User:Palpatitus/sandbox

There can be no question that typing is easy

This line is a test. Hitler this should make clicks to Hitler easy.

Which article are you evaluating?
John of Seville

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Chose it because John of Seville came up in the class and the article is rated as a start-class. The Christian-Islamic conflict and transmission of ideas additionally interest me. The article matters because he was an important figure in translating knowledge from Arabic to Latin. The page is short but well-done with numerous citations. It lacks details of John of Seville's private life & family or relations, patrons or rivals.

Evaluate the article

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The article contains reference to the fact that John of Seville's identity is a matter of scholarly dispute, which is an important question, certainly, but can cause some confusion.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The initial claim that John of Seville was a Jew is uncited but stated as fact. While the article freely admits that this is contested, the citation for that sentence is lacking as well.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints that can be represented with the data available in the current state: Who was John of Seville, is presented in a reasonably fair manner as a matter of time spent.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Citations 3 & 6 at least work and support the claim they purport to.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * No, not all facts are appropriately referenced. Neutrality of all sources briefly reviewed seems adequate.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * One citation is from 1959. Some additional in-text citations could be helpful. I would definitely like to see an exhaustive list on the article in it's own section about all the works he is credited for translating.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The talk page agrees with me! Yay!
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is within the scope of two wikiprojects, WikiProject Biography, & WikiProject Middle Ages. It's rating is start class in the former and is as yet unrated in the latter.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Brings out the fact that his identity is dispusted, and that he is credited for a single original work.

Sources for Xenotransplantation
Source: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 2009, Vol. 31, No. 3/4, Animals and Surgery (2009), pp. 405-428
 * The Animal Issue in Xenotransplantation: Controversies in France and the United States
 * Author(s): Catherine Rémy
 * Published by: Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn - Napoli
 * Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23334492

Xenotransplantation Author(s): David K. C. Cooper, Carl G. Groth, Ian F. C. McKenzie, Emanuel Goldman, Alix Fano and Harold Y. Vanderpool Source: BMJ: British Medical Journal, Mar. 25, 2000, Vol. 320, No. 7238 (Mar. 25, 2000), pp. 868-869 Published by: BMJ Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25187509

The Ethics of Xenotransplantation Author(s): MICHAEL J. REISS Source: Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2000, Vol. 17, No. 3 (2000), pp. 253-262 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24354019

Xenotransplantation: A Bioethical Evaluation Author(s): M. Anderson Source: Journal of Medical Ethics, Apr., 2006, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Apr., 2006), pp. 205-208 Published by: BMJ Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27719606

Are Xenotransplantation Safeguards Legally Viable? Author(s): Patrik S. Florencio and Erik D. Ramanathan Source: Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Summer 2001, Vol. 16, Supplement (Summer 2001), pp. 937-977 Published by: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24116896

Ethics Add-ons
I'm adding some thoughts from Catherine Remy's journal article "The Animal Issue in Xenotransplantation: Controversies in France and the United States" which discusses some of the history of how the science has developed in perception and practice. I hope to add more in the coming weeks about the history of ethical concerns in this issue leading up to present-day issues. Palpatitus (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's for the Talk page. Below is for the actual page.

At the beginning of the 20th century when studies in Xenotransplantation were just beginning, few questioned the morality of it, turning to animals as a "natural" alternative to allografts. While satirical plays mocked Xenografters such as Serge Voronoff, and some images showing emotionally distraught primates appeared - who Voronoff had deprived of their testicles - no serious attempts were yet made to question the science based on animal rights concerns. Xenotransplantation was not taken seriously, at least in France, during the first half of the 20th century.

Xenotransplantation
The following are entirely additions. Edits to existing article content will come later after I've reviewed more sources.

Potential animal organ donors

Increasingly, genetically engineered pigs are becoming the norm, which raises moral qualms, but also increases the success rate of the transplant.

Ethics
Modern scientific supporters of xenotransplantation argue that the potential benefits to society outweigh the risks, making pursuing xenotransplantation the moral choice. None of the major religions object to the use of genetically modified pig organs for life-saving transplantation. Religions such as Buddhism and Jainism, however, have long espoused non-violence towards all living creatures.

History
With the success of allografts in the 1960s, demand began to seriously exceed supply, pushing researchers to again consider non-human donors. At the same time, criticisms of xenotransplantation pointed out that risky xenografts were an unusual, dangerous, and unnecessary path to take, as allografting was safer and more reliable. Paradoxically, the demand for allografts increased interest in xenografts, while simultaneously proving them undesirable. Palpatitus (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

History of Xenotransplantation in Ethics
With the Baby Fae incident of 1984 as the impetus, animal rights activists began to protest, gathering media attention and proving that some people felt that it was unethical and a violation of the animal's own rights to use it's organs to preserve a sick human's life. Treating animals as mere tools for the slaughter on demand by human will would lead to a world they would not prefer. Supporters of the transplant pushed back, claiming that saving a human life justifies the sacrifice of an animal one. Most animal rights activists found the use of primate organs more reprehensible than those of, for example, pigs. As Peter Singer et al. have expressed, many primates exhibit greater social structure, communication skills, and affection than mentally deficient humans and human infants. Despite this, it is considerably unlikely that animal suffering will provide sufficient impetus for regulators to prevent xenotransplantation. Palpatitus (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review by Tyler S.
The additions are well thought out and detailed. One thing that impressed me was the vocabulary used. One thing I think that could be added is more information on what animal rights activists did in response to the topic. One thing I would change is the last sentence in the draft since it seems vague. Maybe give a statistic to back up the claim? Another thing you might be able to add is how often is used in the modern day. Overall I think the draft is great and you guys picked an interesting topic. TylerS1706. (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review
Considering the review as above, what I want to do is: expand the animal rights activist bit in its own sub-section, with more details and sources. This would include revising the aforementioned last sentence and gaining additional information. Information on the frequency of xenotransplantation leading up to and through the modern day is certainly worth looking into. This will add further ground the article and make sure it seems credible to the readers.

I plan to add more to what's already there, listening to more authors and more articles, while maintaining my lexicon. Additional sources will broaden the scope of the article and ensure that as little bias as possible is unwittingly introduced.

I also plan to review existing paragraphs from other contributors with possible removal as an option - some of them lack citations - while being open to reorganizations, which I intend to discuss with my partner.

And thanks for being encouraging, it emboldens me to continue.