text:
Talk:Allele

Who defined Allele ?
"...An allele is one member of a pair or series of different forms of a gene. Usually alleles are coding sequences, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-coding sequence..." Who is the individual that formally established this and where did he do this ? TongueSpeaker (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Hey backspace! Whats up? I see you're still playing your silly word games, how fun! Anyway, allele was first used by Bateson and Saunders (1902) in this work: Bateson W. (1902). Mendel's Principles of Hereditary: A Defence. London: Cambridge University Press. Available at: www.esp.org/books/bateson/mendel/facsimile

 * Edith Saunders was a woman living in a man's word so she didn't get much credit (if any). Remember: its just a wordf describing a thing, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that there is a gian conspiracy against you! --Woland (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * What about this allele is it that I don't understand because you defined it yet. Did Saunders for example know that a gene is an encoding/decoding mechanism, in what way will this influence the yet to be defined concept of "allele"? This author says the following about genes "....Physical evolution requires genes to work. Any rational scientists knows that there's not a smidgen of evidence there is a single gene, much less genes. Read Watson's and Crick's two original articles in Science magazine, and you'll discover they ask a number of "what if" questions, not of which have been answered. For example. When the two strands of DNA untwist to replicate, what prevents them from getting tangled up? The concepts of genes is one of the most irrational concept that ever existed...."http://time-blog.com/eye_on_science/2007/02/the_evolution_wars_visit_eye_o.html. How should we interpret the yet to be defined concept of an allele in the light of what he wrote.?TongueSpeaker (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Two different meanings of allele
What I am missing from the page is that the fact that allele has actually two related meanings, and both are used in different communities. The first meaning is the one that is described here in detail, and is most commonly used, namely: the gene variant found or inferred at a particular locus. In this meaning, there can be hundreds of different alleles, as e.g in the case of the HLA locus. In this case it makes sense to talk about 'different alleles', and 'allele' uniquely identifies a particular variant (in fact, DNA sequence), in of course the context of a locus in a diploid organism. The article, incidentally, can be 'an' and 'the'.

The second meaning is becoming more prominent in our era of next generation sequencing and single-cell sequencing. Here, allele identifies which of the two homologous chromosomes is being talked about (again in the context of a particular locus in a diploid organism). In this usage, it does not make sense to talk about 'different alleles', since there always only two alleles: the maternal and paternal (even though often it is not known which is which). In this usage, 'allele' often occurs with 'other' or 'other allele' and always with 'the' as the article, never 'a'. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_%28genetics%29 has: "The allele that masks the other is said to be dominant to the latter, and the allele that is masked is said to be recessive to the former." Here, we are not talking about the fact that there many different variants of a particular gene, but about the fact that the version in one chromosome dominates the version of the other. Why the distinction is important is that people get confused by terms such as monoallelic mutation or biallelic expression. These terms are perfectly normal and perfectly understable with the second meaning, but make no sense when only knowing the first meaning (monoallelic mutation is a mutation observed in one of the two homologous chromosomes in a particular locus, rendering the locus heterozygous; biallelic expression is when transcription takes place at both copies of a locus).

Personally I think in many cases when people use the word 'allele', they had better use the term 'gene variant', which is even understandable to the uninitiated. I vaguely recall that in Matt Ridley's book 'Genome', there is a line that says roughly: "genes do not cause disease, alleles do!", reflecting the first meaning. I think this sentence becomes both much clearer and much more precise if it read "genes do not cause disease, (broken) gene variants do!" :-)

What do people think? Plijnzaad (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: citation needed? "humans are diploid organisms and have two alleles at each genetic locus, with one allele inherited from each parent", see Note in http://varnomen.hgvs.org/recommendations/DNA/variant/alleles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plijnzaad (talk • contribs) 08:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

 * An allele does not necessarily function as a gene, but is simply a variation at a locus.

