Talk:Alzheimer's Society

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Neuroscience

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Criticism section edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's interesting to see that the criticism section is not about the core of the Alzheimer's Society work or its corporate strategy, but has picked out a recent news story based on a campaign by one group (and the same text and sources added by the same user to all the organisations that are subject to the campaign). This looks like undue weight to me (as per WP:UNDUE) but I'm not an expert in these matters. Jpmaytum (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't seem undue wight in the overal article it isnt that big a section. The society is included in similar campaigns by varius other groups so I added the details of that so it doesnt seem like it is only dealing with one groups campaign. NPOV says to cover all significant views published in reliable sources and the campaign is significant in the coverage it got and can be referenced to reliable sources.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Alzheimer's Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Criticisms of former CEO Jeremy Hughes edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've cited the change of CEO in the introduction, merely noting the change. I'll have to provide more details in a new section following WP:Criticism rules rather than include it with much older stuff. I'll include the Guardian article in this but will wait to see the Charity commission report 1st and hope it's faster than in 2018! Re WP:COI, I'm both a lay volunteer with Alzheimer's research network and a subscriber to the Guardian. JRPG (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Updates needed edit

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Sciencefish has bombarded the article with "Better ref needed - Primary source".

While some of these are justified, in other cases the society is certainly the best source, as for a couple of places where it is cited making statements of its policy or views.

But I have worked through the lead section, finding external sources as requested. In doing so I have found some cases where the existing link was just wrong, no longer led to the appropriate page after website changes.

I have spent enough time on this for now (I am about to move house and ought to be decluttering and packing), but hope other editors will join in to improve this article by checking the refs, finding external sources where appropriate, and updating content and/or refs. I've put in all the time I'm prepared to spend on it today. PamD 15:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I had a real problem of finding appropriate references, you've done a great job. Sciencefish (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've also started trying to help and will try and do more (as well as trying to help improve the article in general) - but it certainly feels like for a lot of information particularly around what they say their mission and activities are etc, despite being from a primary source rather than independent, is still best sourced directly from the society itself Westenders (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic