Talk:Mae-Wan Ho

message: "(former head of so-and-so) after either having been fired for incompetence or resigning because of personal reasons.  ." Which of the two reasons, if any, is mentioned in a source? --194.145.161.227 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article per BLP guidelines 

message: ?? Is it neutral enough now?
Ttguy 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It might be Neutral Now

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. Please feel free to put any comments or questions on my talk page. Thanks. -- GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: EPadmirateur says Pls look at her CV, for instance,  and .
I have done an extensive analysis of her CV infact. See  So I know quite a bit about her publications. The  is not molecular genetics it is biochemistry and population genetics.  is the only research paper in the field of molecular genetics (one that reports actual experimental results and is not a review or criticim of other people reasearch) that Ho has published. And this paper is the cloning and DNA sequencing of a single gene. The paper has 7 authors from 4 different instutions so it is anyones guess who actually did the cloning and DNA sequencing. 
Even if Ho did the cloning and sequencing I hardly think that, in 30 years of employment, this constitutes extensive experience in molecular genetics.
The claim to Ho's experince in molecular genetics comes from the good Dr herself - eg . Just because she claims it does not make it so. Her CV does not suport the claim. So it goes.
:This is purely original research and your personal opinion based on it. Let's just say that she states what her research areas are. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ho's  CV does not support the assertion she has research experinece in molecular genetics  

message: This statement in the article violates the policy on biography of living persons particularly criticism and praise in that it takes a fact that is not relevant to the subject's notability and has the effect of discrediting her. The policy states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability..." (emphasis added). --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Her association with this sort of research goes straight to the heart of what she is reputably noted for - "Science in Society" where she claims to promote responsible use of Science. This article goes to her credibility to claim this.Ttguy (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The one journal paper is her only work in the "field" of corneal therapies, as one of several co-authors of the paper. On the other hand she writes books and numerous papers about genetic engineering, evolution and AIDS: that's what she's notable for. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is irelevant that this is one paper and there are many authors. That she would put her name to such a paper goes straight to her credibility as a promoter of the responsible use of science. If you can take one paper in molecular genetics as evidence for her expertise in this area then I can take this one article as evidence of her hypocracy. Ttguy (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to burning rabbit corneas 

message: I disagree with the reader add on, but some people may not be familiar with the British university rank system, but "accredited?"  Shall we add that before Harvard, Cambridge, Cal, and Yale in every article where it mentions someone attended them?  -0-Blechnic (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of Harvard, Cambridge, Cal, and Yale. I never heard of Open University. And the "open" makes it sound like maybe it isn't accredited. Further, the article on it doesn't say so either. So I tried to find out. After a few minutes looking I found out. When I do research to find data not included in wikipedia, I like to include it so the next guy doesn't have to repeat my research. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See University#Classification -- "Across the world there are very differing standards of legal definition of the term "university" and formal accreditation of institutions. For example at one end of the scale there is no legal definition of the term in the United States.[citation needed] At the other, in the United Kingdom an institution can only use the term if it has been granted by the Privy Council, under the terms of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.[15]" UK "universities" aren't accredited/unaccredited -- to be allowed to call yourself a "university" you need permission from the Privy Council. "Accredited" is an Americanism that has no place in an article on a UK academic. HrafnTalkStalk 07:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: *My point was stronger than that -- in the UK to legally call yourself a "university" you have to have permission from the highest authority in the land (short of the Queen herself), the Privy Council, in order to do so. Thus in the UK, a university is a university, end of story. If this fact confuses Americans then that's far too tangential a confusion to be dealt with on a biography article. HrafnTalkStalk 08:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accredited 

message: Some coverage by third parties has recently been added:
Seeds of discontent at C4:
Exploitation on the agenda at ethics forum:
GM genes 'jump species barrier':
Who's listening?:
None of these articles are on Mae-Wan Ho, they range from bare mention (one instance) to single sentence on her opinion (one instance), to single sentence on her opinion plus 2-3 quotes (two instances). While its a considerable improvement, I don't think it yet rises to the level of "significant coverage". I would further question whether a telejournalist is a sufficiently authoritative source for declaring Mae-Wan Ho "a leading scientific authority". HrafnTalkStalk 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you discussing the AfD?  Please go to its page.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third party coverage 

