|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hwang Woo-suk article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Hwang's laboratory (questionable) techniques
220.127.116.11 added the work "(questionable)" to the heading of this section. Though I think that most of the contributions from this user are welcome, I do not think that this particular edit was appropriate, as it adds a value judgment to the section heading.
Also, it is not very grammatical.
If the techniques were "questionable", this information can be presented in the section text, but I do not think it belongs in the heading.
I reverted the change, only to have the user revert it back. I'm loathe to start an revert war, so I would like to ask other people's input in this matter.
Regarding "...appearing nine times as a senior author on PubMed." PubMed is not a publication. It is a search engine. This implies that the subject was published in or on PubMed, when this isn't something that happens. Barring any objections, I intend to remove this statement. Rex Manning (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Which type of stem cell is being discussed?
Maybe distinguish which type of stem cell is being discussed by using "embryonic" or "adult" to modify the phrase "stem cell" wherever it is being used.
A quick Internet search will show that some scientists, institutions work on embryonic stem cells (derived from embryos), and some scientists, institutions work on adult stem cells (derived from unbilical cords, other human non-embryonic sources). (Some may work on both kinds of stem cells also.)
These different types of stem cells have been known for at least the last few years. Also what is NOT "news" is making embryonic-like (pluripotent) stem cells from adult stem cells.
Many of your readers will be familiar with these and other terms describing different stem cells and will expect the article writers to know them.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Court upholds sentence of disgraced scientist
Some recent news regarding the punishment of Hwang Woo-suk:
Note that the Wikipedia article on Hwang Woo-suk mentions that he was sentenced to a two years suspended prison sentence, whereas the article in the JoongAng Daily mentions that Hwang Woo-suk was sentenced to 18 months in jail (suspended for two years).
It may also be interesting to add the following link to the Wikipedia article on Hwang Woo-suk:
- I noticed my external link to the commentary "South Korean policy failure and the Hwang debacle" has been removed. In my opinion, the referenced article provides good insight into Hwang Woo-Suk’s descent into scientific misconduct, based on interviews undertaken in Korea in 2005. I therefore decided to revert the change. Note that this article is not an editorial. Also, note that some of the other external links are no longer working. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
NPOV/due weight problem
The scandal surrounding the subject's research was very significant, but given that time has passed, and he continues doing reasonably high-profile work, I question whether the amount of detail we have is due here in his biography today. The best solution may be to have a shortened (by about 50%) summary here, and to put the full detail in to a separate article about the controversy. --JN466 12:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- He is notable principally for his fraud, and the article should reflect this – just as this article in Nature does. Maproom (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cyranoski, David (2014-01-30). "Whistle-blower breaks his silence". Nature 505 (7485): 593–594.
- My vote is with Jayen466. Hwang falsified evidence and he paid the price for it. But he has moved on and has done a lot before since then which is hardly mentioned. This article is mostly a one-sided attack on him. To my mind this article is far from neutral and should be rewritten to make it an objective Wikipedia article. SylviaStanley (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)