Non-gene DNA loci are important to the phenotype,
 * Agreed, and that is important (we could/should include examples on promoters and enhancers), but that is a different matter, in the sense that here you are equating 'allele' with 'gene variant', which I agree should be broadened to 'sequence variant' (both terms occur frequently in current scientific literature). And I am arguing that main page should point out the difference in meaning/usage of the term 'allele' (and personally I think that the first meaning has become outdated). Plijnzaad (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

so talking about those alleles is important, and DNA fingerprinting relies on hypervariable DNA in non-coding regions, and those variations are referred to as alleles. Also, a locus may be large or small, from single-nucleotide polymorphism alleles (possibly several within one gene), to larger loci that have some particular function that turn out to contain a group of tightly linked genes. An allele difference may be an inversion or a deletion. I therefore disagree that "gene variant" is a better phrase.
 * Copy-number variation is becoming an extremely important topic in human disease research, such as for developmental control (e.g., schizophrenia) and for cancer-suppression mechanisms, so I think it is important to try to keep that in mind and to avoid making blanket statements about a single gene with two alleles at each locus.
 * I am not, but in the hugely important case of diploid organisms it's certainly something to explain in a bit more detail. Surely you aren't implying that the (diploid) case where in one locus you have sequence variant 'V' on the paternal chromosome and a duplicated sequence variant 'v v' on the maternal, should be called triallelic? (I have never seen it used that way). These cases are too complex to be described as 'alleles', and here things are much clearer by using the term 'variant', and this is exactly what's happening in literature: sequence variants are defined and used separately from the chromosome they 'live on', and 'allele' is more and more only used when having to distinguish between which of the paternal/maternal chromosome (or both, or neither, or 'the other') is being talked about, not which variant. Plijnzaad (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For that reason, I'd say that the Dominance (genetics) page has a hole in it, because a recessive allele can be masked by an allele at another locus.
 * Another problem is that although humans are diploid, many organisms are not, so to make this page only about diploids would be a great disservice to wikipedia's treatment of biology.
 * I am not suggesting that of course.Plijnzaad (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So for your other meaning of allele, I think people are abbreviating "the other allele of the pair" by saying "the other allele". I think they are saying "biallelic expression" because the term "biparental" has other meanings (though it is used in this way in discussing imprinting), but I don't think there is really a fundamental problem with the meaning of allele. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer your question above about whether "sequence variant 'V' on the paternal chromosome and a duplicated sequence variant 'v v1' on the maternal, should be called triallelic", yes, I think so (I've modified your 'v v' to 'v v1'). See for example this article, where I think, based on a quick scan, that that is how the terminology is used. To distinguish the paternal from the maternal in such a case, I think the word haplotype would be used. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, it has been a while since I came across this, but the McCarrol & Altshuler paper you reference uses the term 'multiallelic' in the 'gene variant'-sense of the word, namely: a locus for which more than two variants are known (cf. a Triallelic SNP ). I cannot find a reputable reference where the copies of a CNV are called different alleles. Note that triallelic or multiallelic expression are used for non-diploid organisms (see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.096 ) and in the human HeLa cell line which is known to be polyploid (see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.05.052 ). Regarding your idea that 'haplotype' is used to distinguish the paternally and maternally-inherited copy of one gene: that is certainly not in common use for single genes, only for larger genomic regions. So, I think it is high time that the wiki article includes a paragraph on the other meaning of the term 'allele',  namely the 'haplotype-identifying sense'. This really is not controversial, and should be helpful to many people, all the more since we now can measure these things more and more accurately and finding them to be important in many ways. (The haplotype-identifying meaning maybe well be closer to what Bateson & Saunders intended, since they based it on the Greek άλλο which is 'other' (of two), not 'different' or 'variant'. But I haven't read there original paper. Interestingly, another term coined by Bateson, epistasis has two related meanings that are commonly (conf)used) Plijnzaad (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Test
"... if the "red" allele is dominant to the "white" allele, in a heterozygous flower (with one red and one white allele), the petals will be white."

My genetics is very rusty, but surely the petals in this case will be red?

