Talk:Cassava Sciences/Primary sources

Primary source journal papers
Used at Cassava Sciences, simufilam and Lindsay Burns:

Discussion, comments and queries
the intent of this page was to connect reliable secondary sources to each journal paper. You instead added personal commentary to the table (and did not sign your personal opinions to boot). This mangled the page and stalled my efforts. I have now invested over an hour beginning to sort this, and still have much more to do. It seems that you aren't able to take on board how to properly use independent, reliable sources on Wikipedia, which goes to the heart of the concerns raised by, and. My concern is how much you have stalled my efforts to improve the article. I still have much work to do to sort the various journal papers before I can start writing at the Wikipedia articles, but two points for now: At this point, I'd prefer you not edit the table directly (that's why I provided this section for discussion from the get-go), as I am now having to (again) sort the attempt to sort (second-level frustration). I want to know which journal article is which as referenced by secondary sources, and what those secondary sources say about them. I am still filling that in, having completed only the Mandavilli NYT piece. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Please review WP:SYNTH.  If reliable sources don't draw a conclusion, we can't.  But when reliable sources do explictly connect papers to the Cassava issue, so can we.  You have in several places on the table indicated "no connection" to Cassava, when reliable sources quite explicitly make the connection.
 * 2) Under PMID 16084657, you stated that "There are at least 5 other (non-Cassava Wang papers cleared by editors that are not on this list." This is another instance of a failure to understand WP:OR, which it does not seem you have read.  If no secondary sources mention those studies, neither will we.  If you have independent, secondary sources (not churnalism and press releases), please list those.


 * I saw that intent but also saw the column labeled comments. I will not edit. So, the Science article -- a reliable source -- mentioned "34 Cassava-related papers" simply because they are authored by Dr. Wang, an advisor. I do not think that WSJ was using the same loose definition, when some of them actually are Cassava related. Dr. Wang has done work for other companies and with other academic collaborators, so it is not correct to call, for example, the work he has done for Servier "Cassava-related," or his collaborations with Loma Linda and MGH "Cassava-related," but that is in fact what Piller has done, especially with "the most influential Cassava-related paper." Of course Piller did not mention that the vast majority of these flagged papers have been cleared by their editors. I do not know of any other secondary sources mentioning these papers in this table. SighSci (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Piller is not mentioned on this page; I cannot decipher to what you are referring. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now added Piller. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)