Search Results: Wikipedia:MEDPRI


Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
Rabu, 2026-07-08 13:45:19

not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis). Shortcuts WP:MEDPRIWP:MEDPRI WP:MEDREVWP:MEDREV Primary sources should not be cited with the intent of...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIM-HIGH trial
Jumat, 2025-12-12 01:32:06

scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Single study (WP:MEDPRI, without notability for its own article, study never completed due to failure...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Don't use today's news to contradict medical sources
Senin, 2022-06-27 01:28:49

citing in these situations, but it does have one very relevant rule at WP:MEDPRI: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Amphetamine
Sabtu, 2025-09-13 00:14:56

WP:MEDANIMAL (also - MEDMOS#Careful language bullet 8), WP:MEDDATE, WP:MEDPRI, and WP:MEDSCI must be satisfied). Information in a drug article is about...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vystopia
Rabu, 2025-12-10 14:47:22

me as rather leading, as does the wording of the questions.) This is WP:MEDPRI at best. The other journal article cited is another primary source[5]. Those...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concept Medical
Jumat, 2025-12-19 01:45:17

assess its safety and effectiveness. And, according to guidelines like WP:MEDPRI, findings are frequently highlighted in the media immediately after initial...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 vaccine side effects
Selasa, 2025-12-16 02:47:51

to debunk secondary sources is also a clear and direct violation of WP:MEDPRI. Read the very first sentence in that section. The second scenario is possible...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1107
Kamis, 2026-04-02 21:34:31

objects because it is a primary source, I think it is noteworthy as per WP:MEDPRI as it is noteworthy for several reasons, in particular the fact that it...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 173
Kamis, 2023-02-09 15:43:03

citing in these situations, but it does have one very relevant rule at WP:MEDPRI: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 19
Senin, 2022-05-30 23:35:03

to debunk secondary sources is also a clear and direct violation of WP:MEDPRI. Read the very first sentence in that section. The second scenario is possible...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 14
Jumat, 2023-03-03 18:49:48

me as rather leading, as does the wording of the questions.) This is WP:MEDPRI at best. The other journal article cited is another primary source[16]....

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 365
Senin, 2022-02-07 11:07:38

out that we do have science-specific policy statements about this. See WP:MEDPRI. Policy pages like this are needed because certain sciences, particularly...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 10
Minggu, 2020-11-22 03:11:35

scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Single study (WP:MEDPRI, without notability for its own article, study never completed due to failure...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed oil misinformation
Rabu, 2024-10-02 20:57:38

under Wikipedia's biomedical information sourcing regime. Please see WP:MEDPRI. The gold standard is either a comprehensive literature review (cited in...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 304
Sabtu, 2023-02-11 03:37:17

primary sources as generally should not be used for medical content but per MEDPRI "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321
Sabtu, 2024-02-03 09:03:47

diseases articles on Medscape are peer-reviewed and compatible with WP:MEDPRI. Even though an RfC would be more appropriate to establish this sort of...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 356
Jumat, 2023-11-03 13:01:32

WP:SOURCE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:MEDANIMAL, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:MEDPRI (policies and guidelines) and WP:RSE, WP:SCIRS, WP:RSUW (essays). I am not...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 95
Jumat, 2023-03-03 14:54:03

reviews, or clinical recommendations by governmental authorities. See WP:MEDPRI. MarshallKe (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you, that's the sort...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 189
Jumat, 2026-01-23 22:46:01

of significant size and importance to merit a mention as outlined in WP:MEDPRI. Zefr has objected to this based on assumptions that are factually wrong...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 92
Rabu, 2026-02-11 07:25:58

for whether a secondary source was "done correctly" is WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDPRI explicitly states primary sources should not be used to counter conclusions...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 76
Minggu, 2026-04-19 17:18:37

be of much use in contradicting secondary sources in the article per WP:MEDPRI, not to mention the obvious CoI implications. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 26 July...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 215
Senin, 2022-03-07 12:38:29

COVID-19 pandemic. What we've disagreed on is this: Do WP:REPUTABLE, WP:MEDPRI, and WP:BLPSTYLE say we should cite a secondary RS about what research to...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430
Rabu, 2024-03-20 23:51:17

another. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38085369/ Type per WP:MEDPRI: It's a secondary source (specifically, a systematic review). WP:MEDSCI:...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 498
Jumat, 2025-12-12 00:46:39

Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC) WP:MEDPRI discourages editors from citing clinical trials, so editors therefore have...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453
Sabtu, 2026-07-18 13:36:05

Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC) About this article: WP:MEDPRI: The article type is a narrative review (though PMID 37505898 doesn't have...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 49
Jumat, 2025-01-10 22:10:12

primary research - it is whether it meets the criteria specified in WP:MEDPRI to permit inclusion. Lavender_oil#Uses current wording: A 2021 meta-analysis...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 2
Kamis, 2024-10-10 16:40:07

under Wikipedia's biomedical information sourcing regime. Please see WP:MEDPRI. The gold standard is either a comprehensive literature review (cited in...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 9
Minggu, 2023-12-17 07:23:50

assess its safety and effectiveness. And, according to guidelines like WP:MEDPRI, findings are frequently highlighted in the media immediately after initial...

Click to read more »
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 230
Sabtu, 2026-03-07 23:09:46

sentence is a 5-part health claim constructed from primary research; under WP:MEDPRI - "Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context...

Click to read more »