subject is notable, but the article isn't our style. All the sources violate WP:MEDDATE. It spends too much time naming individual researchers.

On the plus side, though, it surprised me by nott overemphasizing Helminthic therapy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Allergic salute#Requested move 2 September 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allergic salute#Requested move 2 September 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 19:56, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rhinorrhea#Requested move 4 September 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rhinorrhea#Requested move 4 September 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NomanPK44 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft biographies underway at Draft:C. Hunter Shelden and Draft:Winchell McKendree Craig

I have started biographies at Draft:C. Hunter Shelden and Draft:Winchell McKendree Craig, both eminent neurosurgeons. Craig mentored Shelden, who famously advocated for cars having seat belts to reduce incidences of head trauma in accidents. Any help here would be appreciated! BD2412 T 20:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I have promoted these to mainspace. BD2412 T 11:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Aloe, medicinal uses

Hi, could someone please improve the section on medicinal uses in the Aloe#Uses and Aloe vera#Uses articles? It needs to be expanded and supported by sources. ~2026-50119-47 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

What sort of improvements are you hoping for? For example, are you hoping to see more specific information (e.g., not just "used for skin conditions", but "effective for second-degree burns")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

"Mpox vaccine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mpox vaccine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 18 § Mpox vaccine until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner Tagging Request: Category:Rare diseases

Hello, I am planning to run a bot trial to tag untagged article talk pages in Category:Rare diseases with {{WikiProject Medicine}} (using |rare-disease=yes / |society-task-force=yes if applicable). Please let me know if there are any specific subcategories or pages to exclude. --Have A Nice Life ^talk 13:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't do this, @Have A Nice Life.

The |subject-area=yes syntax represents a Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces. We don't have a "Rare disease" task force. The |society-task-force parameter is wrong both technically (there's no such parameter) and categorically (|society=yes is for non-biomedical content, like government agencies and laws; it should never be used to tag disease articles).

If you can tell me what you're trying to accomplish, without using any sort of chatbot or AI system to write your message, then I'd be happy help you find a functional path to that goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm grateful for you for catching that and pointing it out. I'm still learning the exact syntax for WikiProject banners. What I am trying to accomplish with my bot is to tag talk pages of articles in the rare diseases catalog with the correct banner parameters. Could you point me to the correct parameter syntax or banner structure I should be using for rare diseases? Thank you for your help. Have A Nice Life ^talk 17:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

These articles are already tagged with the correct banner parameters. The correct banner parameters for rare diseases is to not tag them as rare diseases in the WikiProject banner.

Is there something you're trying to accomplish beyond messing with the WikiProject banner? For example, if your goal is "I'd like to make a bunch of repetitive edits", then I can suggest some productive options. If your goal is "I need a way to make a list of articles about rare diseases, so I check that their infoboxes have the correct _____", then there are ways to go about this that won't break the WikiProject banner on the talk page.

But if your goal is merely "I'm trying to put a tag on these articles for a non-existent task force, because I didn't understand that these parameters aren't just redundantly and pointlessly duplicating the mainspace categories", then please stop. That would not be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thanks for the explanation regarding the template parameters and redundancy. As noted earlier, I'll pause/withdraw the BRFA to sort out the configuration offline. Appreciate the technical clarification. Have A Nice Life (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Medical dictionary available through The Wikipedia Library

Black's Medical Dictionary is a lay-oriented medical dictionary. Eligible Wikipedia editors can get free access to Black's Medical Dictionary through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library via Perlego. Perlego is an online textbook service. You have to log into to The Wikipedia Library website, find Perlego (search in the lower left sidebar, not in the top box), and apply for Perlego separately. AFAICT anyone with a good story ("I have made 500+ edits across dozens of medical articles, and I'm looking for good sources") will be approved. Medical dictionaries are handy for sourcing very basic information, the kind that "everyone knows", so none of the in-depth sources bother to write down. Once you're approved for Perlego, you have access to all their books, not just one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Percutaneous

I'm not crazy about the title, Percutaneous, since it is an adjective. Any thoughts on options? BD2412 T 22:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Percutaneous procedure? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

why not--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking that as well, but I just added a link at Mpox vaccine to Percutaneous, that being the article name, which I would call percutaneous administration but not a percutaneous procedure. However, I could see that being a minor issue. I'll make the move. BD2412 T 01:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Suture (anatomy)

Hi, could someone from the project please expand and improve the article Suture (anatomy)? It is short and somewhat lacking in sources. Furthermore, the entry deals primarily with animals, but the suture can also occur in humans. ~2026-52226-62 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

What information can be incorporated from this source, and how should it be done?

