Talk:Christopher Shaw (neuroscientist)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Gråbergs Gråa Sång in topic Reposting here at Jytdog's request
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Tornado chaser (talk · contribs) on 22 October 2017 with the comment: Seems to only be known for some vaccine studies that are in the news now, but most of his research isn't discussed by RSs. I suspect he will be non notable once the news coverage fades. It was contested by Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) on 2017-10-22 with the comment: easily meets WP:PROF, https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=author%3A%22ca+shaw%22+vaccination&btnG= |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reposting here at Jytdog's request
editRegarding the review article about the WHO tetanus vaccine controversy, it was John W. Oller, the lead author of the article, who withdrew it and one other article that he had submitted to the same journal, and that other article did not have anything to do with vaccines.
After editorial concerns about the tetanus vaccine article were addressed, it was John W. Oller who resubmitted the tetanus vaccine article and his other article. The vaccine article was then published and it is still being published (please click on the link to confirm that).
You added a sentence to the end of the paragraph that I wrote. The sentence that you added is inaccurate. Please remove the sentence that you added.
Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've tweaked that sentence. I removed the WaPo article you added, as it doesn't discuss shaw.
- Articles about scientists are not "book reports" where we describe some paper they wrote, and then cite the paper itself; there is no end to that. if some paper is singled out there needs to be a secondary source about that paper. The only secondary source I am aware of about that 2014 paper is retraction watch. Are you aware of any others? Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Off-topic comment, but if the controversy section is staying, it needs to get in the lead per WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)