This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Personally, I like a little detail in the subject. But it's not the claimant's nationality that arouses me. Wakari07 (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC) The extra bytes are not irremediably expensive, are they? Wakari07 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no the detail is useless it is enough that we have the main event said. Bold revert discuss cycle. your responsbility to do the convincing or take further action. Waskerton (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... useless to provide a link from this (claimed) instance of genetic modification to the allegedly targeted gene and expression? I'm not a biologist you know. For me it's the difference between remaining human or becoming deeply ignorant again. Wakari07 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wakari07: Ignorance yourself. The argument you bring up is just so stupid. Why we even need what gene targeted and of what expression? What this for? Yes you are not biologist. THAT is the point. We just need straight to point news, enough to just say people had the so called gene editing. Also please do not post on my talk page again and liter with useless messages that we can put on here. Waskerton (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On what you deleted from your talk page: I actually asked you a question. What's the point of asking forgiveness for what is supposed to be your mother tongue?
Our 'debate' seems the classic between inclusionists and deletionists. How to select the 'best' argument... what about aesthetics? Now the blurb ends with uproar. I find it more elegant to end with something the reader can chew on. Wakari07 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not include or deletsion it is being stupid or not stupid. What the aesthetics? Study is widespread condemnedd. Don't be ridiculous Waskerton (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You learn slowly. But thanks to this ANI thread you learned that the stupidest behaviour is to repeatedly try to WP:CENSOR a world news headline, as you did five times [1][2][3][4][5]. Also me, according to you, "being stupid" and "ridiculous" are borderline WP:PERSONAL attacks and blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Aesthetics here amount to finishing the sentence. Also it's the first time (a scientist claimed) a human germline gene was edited. But which one and how? We noted the "widespread condemnation", but what's the (alleged) science behind it? It's also a WP:BIAS sticking point: what I want to add is certainly not to add legitimacy to that scientist's action, but a try at answering the question "why on earth would anyone want to do such a thing?" Maybe mentioning the method supposedly used (CRISPR#Cas9) is the less relevant part as you made the point here. But is there a way for us to both drop the WP:STICK? I propose following blurb: Wakari07 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] *Genome editing **A Chinese scientist claims the world's first gene-edited babies, amid denial from the hospital and international outcry. Allegedly, the editing targeted CCR5, an immune-receptor which is used by HIV for entry. (CNN)(AP)
@Wakari07: NO you are the stupid. And exagerator. There is no censor wehere it is? I deleted because at the time all the reports say there was denial, it was faked, no independent verification. So i just report what 99.9999% of what sources HTNE say which is that it is condemmned worldwide. Which is still is so aesthetics argument is just a dumb one. YOU on other hand did not even put that there so bias yourself. There is no need for extra material just use the headline if people want to find out more they go to article. THere is already enough news with mention of gene edit. You keep raising these points is just so ridiculous. Waskerton (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When reading the article He Jiankui, to which Lulu and Nana redirects now, the existence of the clinical trial seems undisputed. In the article Genome editing, our contentious issue is phrased as: "In November 2018, He Jiankuiannounced that he had edited two human embryos, to attempt to disable the gene for CCR5, which codes for a receptor that HIV uses to enter cells." The editors there clearly think the alleged goal is notable. They add: "He said that twin girls, Lulu and Nana, had been born a few weeks earlier." And then a sentence I don't really understand (again, maybe because I'm not a biologist): "He said that the girls still carried functional copies of CCR5 along with disabled CCR5 (mosaicism) and were still vulnerable to HIV." But the last sentence is indeed unequivocal: "The work was widely condemned as unethical, dangerous, and premature." What would Albert Einstein do? Wakari07 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the sentence that I think I don't understand: I guess it means that the scientist himself concedes that the experiment failed to reach even the avowed objective? Wakari07 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You dunno what you are even talking about. How you can say editors there think it is noble goal when they have condemmned it is crazy. Nobody is talking about trials or whatever all we are talking about is is what is news. The main news it is about the gene editing that is it. Nobody need to care about ccr5 or hiv or whatever. Which by the way has failed caus people say the girls still are vulnerable to HIV. As you note. And now you are making this into much bigger deal by bringing it to third opinion. Just so stupid the whole thing is and how you are petty just refusing to let this go. Waskerton (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can read, I wrote notable, not noble. Wakari07 (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Also we're talking about the facts, not about your or my opinion on the facts. The thing is about as stupid simple as atomic science in 1939. Wakari07 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a person from third opinion come here that is how little people care about this stupid argument you launch. And as you know english is not my first language so do not get over the top for this i bet you cannot speak a second language like me. Yes facts. Facts are the blurbb for news documentation is directly the same as found in the article cited. Also it is fact that it is condemmnned. Also a fact that the hiv thingy failed so even mentioning it is useless. So facts are I am right and you are wrong. Waskerton (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably there is at least one other reason why no-one seems willing to meddle in this murky puddle: every human is concerned, so offering a third opinion would violate the first of 11 rules stated on the page: that of being neutral (WP:NPOV).
Did you know that it's useless to ping a blocked user? You claimed on that ANI thread that I don't understand the BRD "policy": it took an admin two interventions to explain to you that, on two counts, you got it wrong. Now finally I learn that English is not your first language; that's an answer to the question I had to repeat above because you deleted it from your talk page, and it means that the very first sentence of your ANI thread against me was wrong. Now also you want to bet that I don't speak another language: sorry, but again you're wrong. All I ask is to (fix the link and) add a few words on which code/protein was targeted. Why don't you just drop the WP:STICK? Wakari07 (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no actually the matter for you all along is you want to end item on good note that is why you say it is about aesthetics. When in fact all source condemned it. the news item i put there is straight from the article cited why you change it for? As for Admininistrators please do not twist words. They say say you should know better because of how much times you go there. anycase now body even care to provide your third opinion request so that give you idea of how meanningles your debate here is. You should drop stick cause the matter is stupid. Waskerton (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Waskerton (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to the posted request for a third opinion. After reading your arguments, I think it is entirely reasonable to include the rationale for the gene editing, as it is a notable part of the event, and significantly shapes how people might view the action.--Masebrock (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add, Waskerton, that requesting for a third opinion is not "useless", and I hope you take my opinion as evidence of a Wikipedia consensus.--Masebrock (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masebrock:@Wakari07: Okay so I reverted the item cause we have not agree on what wording works best. Till we get the agreeing for it we neeed to keep out the item disputed. There is consensus for inclusion for this ccr5. FIne. However issue now turns to how we word it. It makes no sense to word this on the happy note which Wakari07 likes cause as I say above almost all source (even at the time) condemnns this. It also makes no sense to word like his version when the article cited also on the hole are negative about this experiemtnation. In FACT the original version copied exactly the cnn article which worded it on the uproar. If we say we include this ccr5 for context then we also need to end it on the condemnation also because of the context.
Here is my proposal for the wording:
*Genome editing **A Chinese scientist claims the world's first gene-edited babies by tartgeting CCR5, an immune-receptor which is used by HIV for entry, provoking denial from the hospital and international outcry. (CNN)(AP).
For a quick reaction, I feel sorry that it seems like an emotional issue. Also, we can't just "copy" sources, or we face copyright issues. Thirdly, your proposal needs to pass the spelling check. Wakari07 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put in your proposal and corrected the spelling of "tartgeting" to "targetting". But although I'm not a native English speaker, the sentence does not sound right to me. I prefer the original word order and grammatical construction. It's not a question of being happy or not, more of being satisfied with a result. The current word order suggests that the scientist "claims by targeting", while it's the babies' genes that were "edited by targeting". Lastly, "certainty" is inroduced by removing the word "allegedly". Did you think about that? Wakari07 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My recommended English sentence is: "A Chinese scientist claims to be the first person to edit the genome of a human baby, by targeting an immune-receptor which is used by HIV (CCR5). This has provoked denial from the hospital and international outcry." --Masebrock (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request: