Jump to content

Talk:Cellectis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

COI/promotion still present

[edit]

Just took a quick look over this. Found the registration mark was still here, which we don't do per MOS:TM and there was blatantly promotional content, sourced to statements by the company itself. This needs further review to cleanse it from the company editor who worked extensively on this. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cellectis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

At least one major contributor to this article has declared a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus has a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

[edit]

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers: Can we work together to improve this article which is an important article, instead of just reverting edits without any regard for the thought and work that went into them? If there is a specific issue you have, can we discuss it here and come to an agreement together? I removed the phrase "second largest IPO" since you apparently think it is "un-encyclopedic" even though I think it is important and interesting information. I am willing to compromise here. Can you look at each of my changes and evaluate each one for its own worth? I added information and updated the article. Lets work together to make this a good article. Thanks. 174.47.77.6 (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Justlettersandnumbers: and @Jytdog:

My understanding of proper Wikipedia editing is that it is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I don't think EVERY ONE of my edits is completely unacceptable, spammy, or "bad quality." If you believe my edits are so terrible, then you owe me an explanation why. Saying that the company is also headquartered in New York is not spammy or bad quality. You must agree that the way the article is now is pretty bad. It is not particularly well-written or up-to-date. Anyone wanting to know something about Cellectis will not find much here. I would like to IMPROVE the article, but it seems you would like to see it stay a low-quality stub. I suggest that we start collaborating on improving the article, instead of your "slash and burn" style of editing. It would be nice if you would answer me here on the Talk page. I appreciate that you explained at least a little that one of the edits fails MEDRS, and I will read the article about this issue carefully and see if I agree with you that it fails. If I disagree, I think you should respect my opinion and EXPLAIN why I am wrong. Thanks for your consideration. I am sincere about trying to fix the page. Are you? 174.47.77.8 (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished editing the history section. I believe it is well-written, neutral, well-sourced, and informative. If you disagree, please discuss it HERE. There is nothing on the page now that fails MEDRS. History is just the beginning of the article, there is a lot more to say about a company that is highly covered in the media. Please take some time to add to the article, and not subtract. Thanks, 174.47.77.8 (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving out the clinical trial hype. So instead you put their press release about their clinical trial as the first ref. This is not a place to hype the stock biotech companies. And with all these urgent updates, not a word about the death of a patient and clinical hold. This is unacceptable editing in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, IP editor, let me see if I have understood you correctly: you'd like to be able to edit here without someone else coming in and undoing the work you've done? Well, guess what, so would I; you pasted your poorly-written and inappropriately-referenced text over the work I had previously done here – and not once but twice. Anyway, about collaboration: I really don't care enough about this company (or any company, for that matter) to want to spend a lot of time on it; my interest in this page is to prevent any recurrence of the inappropriate editing by people connected with or employed by the company that has dogged it in the past. So as a first step towards collaboration, would you like to declare what your connection is? Specifically, if that connection involves financial reward, then declaration is obligatory under our Terms of Use. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am back with a user name, I hope that helps calm things down here. The hostility coming from @Jytdog: and @Justlettersandnumbers: is really unfathomable. Isnt there a Wiki rule not to "bite the newbies?" I can see discussing anything here is useless. I am sorry if I "pasted over" your edits; it was not my intention to hurt your feelings, only to get some INFORMATION on this page. Do we really need a New York Times article in order to affirm that the company now has a headquarters in New York? And is adding the words "New York" poorly written? You are quick to dismiss the sources I used, but if you would even LOOK at and READ the sources that you yourself agree are legitimate, than you would have seen that the correct numbers are as I wrote them "...in 2007, raising €21.2 million." and " In 2011 Cellectis paid €28 million for Cellartis." Here is an exact quote from the very source you seem comfortable with, Philip Hemme "The firm was very successful thanks to its kits sold worldwide to researchers and industrials, which led it to launch its IPO in Paris in September 2007 to raise €21,2M and to acquire the Swedish Biotech Cellartis and its 68 employees for €28M in September 2011." I think this is proof that I want to see the article improved, and you two just want to make sure things are done your way, "dont bother me with the facts." Are only people who work for a company allowed to fight to improve Wikipedia articles? I was sincere about collaborating. And I find your responses insulting and uncalled for. Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jytdog: I just realized this was on my own Talk page and not the Cellectis Talk page, so perhaps that is why you have not responded. So here is the answer that I placed on my Talk page a few days ago: Please walk me through the process of getting this article (and hopefully other articles in Wikipedia) to be informative while adhering to the high standards set by experienced Wikipedia editors. I do have a question about a simple factual error that I tried to fix. In the source which has been accepted as legitimate by the editors, written by Phillip Hemme it is stated in the first paragraph that " ...in September 2007 to raise €21.2 million and to acquire...for €28 million..." Isn't that source good enough to change those figures in the Wiki article? Another question: In the same paragraph it says Cellectis has 300 employees (as of 2015). Isn't that enough to add that information to the infobox? I am ready for you to explain to me why the sources I used in my edits are unacceptable, and if you tell me what other information you think should be on this page, I will do the research, and will check with you first before adding anything new to the page. I am ready and looking forward to collaborating with you. Thanks again. Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I need to run but the short short story is:
Please use high quality independent sources as much as possible (not press releases nor churnalism recycling them, not company website. Think New York Times, not "some blog:
That said, there are "trade rags" that cover the biotech industry, like Xconomy, FierceBiotech, Bioworld, etc, that will have good reporting. The labiotech ref you brought above is fine. Do not use The Street or Seeking Alpha or other stock-chasers blogs.
