This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
The edit was just: "More recently, research has been done on IAPs, proteins that inhibit programmed cell death and are linked to cancer. A 2019 in-vitro study found that amygdalin inhibited the expression of genes which produced the IAPs Survivin and XIAP."
Within 3 minutes it was reverted by @Bon Courage with the message "Not WP:MEDRS". To which I replied that Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Perhaps he hasn't heard of it, but he could have at least taken a few minutes to look it up. 3 minutes is barely enough time to read the change. So I reverted that revert.
Within 5 minutes it was reverted by @Zefr with the message "Lab research, WP:MEDINVITRO, far too preliminary to be mentioned". I've added the change to the section mentioning three historical hypothesized mechanisms of action. This study is relevant because it is recent research introducing a new one. I made clear that this was an in-vitro study. And I consider myself a pretty fast reader, but even still it took me a good hour to read this study and relevant background information on relevant IAPs like Survivin. 5 minutes sounds too fast to even get through the abstract. I reverted that revert too.
Within 9 minutes, there was another revert from @Bon Courage saying "Unreliable source, edit warring". Again, Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Its a peer-reviewed journal and part of the Springer network. It would be very helpful if you explained why you think its an unreliable source.
It is very frustrating to spend over an hour genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia's body of scientific knowledge, only to be immediately shot down by what seems like drive-by Wikipedia:Wikilawyering.
You will have a different perspective after reading WP:MEDRS, with attention especially to the bottom of the left pyramid at WP:MEDASSESS, which identifies the content and source you wish to add as preliminary lab research - the lowest quality of evidence for medical content in the encyclopedia. We are not writing a journal discussion about hypothetical mechanisms, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-7. Zefr (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Databased, WP:MEDRS says: " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results that do not hold in later clinical trials." The source you cited is a primary source. JimRenge (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
