Talk:Human cloning

Pop culture
I've removed the long section of trivia. It contained only one ref tag and that seemed nonWP:RS. If anyone wishes to add some back, reliable sources are imperative and an indication of relevance to the subject -- as in how does the fictional thing improve the article content or reader understanding of the content. Vsmith (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think with the Ditto controversy, the Pokémon series here has severe issues as gamers are left unpunished when using imposter Ditto's or normal Dittos using transform in battle. Also, gamers are left almost unpunished when it comes to other science controversies or prohibited thinking orientations such as Eugenics, inbreeding and other nonsense coming from rather not racists like the n**i regime only, but also nobility elitists such as kings and queens and their kingdom and empire families. --2001:16B8:570E:1D00:C14F:B181:1C48:2C0E (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Past Editing
. Estephe9 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Jfriend2 Jfriend2 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Education Program namespace has been shut down. I updated the copy of this notice at the top of this page to reflect that. wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Edits
User:Jfriend2 and I are discussing how this article could be improved, and we think it would be beneficial to change the format of the article. Some of these changes include: Jfriend2 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfriend2 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC) -Estephe9 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estephe9 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the Ethics, Laws, and Popular Culture sections
 * Add a section on the methods to cloning
 * This includes adding relevant images
 * Adding a main picture for the article
 * Trying to rewrite the opener to read better (brought up in a previous comment about the article)


 * Thanks for talking before jumping in. Why remove those sections?  With regard to methods, please make sure you are working closely with the content in the Cloning article and the Somatic-cell nuclear transfer article that are linked-to in the 2nd paragraph of the Lead.  You should look at those articles, make sure they are solid and up-to-date, update their leads, and basically use those leads (with references added) in the "Methods" section of this article.   This way the content all stays up to date and aligned.  See WP:SUMMARY.  This is a really important concept -- Wikipedia "editors" too often fail to think like actual editors of an encyclopedia.   Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We feel strongly that the Ethics and Laws section would fit better in it's own article or joined with the pre-existing Ethics of Cloning article. This would hopefully reduce the controversial aspect of the developing science behind human cloning. Thank you for the help and we will be sure to work closely with the pre-existing Cloning and Somatic-cell nuclear transfer articles. Let us know any other ideas you might have to help improve this article. Jfriend2 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying how you "strongly feel" is not the way we work here. You might as well say "banana banana banana". What we do, is discuss the "scope" of the article.  The scope is generally determined by the topics that are generally discussed by reliable sources on the subject and, inevitably, by what the Wikipedia community cares about.   For existing articles, you can get a good feel about what the Wikipedia community cares about by a) reviewing the Talk page and its archives and b) looking in the History section of the article itself, to see what topics have been most frequently worked on.  For Laws, I think you could possibly create a new article on "Human cloning laws" and copy the existing content into it, and leave a stub section behind.   The ethics section is already a stub section;  I don't think you are going to be able to get rid of it altogether. (you should never just "delete" entire sections of an article - as I mentioned with laws if you want to reduce it, split it off in to its own article and leave a stub behind)  Please hear me that I am sympathetic to your desire to get the article more focused on the science.  I worked over the whole suite of "genetically engineered organisms/food/crops/controversies" articles and did exactly this kind of thing with them, in concert with some other editors.  See genetically modified food to see what i mean.Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We apologize for jumping to remove these sections. I don't think the whole scope of the human cloning article should solely be focused on history, laws, and a very small pop culture. If you would be interested in helping us make a separate Laws of Human Cloning page we would love the knowledge you bring about editing wiki pages, since we are very new at this. For now we will try to focus on adding a more scientific approach, rather than taking away what is already there. Jfriend2 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I appreciate your willingness to Talk.  I have had to deal with students in the past who were really just doing it for the grade and didn't care at all about the encyclopedia.  So thanks!!!   Fire away, I will be watching and will jump in if I am happy or concerned; feel free to ping me too. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to working with you, Jytdog. Thanks for your help! -Estephe9 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jfriend2 and I are adding content to this article as part of our assignment in biolprof's course as discussed above. -Estephe9 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Some quick feedback on the edits you just made: Chase
 * 1) In general, avoid changing big chunks of text at once.  Better to edit a small patch,  provide an edit comment and save it, then do the next bit, etc.  This makes it a) easier for you to explain what you are doing to other editors; b) allows other editors to reject part of your changes, as opposed to be left with an "all or nothing" decision.
 * 2) Please never cite a book, without providing page numbers. The markup for that is easy - it looks like this:  Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

why Not splice DNA in two humans in halve and take one halve from each and put it in the other. 71.161.109.86 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section
Some recent edits have been made to this section to include a very long detailed description on a tv show and it's plot that includes cloning. This whole section needs to be re-worked to focus only briefly on HUMAN cloning in popular culture, not just cloning in general. Cloning in popular culture has it's own section in the Cloning article. Only sources referencing to human cloning should be included in this section and I will be working on cleaning it up over the next day or so. Jfriend2 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All details on Orphan Black ought to be removed. They are irrelevant to the scientific nature of this article. There is already a section devoted to this in the cloning article that mentions this show. The wiki link to the show's page is sufficient explanation to the show's relevance to human cloning. Estephe9 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant to bring up examples under the popular culture section because science fiction is often the source of misconceptions, also discussions on legality and ethics are often paralleled or thematically referenced in speculative fiction. A TV show truly has no place in a scientific discussion, but wiki is not a scientific journal and the factors influencing public opinion of topics is relevant to the article. It is important to the discussion being addressed to draw out the distinctions what is demonstrated by the scientific literature and what is shaping opinions from philosophical and pop culture sources. Czarnibog (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed uncited sentence
I was WP:bold and removed the following sentence from the history section:
 * Since a normal embryo implants at the fourteenth day, Robert Lanza, ACT's director of tissue engineering, told the Daily Mail newspaper that the embryo could not be seen as a person before the fourteenth day.

It seems to me that it is more relevant to ethical issues than history and it has no citation. Anyone who disagrees should feel free to revert. Biolprof (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Old" human cloning citation
I was reviewing the text on United states state laws and the source for the entry under Florida is not present in the current citation from the National Conference of State Legislatures Jan 2008

What is the reason for this? Has the state law been changed or was the source originally incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.239.16 (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)