This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Siddhartha Mukherjee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
since some of the references were cited in the cite.php style and others were not, i'm in the process of changing them all to that format for the sake of consistency. please don't be alarmed if you find them only partially done, as it's an ongoing process (although feel free to jump in if you'd like to!) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 19:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Which of all Rochesters stands in this article? -- Олег-літред ( talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Understandably, Mr. Mukherjee needs his privacy. And I'm sure he has support staff to see to that. They could perhaps screen the emails that would be sent. We could all use a more visible email address with which to write to this intelligent man. 100.36.152.218 ( talk) 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Fred Lane Burke, VA gridlane@yahoo.com
I am a science editor and web maintainer from Seattle interesting in the history of gene therapy, the genetics of “intelligence”, eugenics and epigenetics.
I noticed that “Siddhartha Mukherjee” (whose book The Gene I am using for content generation) has a Wiki entry that was recently “rehauled” extensively and reorganized, adding new sections and adding content. The principal purpose of this seems to have been to add a “Criticism” section to the Wiki-page.
While it is perfectly valid, and even useful, to add “criticisms” to a biography page, it is quite unusual. Contrast with no such section for Richard Dawkins, say, or Salman Rushdie or Yuval Harari or Steven Pinker). This makes me wonder about the motivation for this section.
The section seems to have been “cherry picked” from reviews, and there is no area for correction or response. This seems manifestly unfair – especially since the area of IQ and intelligence is widely and broadly disputed in the scientific literature. A WIKI reader is left with the impression that these reviews are correct in their assertions. Furthermore, the previous section needed wide grammatical and content changes in organization. Please note that I have made a very “good faith” attempt to retain the original language of the editor; however, I believe this section is greatly improved in content and organization.
As a science writer and editor, once I had read the entries, I made changes to improve and tighten the criticisms and to place these in the broader context of the work. I changed the title to Criticism and Response (which is more fair).
These included the following:
Minor grammatical changes (“But Darwin had no idea on gene”) were corrected. Long copyrighted quotes from the New Yorker were edited and removed, but the main text was retained. The section was organized into four main points to prevent run-on points. Some confusing scientific points (“he asserts that gene function (epigenetic factors)” are…) were deleted because they are confounding and incorrect (gene function and epigenetic factors are not the same, of course. “Epigenetic factors” can influence gene function, along with multiple other influences, but the ) Finally, broadly disputed points were highlighted to present a more accurate description (e.g., there is not universal agreement that IQ is a generally accepted measure of intelligence, nor is there broad consensus that histone modifications lack an impact on heritable variations in gene expression. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, which I added into the references). The section has been relabeled “Criticism and Responses” to ensure balance.
However, all these changes were immediately reverted for unclear reasons.
I would like to determine the background for the initial change and the suggested reversion. Therefore, I am reopening the discussion to ensure that the section is balanced and accurate in the context of our understanding of genes and the future of genetic therapies and our understanding of the complexities of IQ and intelligence measurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Well attenuated ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section:
This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 06:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Siddhartha Mukherjee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
since some of the references were cited in the cite.php style and others were not, i'm in the process of changing them all to that format for the sake of consistency. please don't be alarmed if you find them only partially done, as it's an ongoing process (although feel free to jump in if you'd like to!) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 19:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Which of all Rochesters stands in this article? -- Олег-літред ( talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Understandably, Mr. Mukherjee needs his privacy. And I'm sure he has support staff to see to that. They could perhaps screen the emails that would be sent. We could all use a more visible email address with which to write to this intelligent man. 100.36.152.218 ( talk) 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Fred Lane Burke, VA gridlane@yahoo.com
I am a science editor and web maintainer from Seattle interesting in the history of gene therapy, the genetics of “intelligence”, eugenics and epigenetics.
I noticed that “Siddhartha Mukherjee” (whose book The Gene I am using for content generation) has a Wiki entry that was recently “rehauled” extensively and reorganized, adding new sections and adding content. The principal purpose of this seems to have been to add a “Criticism” section to the Wiki-page.
While it is perfectly valid, and even useful, to add “criticisms” to a biography page, it is quite unusual. Contrast with no such section for Richard Dawkins, say, or Salman Rushdie or Yuval Harari or Steven Pinker). This makes me wonder about the motivation for this section.
The section seems to have been “cherry picked” from reviews, and there is no area for correction or response. This seems manifestly unfair – especially since the area of IQ and intelligence is widely and broadly disputed in the scientific literature. A WIKI reader is left with the impression that these reviews are correct in their assertions. Furthermore, the previous section needed wide grammatical and content changes in organization. Please note that I have made a very “good faith” attempt to retain the original language of the editor; however, I believe this section is greatly improved in content and organization.
As a science writer and editor, once I had read the entries, I made changes to improve and tighten the criticisms and to place these in the broader context of the work. I changed the title to Criticism and Response (which is more fair).
These included the following:
Minor grammatical changes (“But Darwin had no idea on gene”) were corrected. Long copyrighted quotes from the New Yorker were edited and removed, but the main text was retained. The section was organized into four main points to prevent run-on points. Some confusing scientific points (“he asserts that gene function (epigenetic factors)” are…) were deleted because they are confounding and incorrect (gene function and epigenetic factors are not the same, of course. “Epigenetic factors” can influence gene function, along with multiple other influences, but the ) Finally, broadly disputed points were highlighted to present a more accurate description (e.g., there is not universal agreement that IQ is a generally accepted measure of intelligence, nor is there broad consensus that histone modifications lack an impact on heritable variations in gene expression. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, which I added into the references). The section has been relabeled “Criticism and Responses” to ensure balance.
However, all these changes were immediately reverted for unclear reasons.
I would like to determine the background for the initial change and the suggested reversion. Therefore, I am reopening the discussion to ensure that the section is balanced and accurate in the context of our understanding of genes and the future of genetic therapies and our understanding of the complexities of IQ and intelligence measurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Well attenuated ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section:
This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 06:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)