From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WP:Consensus needed for EL changes[edit]

The Guardian and The New Yorker are incredibly reliable sources and have been undisputed on this page for some time. We need to reach consensus, as I feel like these are verifiable and reliable external sources. Icarus of old (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Icarus of old and Alexbrn: I think we should discuss the external links. Which of these do you believe are worth keeping? Certainly we should remove those that are dated or are not WP:RS/WP:MEDRS (depending on which applies). Sizeofint (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
From WP:MEDRS directly: "Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article. For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed, but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines. Sources for evaluating health-care media coverage include the review websites Behind the Headlines, Health News Review,[1] and Media Doctor, along with specialized academic journals, such as the Journal of Health Communication; reviews can also appear in the American Journal of Public Health, the Columbia Journalism Review, the Bad Science column in The Guardian, and others. Health News Review's criteria for rating news stories[28] can help to get a general idea of the quality of a medical news article."
All best. Icarus of old (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:MEDRS: these pieces are full of medical assertions and we need solid sourcing for that kind of stuff, not newspaper/magazine fluff. Alexbrn (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
What I quoted is DIRECTLY from WP:MEDRS. The Guardian is mentioned specifically. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Most of the articles are on the old side of WP:MEDDATE. Doesn't rule out their presence but there should be some newer resources. Sizeofint (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian? Maybe, but not for sweeping medical claims like "Cognitive-enhancing drugs, also known as 'smart' drugs are already being used to help people with Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and brain injury." And especially not when the material is outside the 5 year window and we have newer, better sources. And as for the The New Yorker ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alex. Depending on which story you read, the Guardian has said:

1) Prozac is a placebo that doesn't do anything at all 2) It covers up unhappiness due to social injustice and is used inappropriately as a social band aid 3) It makes artists more creative 4) It makes people violent 5) And more recently, another article saying it doesn't do anything at all.

MEDRS clearly excludes newspapers as sources for health related info.

This seems like a clear cut case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B102:7E3D:EFDA:4A7C:EDA2:3B1C (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ref for Nootropic#Availability and prevalence[edit]



  1. ^ Chinthapalli K (September 2015). "The billion dollar business of being smart". BMJ. 351: h4829. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4829. PMID 26370589. International sales of non-prescription supplements for cognition also exceed $1bn (£650 000; €880 000) a year and are rapidly growing. Ginkgo biloba, vitamins, and even caffeine are common ingredients. Some add piracetam (related to the epilepsy drug levetiracetam), jellyfish proteins, or even “edible pure 23.5 carat gold flakes.” 

Seppi333 (Insert ) 12:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Magnesium threonate more than doubles ability to relocate items; long term memory[edit]

it says i should have a review article on magnesium threonate to place it at the main article. journal = Neuron Volume 65 Issue 2 p165–177 date 28 January 2010 pmid20152124

magnesium threonate  - ;An article at the journal Neuron says that magnesium L-threonate at an animal model of human cognition improved short term memory by 18% and long-term memory by 100%. At younger rats the memory effect was slightly more than double.


This study appears to be a primary source. We're looking for review articles or meta-analyses or statements from major medical bodies for bio-medical content. Sizeofint (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nootropic. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Template:Cite journal = Neuron