Misplaced Pages

Talk:Genetic engineering: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:48, 24 April 2015 editDavid Tornheim (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers16,954 edits →Two new sentences about Human Engineering: conversation copied from Slim Virgin's talk page← Previous edit Revision as of 19:57, 24 April 2015 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits Undid revision 659038289 by David Tornheim (talk) you shouldn't do this without people's consentNext edit →
Line 97: Line 97:
:::if you had come and opened a talk discussion per ], it would have saved dramah. and btw, ] is vague; there are something like 10 sources there and you never said which you intended to actually use. ''if'' you want concrete feedback it is helpful to make a concrete proposal. ] (]) 20:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC) :::if you had come and opened a talk discussion per ], it would have saved dramah. and btw, ] is vague; there are something like 10 sources there and you never said which you intended to actually use. ''if'' you want concrete feedback it is helpful to make a concrete proposal. ] (]) 20:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Okay. ] (]) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) ::::Okay. ] (]) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Below conversation copied here from .
Pings: {{ping|Petrarchan47}}, {{ping|MastCell}}, {{ping|DrChrissy}}, {{ping|Jytdog}}.
--] (]) 19:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

:MastCell, would you mind giving me your reflections on edit summary? It seems we are not all on the same page regarding use of primary sources (very frustrating). '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, I will also be interested to read those comments. I especially found the word "overhyped" to be rather curious. Surely this is OR by the editor?<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 10:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with that edit summary or edit by ]. I think that a news piece from ''Nature'' is a high-quality secondary source on scientific or medical matters, and can be used as such. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::{{u|MastCell}} thanks for the ping. lots of hysteria on that primary source in the media and poor content introduced in several places in WP on that. happy to discuss that edit on that article's talk page. i will say that the added content ("In 2015, scientists reported the first genetic modification of human embryos...") was false. (see headline from Wired in 2008.) i've added accurate content starting with content developed in other articles where this has popped up. and i'll add with regard to all the hysteria, is the best comment i have seen in WP to date.) ] (]) 19:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:57, 24 April 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetic engineering article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WikiProject Genetics
WikiProject iconChemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering

Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEngineering High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInvention
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFood and drink High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTranshumanism High‑importance
WikiProject iconGenetic engineering' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help click Show:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Quick help:
See changes to:
To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge

Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold

Be consistent

Maintenance / Etc

Create

  • Notable transhumanist articles

Shorten / merge into others

Expand

Your immediate attention

Template:WP1.0

External links

Removed these ELs as being out of date. Put here in case anyone wants to use them as inline citations AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I want to see a link to current issues with GM or a summery.

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2504 Monsanto genetically modified corn harvest fails massively in South Africa


http://current.com/shows/upstream/91945333_monsantos-genetically-modified-corn-causes-organ-failure-in-rats.htm

http://www.naturalnews.com/028388_GM_crops_kidney_damage.html

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/05/pests-bite-back-at-genetically.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/genetically-engineered-cotton/ Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) cotton varieties sold to Colombian farmer failed in 2008-9,

http://www.naturalnews.com/027058_crops_food_GMO.html A 43-page study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reveals that since the inception of genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops, no significant increases in crop yields can be attributed to them.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/WhoBenefitsPR2_13_08.cfm GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) CROPS INCREASE PESTICIDE USE AND FAIL TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY, REVEALS NEW REPORT

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2142.htm In the experiment that went wrong, an engineered mousepox virus acquired the capacity to damage the immune system and killed all the mice involved.

I want to see a balanced wikipedia. I think this deserves it's on wikipedia page with links from other pages on GM foods and animals. My bias is even if it was totally safe it would take the control of our food supply out of the hands of farmers and put it in the hands of corporations who's main concern is to make money, not our health and well being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.42.88 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi 96.49.42.88: I'm sorry no one responded to your request. I think this is a good idea? Do we all agree to add all of these articles to the page? David Tornheim (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Most sources on that list are not considered reliable at all (e.g., Natural News). It's been over 4 years since this post, so there hasn't been any agreement or consensus to add them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Many of the edits here are done on GMO articles are done without obtaining consensus first. Without objection, it is assumed that there are no problems. The question now is: Is there any objection to adding this material? You said Nature News is unreliable. You made some vague statement about the others--that's not very helpful. I plan to add all of the others unless for some reason there are some legitimate objections to so doing. David Tornheim (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If you do many of them will likely be reverted. Please read WP:EL and in particular Misplaced Pages:External_links#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view. Please also note the topic of this article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

improper sentence

The sentence, "He was later successful at created a recombinant ice-minus strain." should either be: He was later successful at creating a recombinant ice-minus strain. or: Later, he successfully created a recombinant ice-minus strain.

Thank you for considering my request.

--Dee Archer (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done thanks for spotting this. AIRcorn (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Regulation + Controversy Sections???

I know there are people who rage at the mention of GMO or anything genetic. I accept that but I don't think we need to pander to them. Yes there are regulation, controversy and potential problems with Genetic Modification. There are also a lot of rules and regulations on swimming pools and other things associated with water. Yet there is no regulation or controversy section on the wiki page on water. Any topic could be associated with controversy and or regulations.

The 2 paragraphs that currently exist do not provide the user with any real information, nor are they relevant to the general discussion of Genetic Engineering. There is a "see also" section of this article, we should use it to link any possibly related articles including articles about Regulation and controversy. So I suggest deleting the last 2 sections on regulation and controversy.. Mantion (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Two new sentences about Human Engineering

I made this edit. I had already said in advance above I had intended to include the material and got no objection, other that it *might* not be an be an reliable source. Is BBC not a reliable source? I was told that it might be reverted--but not given any valid reason for it. Jytdog and Kingofaces43 both made good on the promise to revert and did so 3 times here, here and here without discussing on the talk page, and gave no valid reason for the deletion, which I think is a collaborative violation of the 3RRR. I see no reason it should not be restored. Please work collaboratively rather than being obstructionist like this. David Tornheim (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

re the edit warring to include "The first genetically modified humans have been born in the U.S. British scientists says that this is "unethical" and is illegal there and many other countries. (source)" in the article, in the Controversies section. Thanks for opening a discussion.
  • The selection of this content to add to a WP:SUMMARY section is WP:UNDUE, and no rationale was provided as to why it should be added.
  • This is a 14 year old source hyping a WP:PRIMARY source and reporting the noise around it. Per WP:MEDRS, we use secondary sources, not primary ones nor popular media reporting on them. and we don't use 14 year old sources for anything, when we can avoid it.
  • if you google a bit, you see that the cited article appears to be making its way around kook websites recently, with the date removed. apparently this is b/c the UK just became the 1st country to approve the procedure, called cytoplasmic transfer.
  • which is actually not genetic engineering at all, but is rather "engineering" at the level of the organelle, not DNA. I am sorry but WP:COMPETENCE in the subject matter is required.
The content doesn't belong here. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your position. If either of you had done that with the first revert, things would have gone smoother and we wouldn't have to be accusing each other of editing warring. David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
if you had come and opened a talk discussion per WP:BRD, it would have saved dramah. and btw, the discussion above that you reference is vague; there are something like 10 sources there and you never said which you intended to actually use. if you want concrete feedback it is helpful to make a concrete proposal. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. David Tornheim (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Genetic engineering: Difference between revisions Add topic