Hi all. I've recently read the paper Interventions to reduce incidence and progression of myopia in children and adults (open access link), and I think it's very interesting and has lots of valuable information. It appears to be reliable; it has 23 authors, all of whom are experts in the field of myopia. However, I am not a medical professional, I'm just someone who likes to read medical research. I also really struggle with figuring out how to condense very large amounts of information into something that's useable in something like Wikipedia.

Could someone please try to figure out how to incorporate this source into the myopia article? It might also be useful in articles like atropine, low-level laser therapy, light therapy, etc. I also wonder if it might be justifiable to make a page like myopia prevention? It might be better than trying to fit many different techniques into just the myopia article. Sorry for my somewhat disjointed rant, I'm not familiar with editing medical articles, so I'm just a bit unsure. Let Me Edit It (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@LetmeEditit, this is a good source. You could use it in several of those articles. I also agree with you that Myopia prevention is a notable subject. As a first step, would you please add or update a sentence in Myopia#Prevention and control with this source? Start with a simple "X works" sentence; it should be treated as a settled fact, so it doesn't need any "According to so-and-so" verbiage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Check out my sandbox — I got a bit carried away, and ended up changing several sentences, and I also removed a couple refs that I thought were outdated. Just want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything before making such a large change. Thanks again! Let Me Edit It (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid § Requested move 26 September 2026

An editor has requested that 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid be moved to 2,4-D, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

List of Types of Diseases for Possible Use in Articles on the Specific Disease Mentioned Below:

• List of autoimmune diseases
• List of cancer types
• List of heart diseases

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Pervasive issues in the 'Traditional Medicine' sections of plant articles

After some interactions with Zefr I noticed there's a very consistent problem in plant articles Traditional Medicine section where many of them contain claims that are old, unreliable or that otherwise fail WP:MEDRS, is this a known issue, and if not, would a collaborative effort be warranted (especially on common and or toxic plants)? An example is Lantana camara, which is toxic and had text saying it was used to treat cancer, asthma and whatnot, which was there since 2014. Eduardo7z (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It happens, but is it a "very consistent" problem? There are many editors aware of this kind of issue. If you see a problem, please address it. Bon courage (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

"is it a "very consistent" problem?"

Yes, it is, on my little excursion adding the Morton citation to articles I stumbled upon plenty of it (check the versions before my edits) . I think that the only articles that I edited which didn't have a problem were the Aloe Vera one and another article, which didn't have a Traditional Medicine section at all.

As for the address it, I could probably do it on the very blatantly problematic ones, but for the most part I'm not familiar with the requirements for WP:MEDRS so I prefer to not meddle with it; when you add something wrong anyone can see and fix it, when you remove something that wasn't wrong only the users who check the history or have an account and are watching the page notice it, so I avoid that.

You said there are many editors aware of this kind of issue but this raises some questions to me as to why that cancer claim stayed on Lantana camara for 12 years: Is the volume of problematic pages too big so this issue (medical claims on plant articles) becomes minor compared to other problems people in the Project Medicine (or a Botany/Pharmacognosy/Phytomedicine project) deal with? What tools/methods editors use to crawl through articles to search for problems? An example here's my thought process on how an editor would approach this: scan all articles in the Plantae section containing medical condition words like "cancer", filter for the ones in which this word appear under Uses, *medic* sections (to capture sections like Medicinal Uses, Medical Uses, Traditional Medicine, Medicinal value, etc), and the like (though probably just from having a medical condition word in the article already warrants adding it as a candidate), then one can sort them using any number of heuristics to decide on what to prioritize (number of medical words the article had, how popular the article is, how old the citations are, feed to a LLM to score it); does a list of such articles exist? I'm aware stuff like WP:CBM and Category:Articles requiring reliable medical sources exist, maybe one needs to be created for this?

Any thoughts on this? After writing this I feel like I could do it (at least the article search/filtering part, not editing haha) but I would like some guidance or direction (does this issue warrant this? Is this already addressed elsewhere? etc). Eduardo7z (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a little complicated, but the key point is to differentiate between statements that are biomedical in nature and statements that are cultural or historical in nature. Compare:

• "Parsley is a good source of dietary iron."
• "In Victorian era, parsley was used as folk remedy for indigestion."

Only one of those requires a MEDRS-style source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Sedative was merged to general anaesthetic

Not sure if anyone here noticed, but Sedative was merged to General anaesthetic. Windwardcoast (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

It seems that the article became an original research after the merge. As I see across the literature, those terms are different: , , . Under sedation, patients are able to respond to stimuli such as pain. However, under general anaesthesia, patients are unable to respond to any stimuli. These states are caused by different drugs, they can be used for different purposes, and they have different advantages and disadvantages. D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)