User talk:Ksargent

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Ksargent, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

By the way, did you know that you can use spaces and capital letters for your username? It's true! If you want, you can change your username to "K. Sargent". It might be more pleasing to to the eye.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!—Nat Kraus e 13:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC), (Talk!)[reply]

Why did you delete this:[edit]

Since a blastocyst can be taken from unused blastocysts leftover from couples' attempts at in vitro fertilization, proponents point out that it is a couple's choice on whether to allow medical research. In addition, advocates point to the potential therapies that are expected to derive from research in this area, which is not possible using adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood. -- K. Sargent Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Getaway": I explained in detail on the Talk page for that article--just as I stated in the Edit Summary. Please review. --Getaway 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stem cell controversy[edit]

Okay, the very first sentence of the previous version read 'current research techniques usually result in the destruction of early-stage embryos'. This is misleading on a number of fronts, not least because current research techniques necessarily require the destruction of a human embryo and also because this sentence echoes the medicalised interpretation of an embryo, through use of the phrase "early-stage embryos". The second sentence reads "Thus, the stem cell debate has divided the ‘pro-life’ movement into two camps". This is also misleading because opposition towards eSCR cannot be strictly divided into either of the two camps described. Presenting opposition in this way would seem to deny the true extent of the dialogue and the multiplicity of differing perspectives. Following on from that, recent edits referred to "pro-life groups, like the Catholic church" and then goes on to associate, the social scientist, Sarah Parry with the 'pro-life' ideas which are discussed. I could point out several further discrepancies, but I think this will suffice for the moment. --Nicholas 11:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you wait to see what other Wikipedians think? User:BballJones and I both seem happy with the current version. I've pointed out the problems with the previous edit. Would you care do to the same with my preferred edit?--Nicholas 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ksargent, I see that you've reinstated that nPOV header without actually addressing the discussion on the talk page. At the moment, it also appears as though you are the only editor who has problems with this section. In this context, how can you justify adding that header? --Nicholas 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ksargent, you state that "The current three editors are against hESC research. This is clearly apparent from the sources used and the lack of opposing views". I think this is slightly unfair, not least because 15 different editors have contributed towards the last 50 edits of that article. In addition, it is misleading to suggest that there is a "lack of opposing views". The scientific/medical narrative is discussed in the final paragraph of that section. Perhaps you'd like to contribute towards that final paragraph or (even just) discuss your concerns on the talk page? Best, --Nicholas 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population history of American indigenous peoples[edit]

Ksargent, I don't think that the material you added is very useful. You mix old work (almost a century old!) with modern material, and confuse matters rather than clarify them. I have the impression that you're arguing that there's some doubt about WHEN depopulation happened, and saying that it might have preceded European arrival. I do not have that impression from any current material. I'm going to revert all but your addition of the new reference. Please let's discuss this on the talk page. The article is one of the GOOD articles in WP and I don't like to see it turned into a muddle. Zora 19:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stem Cell Debate - you may like Debatepedia[edit]

Noticed your many contributions and interest in the stem cell controversy. Just thought I would point you to the Debatepedia (wiki debate encyclopedia) article on stem cell research. [1] You may find this a better forum for capturing the different, third-party points of views in these debates. Loudsirens 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]