User talk:Wikipedialuva

The article Breast and ovarian cancer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundancy; breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and HBOC are covered on separate pages, and this page does not include enough notable information to justify separation.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Birdflag (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

078600 ~2026-11481-14 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-11481-14: Is there something you need help with? Wikipedialuva (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Thymoquinone, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Your edit summary in Special:Diff/1340039822 mentioned MEDRS, but the source added - as well as the existing sources - are in no way compliant with WP:MEDRS. In the future, test your source against its position in the WP:MEDASSESS pyramids. Only systematic reviews of Phase III clinical trials or international medical guidelines are suitable. Why mention "antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antineoplastic, and antiviral properties and has undergone preliminary research to further identify its biological properties and potential for use in treatment of various diseases" when only lab research has been done? Thymoquinone will likely never be used as a drug, as it cannot be patented, and cannot meet true mainstream scientific acceptance as a drug candidate. Zefr (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zefr: The claim that WP:MEDRS only allows Phase III trials or international guidelines is not supported by the policy text; in fact, the term "Phase III" (or references to any phases of clinical trials) does not appear anywhere in the MEDRS policy as a requirement for inclusion. Literature reviews in recent, peer-reviewed journals are explicitly defined as reliable secondary sources. PMID: 34983346 is a valid, recent secondary review that documents these reported properties. Furthermore, raising objections to a PubMed-indexed review based on the potential "patentability" of the substance is not a policy-based objection. Wikipedia's role is to summarize the available recent literature reviews in a reputable journal, which is specifically identified as an "ideal source" in the MEDRS nutshell.

Nowhere did the added text suggest thymoquinone should be used or was being used as a clinical treatment; rather, it accurately describes documented, specific biological properties that have been noted and investigated, as synthesized by that secondary review. Replacing specific terms like "antiviral" or "antineoplastic" with the vague "biological properties" reduces the encyclopedic value of the article. Here, the writing accurately frames these as observations as documented in MEDRS sources and avoids unsupported claims or implications of clinical efficacy. I am, of course, open to refining the wording or incorporating additional high-quality sources to improve the writing and to ensure the distinction between laboratory properties and clinical applications remains clear. Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for kindly presenting your case. As medical editors following MEDASSESS and mainstream science, we are expected to assess the background literature in sources for evidence quality. Consider the levels of evidence in the left pyramid of MEDASSESS, then test the references in your edit and their respective research quality. No high quality clinical research has been done on thymoquinone, and none of the references you used demonstrate this. They are all low-quality references derived from lab research (pyramid, pink) and poorly-designed, early-stage human studies (pyramid, pale blue and below levels). As all four references are based on poor-quality, low-evidence research, the sources become poor-quality sources for the encyclopedia.

Pose the question, do any systematic clinical reviews, national medical guidelines or regulatory decisions (such as by the FDA) declare thymoquinone as safe and effective for treating any disease mentioned in your edit? The answer is no - that is, no source with sufficient evidence in the purple or gray zone of MEDASSESS.

You may want the opinion of other medical editors. You can post a discussion at WT:MED or WP:RSN where evidence quality of sources for medical articles has been well-discussed. Advice: take a dose of skepticism; exceptional claims of research progress of thymoquinone affecting normal physiology or disease mechanisms require exceptional evidence. Zefr (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)