Revision as of 11:46, 25 September 2018 editDennivich (talk | contribs)5 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:17, 25 September 2018 edit undoPlantsurfer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,032 edits →Look a little bit closer, see, roses really smell like: NPOV (4U): no censorship to see hereTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
Hello about 1/10th of this article discusses the negatives of genetic engineering, and it has been placed right at the bottom of the article. Perhaps it'd be good to allow other people to submit information without the censorship? Cherry picking what edits are approved just because you disagree with the content could really be seen as a little bit fascist (on a good day). Either way, feel free to bury your heads in the sand and hide people's minds from the realities of the big bad world ... because either way, it ain't gonna save you! :) ] (]) 22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC) | Hello about 1/10th of this article discusses the negatives of genetic engineering, and it has been placed right at the bottom of the article. Perhaps it'd be good to allow other people to submit information without the censorship? Cherry picking what edits are approved just because you disagree with the content could really be seen as a little bit fascist (on a good day). Either way, feel free to bury your heads in the sand and hide people's minds from the realities of the big bad world ... because either way, it ain't gonna save you! :) ] (]) 22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC) | ||
No censorship is happening here. Anyone is free to contribute to this article provided the contribution complies with Misplaced Pages's core rules, notable among which are ], ] and ].] 12:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
Censorship doesn't make people fascist. Many ideologies favour censorship. ] (]) 11:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC) | Censorship doesn't make people fascist. Many ideologies favour censorship. ] (]) 11:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:17, 25 September 2018
Genetic engineering has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 17, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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 multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Genetics
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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JohnsonmcFarely (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JohnsonmcFarely.
Genetic engineering
I thought that it can very useful for several persons those have several problems with them and it is also harmful if we take it as simple experiment .... Prakharmishra792 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Human GMOs
My edit noting that humans receiving CAR-T cancer therapy had become GMOs was reverted, ostensibly because it violated a neutral point of view. How's that? Other editors? Lfstevens (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted it "ostensibly" - please mind the emotive adverbs and adjectives - because it did not sound like a neutral point of view. Neutrality is a core principle of Misplaced Pages, and we must take care to avoid either being partial or giving people the appearance of being partial. The term GMO is intensely controversial in itself, and calling patients "organisms" could also be thought non-neutral. It's not the sort of language we should be applying, certainly not without full consensus which in turn would have to be based not only on discussion but on the existence of multiple reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I strongly support neutrality. However, I can't see which point of view my statement could be said to represent. Humans are obviously organisms and GMO is the only term for the objects of GE that I've seen. That's why we have an article by that name. And is there some sense in which such recipients are not GMOs? I'm happy to await consensus on these points. Lfstevens (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted it "ostensibly" - please mind the emotive adverbs and adjectives - because it did not sound like a neutral point of view. Neutrality is a core principle of Misplaced Pages, and we must take care to avoid either being partial or giving people the appearance of being partial. The term GMO is intensely controversial in itself, and calling patients "organisms" could also be thought non-neutral. It's not the sort of language we should be applying, certainly not without full consensus which in turn would have to be based not only on discussion but on the existence of multiple reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Natural GMO's
Can't we mention that genetic modification isn't just man-made, but also occurs in nature. New research suggests this: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/14/1419685112 Genetics4good (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe it would fit better at another article. This is supposed to be an overview and I am not sure that is generic enough for inclusion here. I am also not sure it fits in with our description of Generic Engineering. Natural genetic engineering commonly occurs with bacteria, but this more focuses on the human directed manipulation of genes. Saying that feel free to be bold and try to fit it in if you wish, it may well work in this article if given correct weight and context. AIRcorn (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- They classify sweet potato as "naturally transgenic" but I don't think anyone has called it genetic engineering - engineering implies that it is not naturally occurring. Agrobacterium_tumefaciens and sweet potato are better places to discuss it. It's already at Sweet_potato#Transgenicity but not in the agrobac article. SmartSE (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Mentioned it at Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Public_perception instead
Genetics4good (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Look a little bit closer, see, roses really smell like: NPOV (4U)
Hello about 1/10th of this article discusses the negatives of genetic engineering, and it has been placed right at the bottom of the article. Perhaps it'd be good to allow other people to submit information without the censorship? Cherry picking what edits are approved just because you disagree with the content could really be seen as a little bit fascist (on a good day). Either way, feel free to bury your heads in the sand and hide people's minds from the realities of the big bad world ... because either way, it ain't gonna save you! :) 86.183.211.16 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
No censorship is happening here. Anyone is free to contribute to this article provided the contribution complies with Misplaced Pages's core rules, notable among which are adherence to a neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability.Plantsurfer 12:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Censorship doesn't make people fascist. Many ideologies favour censorship. Dennivich (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class Engineering articles
- High-importance Engineering articles
- WikiProject Engineering articles
- GA-Class Invention articles
- Unknown-importance Invention articles
- WikiProject Invention articles
- GA-Class Food and drink articles
- High-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- GA-Class Transhumanism articles
- High-importance Transhumanism articles