message: ... with using the talk page of a living person for personally skewering them, and with removing my unrelated comments from the talk page.  "Pseudoscientists of her ilk"  belongs nowhere on this talk page or in this article, but, hell, if Wikipedia administrators are supporting users blatantly skewering living persons, who am I to question policy?   To hell with this inviting people to use a talk page to slam someone, facilitating it, and actively engaging it.  --Blechnic (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just what I thought, the policy says adding unsourced crap "to any Wikipedia page," the italics in the original.  I was right to remove this in the first place, but of course, when I use policy I get blocked for it, so I bow down to administrator's facilitating this as a slam page.  --Blechnic (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Would you prefer if I had stated it as "academics who publish in the journal Rivista di Biologia, edited by creationist Giuseppe Sermonti and notorious for accepting pseudoscience." It amounts to the same thing, I just tend not to be so verbose & formal on talkpages. HrafnTalkStalk 03:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer you get over her or rather your desire to abuse her BLP on Wikipedia for your personal issues with her.  Why don't you cut it out?  You're not in the least bit accomplishing what you think you're accomplishing: successfully using Wikipedia to skewer her.  The attempt shows a lot more about you than her, by the way.  --Blechnic (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mae-Wan Ho does not understand that nothing in quantum theory allows information to travel faster than light. Not even quantum entanglement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah, I still see a ton of problems 

message: *Horizontal gene transfer - article in Citizendium
*Horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes - article in Citizendium
*Horizontal gene transfer in plants - article in Citizendium
*History of the study of horizontal gene transfer - article in Citizendium
WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the problem is that any allele that causes sterility would be removed from a population by natural selection. HGT is too rare to do more than introduce a gene into a gene pool, you need some kind of force to cause the gene to spread. This is a major problem in using the technique of Sterile insect technique, since you need to release huge numbers of sterile insects to out-compete the fertile insects. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit someone added that you removed indicated that they thought she had not said what the mechanism was. I believe she said the mechanism  was HGT from genetically engineered plants. As you point out other genetic experts dispute her that this scenario would actually happen. My only point is that she did name a mechanism. It is not unthinkable, just that she does not have a scenario that convinces other experts. I think the reason for the disagreement on this is a difference in opinion on how often HGT occurs. Mainstream opinion is, as you say, that it is too rare. She believes it is not so rare; and even more important, believes that current genetic engineering creating plants grown in vast numbers on farms all over the world will increase the amount of HGT by creating and distributing in vast numbers new and improved genes that hop. She argues for caution and claims there is a lot of conflict of interest going on in the people who are disagreeing with her. I don't know enough to know exactly how much caution is needed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps to think about HGT frequencies in concrete examples. Our gut flora contains many thousands of species of bacteria. We have lived with these microbes for tens of thousands of years, but the human genome is not filled with bacterial genes. This isn't something that is common between Domains and is very rare indeed in eukaryotes. HGT is only common between species of prokaryotes, since they have a much more fluid genetic system. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the arguments that because it has not happened it will not happen. Same argument for the safety of the new particle accelerator. But Ho argues that current genetic engineering methods will change the frequency of HGT. I have no idea if she has a leg to stand on concerning this, and assume she doesn't because of a lack of support for her position. But I do not know what evidence they have that she is wrong. In 2000 no one would have guessed that avian flu viruses would evolve and become deadly to cats and dogs and humans and become endemic in wild bird populations. It would have been dismissed as unprecedented and near impossible for such a thing to occur. It is believed by many that flu vaccination procedures in poultry in China is largely responsible for creating the conditions for the evolution of the Z strain of H5N1 that is the world's current worst pandemic risk. Some caution is warranted. What are the best process and procedures for risk mitigation is an important question. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HGT = how sterile genes are transfered 

message: Added  per WP:COIN incident. -- samj inout 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of drive-by tagging. Could you expand a little on why you think this section doesn't follow the NPOV policy? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mae-Wan Ho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080707034050/http://www.indsp.org/MWHcv.php to http://www.indsp.org/MWHcv.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified