Jump to content

Talk:He Jiankui

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger

[edit]

I am boldly merging Lulu and Nana here. The Lulu and Nana page is putatively about those two living people but was actually about the experiment that produced them and the reactions to it. I don't think we have enough information about the two girls to actually have a page about them. So I am just boldly doing this. If it is contested, we can have a formal merger discussion Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog and Lvhis: FWIW - as OA of the earlier original "Lulu and Nana" article - yes - *entirely* agree - merging that article to here (ie, "He Jiankui") seems the better article focus at the moment, at least until there may be worthy verifications and details about the currently purported (afaik) "gene edited babies", I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

great. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 December 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved; request withdrawn. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


He Jiankui → Jiankui He – Corrected to original order the page was made in and according to his published scientific articles, lab website, and his social media pages CRISPR Editor (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're no longer arguing in good faith I will no longer respond to you. The question is what name is he known by in English media now. Not what he used in a wedding announcement in Houston 8 years ago. Which incidentally, in Chinese says "贺建奎" not "建奎贺". NTK (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NTK and NTK: This was a joke by the way as you can see by Haha and :). :DCRISPR Editor (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NTK and NTK: Also it is not what he is known in English media. The English media is not the end all source of information, primary sources are and I am an English speaking U.S. citizen and born in the U.S. Please give me a source for this to back up your information.CRISPR Editor (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "English media," I didn't just mean news media, I meant any English-language media. The overarching Wikipedia policy on article titles is "consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Not official or preferred names. You are correct that He still uses "Jiankui He" in various English contexts. But "He Jiankui" is also correct, in fact more correct in his own language, is the normal Wikipedia convention for Chinese name article titles, and is now overwhelmingly "consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." But the bottom line is He was unknown outside his field before November, not very notable even within his own field before this experiment, and in the current context he is overwhelmingly known as "He Jiankui". That's not just from press releases much less circular leakage from Wikipedia, that's from the scientific community and policy-makers talking about him and news and social media coverage in English. There's no issue with locating this page based on the other order either. We list both, and search engines will find this page with both. NTK (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS:@NTK:@Lvhis:@WikiLaurent: I just did a google search myself Jiankui He gives 1,780,000 results. He Jiankui gives 1,760,000 results. They are about roughly equal not 41,500 vs 1,630,000. Are you sure your data is correct? I would be happy to share my data. This google search is done at 12:19:44 PM PST and 12:19:54 PST on 12-9-2018. Interestingly Jiankui He is above now what He Jiankui is. I did a search a few days ago and found He Jiankui was higher, but now it looks like Jiankui He is higher.CRISPR Editor (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS:@NTK:@Lvhis:@WikiLaurent: Here is the google search data showing Jiankui He is now higher in numbers than He Jiankui Jiankui He:1,780,000 v.s. He Jiankui:1,760,000
Jiankui or He vs. He or Jiankui google search -12-9-2018. Note the lack of quotes to specify an exact term.
CRISPR Editor (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I am absolutely sure my data is correct, and I am absolutely sure you don't know how to conduct a Google search for an exact term. You've simply made a search for either of the words "He" or "Jiankui" – and because "he" is such a common term, Google will ignore it. Your search just finds all the results containing the word "Jiankui". --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More babies on the way from the same trial

[edit]

China confirms scientist genetically engineered babies — and more are on the way.[1] Rowan Forest (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chen, Alice (22 January 2019). "China confirms scientist genetically engineered babies — and more are on the way - The scientist, He Jiankui, is likely to face criminal charges". The Verge. Retrieved 22 January 2019.

Change the subtitle "Clinical trial" into "Illegal clinical trial"

[edit]

Should the present subtitle "Clinical trial" be changed to "Illegal clinical trial" (or related wording)? Drbogdan (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The specific "clinical trial" performed by He Jiankui for gene-editing babies was not a regular or "normal" one even only from its document procedure per se. No regular or normal clinical trial can be started without an authentic and qualified ethical review document approving it. According to the preliminary investigation report from official authority, He had made a fake or forged ethical review certificate for starting this "clinical trial". Even only from this base, regardless of other factors including gene-editing, this so called "clinical trial" is an illegal one. The subtitle of the relevant chapter shall be clearly shown as "Illegal clinical trial" to let readers be aware of its specific illegal nature at first glance, as it is very different from all other regular or normal ones even from legal document base. I made a change but reverted by @Drbogdan:. So here is for discussion regarding the edit change. --Lvhis (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvhis: Thank you for your comments - and for noting a reference[1] - changing the subtitle seems unnecessary, or, at least, premature - after all - there is no official word of illegality in the cited reference - not even the word illegal is mentioned in the reference - according to the reference, He's activities may have compromised "ethical principles and scientific integrity and breached relevant regulations of China", based on a preliminary investigation by some team? which is not specifically named and/or fully described - a truly official investigation (not one that's preliminary) may still be ongoing, or may not have yet started - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drbogdan:Thanks for your reply. In the cited reference, "a fake ethical review certificate", "Those who are suspected of committing crimes", and so on were there. These are official word of illegality. If you don't think these were enough, let's go this way: whether the term "Clinical trial" can be used here. No the word clinical trial is used in the cited official report. When "a fake ethical review certificate" has been confirmed by the authoritative investigation, what He Jiankui performed cannot be called "clinical trial". For edit here we have two options: keep the term "clinical trial" but need to add an adjective to modify or restrict it, such as "Illegal clinical trial", or abandon the term "clinical trial" and use some words else, such as "Clinical experiment" or "Secret[2] clinical experiment". The bottom line is: the current subtitle "Clinical trial" cannot stand there any more. --Lvhis (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lvhis: Thank you for your latest comments - the current original "Clinical trial" wording seems sufficiently neutral, objective, encyclopedic and preferred imo - at least until there are further official decisions and/or conclusions - from official authorities - and supported by WP:Reliable Sources - some wordings may be suggestive, and, as such, may be considered "WP:Original Research", which may not be acceptable on Wikipedia (per WP:NOR) - in any case - there are no such official decisions and/or conclusions at this time, only (apparently) a preliminary investigation - nonetheless - Comments by other Editors are Welcome - eventually, a WP:CONSENSUS among editors may be reached, and further editing in the main article may be further considered - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drbogdan:The "Clinical trial" wording is not neutral here, which seems only used by He Jiankui himself. This term cannot be used for this section's title. We need find some wording else. Please be cooperative. At least "experiment" wording is sourced and really neutral. That He's such experiment was performed in secret[2] is also sourced. If other editors would like to join this discussion, that are of cause welcome.--Lvhis (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ mmm (21 January 2019). "Guangdong releases preliminary investigation result of gene-edited babies". Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved 22 January 2019.
  2. ^ a b Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. (2018-11-28). "Statement on Claim of First Gene-Edited Babies by Chinese Researcher". www.nih.gov. Bethesda, Maryland 20892: National Institutes of Health （NIH）.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • No. Probably unethical is more accurate that illegal - but I oppose both per WP:BLPCRIME - if and when he is convicted by a court of law (illegal) or an ethics board (unethical) - then either one of those could be used. If Jiankui is the only one using "Clinical trial" and this lends an un-neutral normative medical sciences spin - then experimentation (or experiments) would be more appropriate in my eyes. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with Gene-editing controversy as well (or other suggestions iif they arise) - we should avoid specifying wrong doing (criminal/ethical) in our voice, but this is certainly a controversy.Icewhiz (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Human Experimentation - One issue I have with clinical trial, is that in the US the term is pretty exclusively used to refer to controlled drug trials, which this obviously was not. American readers might be confused into thinking this experiment was part of some type of larger drug trial, which it obviously wasn't. NickCT (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gene-editing controversy seems unambiguous, neutral, precise and recognizable. Since the article on the trial is titled Lulu and Nana controversy, I believe that we can safely label this as a controversy. I don't like the proposed "human experimentation" above because that terminology isn't used on the article about the trial. I am also unconvinced by the argument that the current section heading confuses American readers – Wikipedia is written for a global audience, see e.g. the title of the article United States abortion-rights movement. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am okay with this one Gene-editing controversy, though I once liked Secret clinical experiment or Secret clinical project. BTW, thanks for inputs from Icewhiz, NickCT, and Wumbolo. Sounds the 1st step of consensus is being reached: not using "Clinical trial". If checking the definition of "Clinical trial" from wp page or other relevant sources, you will find this term means or implies the clinical experiment/project/trial has been approved by authentic and qualified ethical review certificate. This is not for He Jiankui's case, as he made a forged document. This may be why only he himself called his experiment "clinical trial" but other sources did not. If we use this term here, sounds like Wikipedia makes an endorsement for him. --Lvhis (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yes - agree as well - seems there's sufficient agreement to change the subtitle to "He Jiankui#Gene-editing controversy" - RfC tag removed - Thanks to all those who contributed to the discussion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Online Communities

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 18 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zhifanfu (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Susususushi.

— Assignment last updated by Susususushi (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:He_Jiankui&oldid=1252194146"