Assignment 3 Discussion

Did you remove the source I added about different types of cloning and additional resources or did my edit not work? No big deal if you did remove it, I just want to make sure I didn't forget to save something. -Estephe9 (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed anything to my knowledge! I apologize if I somehow did, I have just been adding sources and ideas to the main user page. Jfriend2 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to use article on Human Cloning

I think it could be useful and practical to edit and better organize this page as it is directly linked to our presentation topic and, like you said, Julie, focused solely on laws and controversy regarding human cloning. I would like to add more of the science behind cloning to this page so that readers gain a better understanding of how human cloning (could) actually work(s). -Estephe9 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Human Cloning Article

I agree this is definitely the best option for us out of the four proposed articles. We can add a section on SCNT method and a section on how this could help medial advances in hereditary diseases. Jfriend2 (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Now we'll just wait for approval -Estephe9 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done to Cloning

This article is so poorly organized, I wish I could reorganize the entire thing. There is so much good information, but I think it will be too hard for us to manage. Someone with more experience and time should severely edit and reorganize this article, not us. Jfriend2 (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If after we do some work on our Human cloning article, we could try to go to that article and organize it a little. -Estephe9 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somatic-cell nuclear transfer

This article looks very well developed already, I'm not sure really what more we could add to it at this point. So I don't think we should chose this one even though it relates to our scientific article perfectly. Jfriend2 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from User:Biolprof (aka Dr. O)

Jfriend2 and Estephe9, I agree that the article on Human cloning is in need of some serious editing and working on this article to add science content would provide good background reading for your presentation. My only concern would be if you start making edits to this page, it might initiate a response from people who do not have a neutral point of view, which could lead to a very frustrating experience. I'm inclined to think that since there is a separate article on Ethics of cloning that this should not be a significant problem. Biosthmors and Jami, if you have an opinion on whether this article might be too controversial for a student project, please let us know.

I think it might also be a good idea to separate the section on current laws about cloning into a separate article. If you agree, I have some suggestions on how to get help doing this. Happy editing! Biolprof (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Section

Biolprof I completely agree that the "Laws" Section should be made into it's own page. That could eliminate some of the controversy as well if we separate the article. Thank you! Jfriend2 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me (maybe after the exam?) to follow up with you on this. It's probably easier to discuss while at the computer than via talk pages. Biolprof (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all! I agree that the Human Cloning article is probably more controversial than a new user will be prepared to deal with. Just glancing at the history page tells me that edits are often reverted, though it looks like there's also a good amount of vandalism, so hopefully you won't have a problem if you add strong content. It does seem like an interesting idea to add methods into it, but please make sure you're citing recent and scientifically credible sources if you do go that route. The "law" article might be a good idea, though one problem you may have in splitting that off is making sure the new article you create represents a fairly global view (unless you're planning to focus on the US and want to make an entire article about that). Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biolprof, I'm happy letting students take on controversial subjects, they just need to make sure they have good sources for the content and are doing justice to the literature, and they should (ideally) be fine. It comes with the risk of a bit of wiki-drama, but as long as you give them credit for engaging in constructive discussion on the talk page to justify their edits, then I think the student will not be at a disadvantage. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Jfriend2 & User:Estephe9, You can delete the material in your sandbox that is not related to the Human cloning article that you are editing. It can still be accessed in the history if you want to find anything again. Also, I am doing a test. I put a link to Estephe9, so I know that you will get a notice that I posted this. But I am not sure if Jfriend2 will get a notice since it is one of her talk pages or if that only works for user pages, not for sandbox pages. Please let me know. Thanks. Biolprof (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got a notification. Estephe9 (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not receive a notification that this was posted, just fyi. Jfriend2 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture for Article

User:Estephe9 and User:Biolprof So here's an update on what's happened with that picture. As you saw I emailed the professor. He is willing to let us use the picture and post it to wikipedia. The professor says he is on wikipedia, but I cannot find a user page under his name, Paul Knoepfler. I have found pages that may connect to him, but those account have been shut down due to multiple accounts being used by the same person. Sounds sketchy. I have contacted jytdog to see if he has any advice on this copyright picture process. Jfriend2 (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAHHHH, too many editors on one article

Okay, so with the recent news in stem cell technology that occurred two days ago our article has been flooded with edits and users who have never been on our article before. They are aggressive and are making major edits and basically misrepresenting our article. jytdog is on our side from what I see on the talk page, but this is annoying and we need a new strategy....ideas?? User:Biolprof can you help us?

Jfriend2 (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! isn't Wikipedia fun! In a very quick look, the first thing I wondered about was whether you could address the concerns about the UN Fig by expanding the legend. If you know “which declaration this was, exactly when it took place, or even what a for or against vote means in this context” then it should be ok with the editor that removed it. Even better if you knew the source, but someone else uploaded it, so I'm not sure how that works. Also, there is a reasonable request to improve the quality of the references in the history section by replacing some of the citations with more reliable sources as defined in WP:MEDRS - mostly journals, not newspapers or on-line links. Biolprof (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the pop culture section… maybe take a look at the longer section in the cloning article and trim it to more appropriately reflect human cloning. e.g. Boys From Brazil, but not Jurassic Park… Biolprof (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, see my comments and jytdog's on the human cloning talk page. Biolprof (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]