User talk:Glenn
User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Error: Invalid time.. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the [[Special:SecurePoll/vote/Template:Arbitration Committee candidate/data|voting page]]. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add Template:Tlx to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Non-MEDRS sourcing
On my talk page, you said:
Why? Is PLOS Medicine not WP:MEDRS? PLOS Medicine Quote: "...is a peer-reviewed weekly medical journal covering the full spectrum of the medical sciences...". It regards this reference: Open Access: “Food additive mixtures and type 2 diabetes incidence: Results from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort” by Marie Payen de la Garanderie, Anaïs Hasenbohler, Nicolas Dechamp, Guillaume Javaux, Fabien Szabo de Edelenyi, Cédric Agaësse, Alexandre De Sa, Laurent Bourhis, Raphaël Porcher, Fabrice Pierre, Xavier Coumoul, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Benjamin Allès, Léopold K. Fezeu, Emmanuel Cosson, Sopio Tatulashvili, Inge Huybrechts, Serge Hercberg, Mélanie Deschasaux-Tanguy, Benoit Chassaing, Héloïse Rytter, Bernard Srour and Mathilde Touvier, 8 April 2025, PLOS Medicine. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004570, backup
The key qualifying term is prospective cohort, which is a low quality-of-evidence criterion, as described in WP:MEDASSESS where it is classified as primary research - an observational study only, and unfiltered information.
We should not be introducing such preliminary studies as evidence of effect on diseases like diabetes. Per MEDASSESS, this would require a WP:MEDORG statement, like an FDA advisory or clinical organization making definitive conclusions. Zefr (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)