Talk:Richard Deth

message: I marked this page for POV because I am concerned that it is acting as a soapbox under the guise of a biography. This can be put in context by comparison with the main autism page, which has been much more extensively edited and vetted, and which says "there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing no causal association between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism, and there is no scientific evidence that the vaccine preservative thiomersal helps cause autism," and it does support this statement with recent peer-reviewed studies. The citation that was added in response to the question by Michael Ralston, above, appears to be a "science-news" piece, not actual research. The three numbered citations and the third external link lead to dead links. The statement that "the research provides the first scientific link between attention deficits and autism" is clearly untrue, in that it was known much earlier that autistic people have distinct attention patterns, and studies of biochemical pathways would not measure attention, which is essentially a psychobehavioral parameter.  To establish the importance of the research, the page relies partly on quotations from the subject about the importance of his own research (rather than about the content of the research), and there are some borderline peacock terms. The subject's personal website (first external link) does list two peer-reviewed papers, which appear to be more narrowly-framed than this page is. The section on "acceptance" is not really about acceptance at all (I do realize there has been editing history here), but is largely a one-sided account of a congressional hearing where one congressman scolded some government scientists, who are portrayed as walking out of the meeting, without any explanation of these scientists' point of view. Actually, an account of these hearings might be a good addition to the page on the thiomersal controversy, but it would have to be rewritten to be balanced rather than one-sided. I would be inclined to edit this in a manner that would shorten it a lot, and since I'm new here, I decided that I should flag it and seek feedback, before taking action. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been about a month, and, hearing no objections (well, actually, not hearing anything at all!), I'm going to go ahead and edit as described above.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have largely, but not entirely, reverted some recent unsigned edits that had reinstated some of the same POV concerns as above. My specific concerns: the link to the autism page was worded as an Easter egg (implying original sources); it falsely implied that the studies contradicting the theory are few, when clearly they are not; and the call for more research was an expression of opinion, without adding any useful facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV concerns

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Deth. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023060606/http://nuweb4.neu.edu/bouve-faculty/resumes/83.pdf to http://nuweb4.neu.edu/bouve-faculty/resumes/83.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified