Hi, I'm curious why you reverted my changes on the Dementia section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_effects_of_coffee&diff=1337781015&oldid=1337760480

I did include secondary sources at the very end of the section (citations 43 and 44 in the diff), in addition to the original study in the middle of the section. Maybe I shouldn't have split them. Is the revert still justified? Antrikshy (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were not reliable. On nutrition related articles we need strong MEDRS sourcing such as systematic reviews. The source you added [1] mention this study [2]. This is a primary study (cohort). Can't be used on Wikipedia because it fails our biomedical guidelines.

Also this is a stronger source [3], it found no good evidence for a reduced dementia risk, it actually found some evidence for an increased Alzheimer’s disease risk but there isn't enough data on this topic to make any sensible judgement. Carrot juice (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of differences between the former and new systems, see WP:CTVSDS. — Newslinger talk 17:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]