Talk:The Journal of Neuroscience

Cassava Sciences
It seems to me that the section about Cassava Sciences should be removed as WP:UNDUE. It's a single incident as far as the Journal is concerned, and at a minimum it should not be the lengthiest part of the page. As written, it's not really WP:NPOV, with some statements that editorialize in Wikipedia's voice, and it's not really clear that what the Journal did, as opposed to what the authors of the papers did, is particularly noteworthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree this is undue weight, as it was a single incident. The journal was involved in the adjudication of Casava's publication and that effort had a large effect on Cassava share prices. But it is a small event in the journal's long history. IMO it mertis at most a sentence in a history section. -- 20:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Although subsequent edits cleared up most of the POV issues, the DUE issues remained, and there is a clear consensus for removal of the material. The removal has been done by . For a record of the edit history, in case there is any interest in using some of the material for this page in the future, here is the diff of the removal: . --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)