Talk:Christopher Shaw (neuroscientist)

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Neuroscience Low‑importance

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

Medicine: Neurology 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.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Skepticism C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reposting here at Jytdog's request

Regarding 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]