Talk:Medical News Today

Medicine Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stub status[edit]

Though this is a short article, I do not believe it is a stub as it provides most information (as far as I can determine) about the topic. If you do stub-type this article, please add here what you think is missing. Thank you.

Courtland 22:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pro-choice views[edit]

If anybody wants to comment on the news outlet's editorial stance, one thing that could be mentioned is that Medical News Today has published several articles that are arguably pro-choice in their political orientation towards abortion. [1] [2] [3] ADM (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, proposing deletion[edit]

I'm gong to propose that this article be deleted. Over a year ago it was suggested that the article was not notable, and i continue to agree with that. SeanBrockest (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for it in Google Scholar. [4] Actually cited by many first rate academic and professional medical journals, even BMJ, and PLOS Medicine and some specifically deal with it as a good or typical or widely used source, for example: this: " The December 22, 2006, Web journal Medical News Today features on its front page a limited and sensationalistic account1 of a recent research report from the Columbia group on the long-term cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) from a key specialty journal, , [5] etc. etc. ~

Then search in google news & google news archive, and see that most major newspapers, including the NYTimes, use it as a source. The basic principle of research, and of working at Wikipedia is look for sources . DGG ( talk )

"Limited and sensationalistic" isn't a ringing endorsement. Here's the J ECT article that DGG's reference mentions: "Calling the findings a 'stunning reversal' of what Dr Sackeim has professed throughout his career, the claim is made that he has, in effect, covered up the finding that '… that ECT routinely causes substantial and permanent amnesia.' […] This is clearly sensationalist stuff…."—Dah31 (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]