Talk:Medicine

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medicine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 90 days

Medicine has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class by WikiProject Vital Articles.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Medicine

(Rated C-class, Top-importance)

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	This article was previously a Medicine Collaboration of the Week.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core

(Rated C-class, Top-importance)

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.Wikipedia 1.0Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial TeamTemplate:WP1.0Version 1.0 articles

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> \| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> \| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> \| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

	This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
	This article is a vital article.
	This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

WikiProject Health and fitness

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Science

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Psychology

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> \| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> \| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> \| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This subject is featured in the Outline of medicine, which is incomplete and needs further development.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mavluda.alamova96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traditional medicine[edit]

"Traditional medicine" isn't medicine at all, and doesn't belong on medical pages of an encyclopedia except as a note saying to look under society & culture. It's called "traditional" because tradition is the only reason any of its ideas persist - i.e. it wouldn't carry the name "traditional" if it worked.

It isn't analogous to folk music (a legitimate but different form of music); it's analogous to folk legal advice - false information given by people who don't know what they're talking about. "Traditional medicine" is a legitimate topic in history or in cultural studies, but it isn't legitimate to give it any space here, except to have a brief placeholder note explaining that it doesn't belong. TooManyFingers

(talk) 17:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TooManyFingers - Agree that the section should be more succinct. Why don't you go ahead with an edit? --Zefr (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe succinctness is the point; I also don't believe that I can edit the section effectively enough. It's a case of "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", but I don't have confidence in my own ability to defend such a move (i.e. not quite but almost deleting that entire section, leaving only a dismissive comment). TooManyFingers (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propaganda? "Then why don't you just remove the entire section on "History". --154.5.24.90 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compelling evidence dictates that title of Science should be removed from medicine[edit]

Science (noun) is a fact of nature. Facts are verifiable. If your fact is not verifiable, then you never had a fact to begin with.

There is no fundamental theory for life (yet). Medicine is hinged on statistics and statistics fail verification.

https://academic.oup.com/bjps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/bjps/axy051/5071906

A Doctor is still a scholar. He can still execute the scientific method on a patient. He still does science (verb). But medicine is not a Science (noun). Not verifiable (yet).

Even the Royal Statistical Society leaves statistical interpretation outside of Science.

https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01113.x

Aliis exterendum

The Royal Society restrains the premise that Philosophy of Science uses to justify statistics with Nullius in verba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuzamarine (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuzamarine (talk • contribs) 02:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles must be based on reliable sources, not Wikipedia. The definition of science is large, but maybe useful would be scientific method and philosophy of science. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for general discussion though, the science reference desk may be more appropriate. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 23:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traditional Medicine[edit]

Including it as a separate section appears to have some WP:COATRACK issues, as well as some WP:POV issues by indicating that it is part of "the science and practice of the diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and prevention of disease". I believe it would be appropriate to remove it, and instead allow the reader to follow the links to traditional medicine if they wish to learn more about it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feevar&head ache[edit]

Which medicen should i use,for head ache and feevar.sir please say. 106.76.200.72 (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Medicaments"?[edit]

In the "You may be looking for" at the beginning, the description for "Medication" is "Medicaments". What's a medicament? Is that really the most useful description? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since medicaments is a synonym for the pharmaceutical version of the word medicine and medicaments at the top links to the Medication article, I think it belongs as a way to distinguish that it's talking about that specific use of the word medicine while being close in spelling. Though pharmaceutical drug would work too and perhaps might be clearer as personally I haven't ever heard medicaments used in everyday conversation. Lalaithan (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]