So find a bunch of good sources, read them.
Update the body of the article first. What you write should be the story of the company. Not the "good news". Again it is still troubling that you claimed to be "updating" the article but said nothing about the death of the patient and the clinical hold, which is a huge deal for any biotech company. Wikipedia articles are meant for learning, not selling. Think Harvard Case Study (but without any original analysis of your own), not "company press release".
In general, again this is "encyclopedia". The number of employees the company has today is really not important; it isn't a super important enduring, encyclopedic thing about the company. Wikipedia is on the internet but it isn't a blog or a company website. So also keep in mind WP:RELTIME - don't write "currently" or "now" or "a year ago" -- articles have no dateline)
Once you have finished updating the body, update the WP:LEAD and the infobox. But of those just pull sourced information out of the body of the article.
Gotta go. Jytdog (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jytdog: I want to let you know how much I appreciate your help. I Googled Cellectis together with New York Times, and I am writing pretty much what came up on the top. Would you like me to run it past you before it goes up, or can I just post it to the article? I will include the story about the patient that died. I just want you to realize that I didn't mention it before, not because I was avoiding mentioning it, but because I was just trying to get the littlest changes to stick, like that they have a HQ in New York, and other simple things, I just never got far enough to make any other changes. Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot know why you want to update this article. I asked if you have any COI and you have said no; and that is that for now. What matters now is your editing. We will see what you do. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jytdog: I have some questions about your edits to the content I added. It seems like you took my simple explanations of how Cellectis makes their "off-the-shelf" therapy and made it harder to understand, using technical terms requiring most readers to have to go and read additional Wiki pages. I also was careful to take my explanation from the source, and although I did not go back to the source to check, I do believe you added the more complex terminology which did not actually exist in the source. I wonder if you can explain why you would make a simple explanation anyone can understand based on the source more complicated and based on specialized information that you happen to possess? Also, it seems that citing the success of the therapy on the two toddlers is a legitimate piece of information that has a place on the page next to the death of the trial subject. I know that if I were looking up Cellectis to see what they do, I would like to know if they have had any positive outcomes as well as negative outcomes. Is it because the story of the two children was not part of a scientific trial? Why should that disqualify the story from a Wiki article? This is not a scientific journal. Readers can go to the source and decide for themselves if the story is a fluke, or an accident, or whatever. I really believe some mention of this story, which is cited in reliable sources, so it did happen, and is not fake news, should be here on this page. Please tell me why you disagree, or if you do agree, perhaps you can put the story back on the page. Also, just a small thing, but doesnt this company operate worldwide if it has an office in Paris and in New York? I am adding that tiny edit back to the infobox. One more question: What other information or editing does this page need to have the tag taken down? I would like to finish with this page and move on. Thanks. Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
they do not serve a "worldwide" market - they serve no market because they have no products they are marketing yet. Their proposed CAR-T is not "off the shelf" - it is nothing like aspirin but is a complex genetically engineeered cell therapy. We do try to write in plain english but not to the point where we distort things. The purpose of the content about the clinical hold is not its "negative outcome"; this is not about "wins" and "losses". The product would not be in clinical development if there weren't "promise"; that goes without saying and is true of every biomedical company. The death of the patient and clinical hold is a serious thing from a medical and business perspective. Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the only thing I feel strongly about here is the mention of the babies who were the first humans to be treated with the CAR-T therapy, outside of the trials. It was reported in the mainstream media, including the NYTimes, and I feel like keeping it out of the Wiki is like withholding important information that someone who wants to learn about the company and what they do should know. I would like to have other editors weigh in on this discussion, but how do we draw others to this page? I would also like some input about what it will take to bring down the tag. Thanks Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frannyapplebaum2017, why should you care about the babies or the maintenance tags? You've told us you have no conflict of interest here. Is that still the case? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Justlettersandnumbers: I think you are misunderstanding me. I did not mean that I care about the babies, I meant that of all the edits that I made that were rejected, that is the one that I feel has an overwhelmingly compelling reason to be on the page, alongside the information that someone died in the clinical trials. Since I already stated my reasoning above, I wont repeat it. Yet, I hope you noticed that I did not add back the information, even though I feel strongly that you and Jytdog are wrong about this. So why do you still think I am conflicted? I thought the Talk page is the place to discuss issues about the article, and not repeatedly accuse editors of bad faith. Ok, I get it, you dont want random information on the page, such as news about patents, but at least I am trying to improve the article. (And that is why I am talking about the Tag, too. I just want guidance on how to improve the article enough so the tag can come down.) Don't you think this article, about a company on the forefront of the biopharm sector, should have a half-decent wiki article? If patents are not encyclopedic, please give me some guidance as to what kind of information is appropriate for the article. Thanks. Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale reversion

[edit]

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers: Your last reversion not only corrected whatever it is that you feel was not a fair reading of the sources, but also some simple changes that 1. Corrected a grammatical error; 2. Improved the language; 3. Clarified a broad statement to make it more specific; 4.Took out irrelevant information that should not be included in the article. Why do you think you own this page? You still have't answered why you wont improve the page, you just slash other editors attempts to improve it. I am going to guess that you didnt like the change from "laboratories" to "subsidiaries" and leave that the way you seem to prefer it. The other changes are legitimate improvements, not to mention tiny, so I am going to reinstate them. I would appreciate it if you could explain any other reversions, since the way you seem to make edits is not at all helpful to the process us editors are supposed to be engaged in. Thanks, Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cellectis&oldid=1206591235"