 * I think you're right. Fixed. Evercat 22:25 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * uhmm... isn't the flower supposed to be pink? Because I tought that the flower Mendel is talking about has two dominant alleles. like this

P  GG + gg   F1  Gg

The petals will definitely be red
 * Read the text: "if the red allele is dominant..." If it is dominant, that means the heterozygote is red. In the absence of dominance, the flower would indeed be pink. If both the red and white alleles would be dominant (i.e., co-dominant), you would be able to see the phenotypes associated with both alleles simultaneously: a flower with red and whit patches or stripes or something like that. --Crusio (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
As a newcomer to Wikipedia I wonder if it would be appropriate to note that the word rhymes with 'heel' and not 'ukelele'.
 * IPA is typically used to this end. —Casey J. Morris 21:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

mechanism for dominance?
How does the ribosomes, etc. recognise which is a dominant gene, which is a recessive one, or which sequences trigger it to be recessive or dominant in the first place? Do we know? -- Natalinasmpf 08:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It doesn't. If both dominant and recessive alleles are present, both are transcribed and translated by the ribosome. "Dominant" and "recessive" are a result of the different properties of the fully-formed proteins themselves. There's various mechanisms whereby this can happen, depending on what the gene is. Graft 03:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * If one allele has no start codon it will not even be transcribed into RNA. The resulting "no protein allele" will be the same phenotype as "malformed protein allele" to the casual observer.--35.11.210.84 21:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This is wrong - if it has no start codon, it will make it to RNA, but the RNA will not be translated into protein. If the promoter or some enhancer element, etc., is damaged, THEN the RNA will not be transcribed. You are correct that this will result in a "null" phenotype (assuming no other intact copy of the gene is present on the other chromosome). However, a "malformed" (truncated) protein may end up having a phenotype after all, depending on where it truncates. Graft 13:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"As a newcomer to Wikipedia I wonder if it would be appropriate to note that the word rhymes with 'heel' and not 'ukelele'" YES! this is my Daughters name and everery one alway pronounces it "Ah-Lay-Lee" When its pronounced "Ah-Lee-uhl". Thanks for pointing this out...

It is incorrect to say that one allele is dominant over another. It is the phenotype that is dominant. In the flower example, it is the character red that is dominant over white. In humans, for instance, being pigmented is dominant over being albino, meaning that heterozygotes are pigmented and are not intermediate in phenotype between the two homozygotes. However, if one goes to the molecular level, the underlying enzyme defect concerns tyrosinase. When one looks at the inheritance of the character "tyrosinase activity", there is no dominance, the heterozygote being completely intermediate between the two homozygotes. This is an improper use of nomenclature that unfortunately even can be found in many genetics texts. --Crusio 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Examples
An Allel would be the like the controller of game systems the comand the genes where to go.I don't have an example off the top of my head, but the defintion in the first sentence of the article points out that some definitions of Allele include variation at non-gene sequences. I double checked the fact with the NHGRI (http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=allele see the real player voice over). I would suggest perhaps something about variation in promotor regions as was described so ably by Graft above. My defintion of an Allele is the captian of the genes telling them where to go.

What is the reasoning behind using capital I and i to stand for the different blood types and what is the reasoning for i to always match up with blood type O? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.81.1 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The capital I is used for the dominant genes, while the lower case i is used for recessive. That's why blood type O is so rare. 18:49, 28 September 2009
 * Actualy, O is the most frequent blood type, despite being recessive to A and B. --Crusio (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unidentical copies?
I would like to ask about the following sentence:

"An organism in which the two copies of the gene are identical"

Can COPIES be unidentical? Is the term appropriate and correct?

 * This is appropriate and correct: COPY here is used in the sense of 'instance' (as in 'a copy of a magazine', although unlike in this example, there are always only exactly two instances in diploid organisms: one that was maternally inherited, the other paternally). Plijnzaad (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Introduction - Parenthetic sentence
Should one start a paragraph with a sentence enclosed in parentheses? I have never seen this before. 06:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2 Equations ?

 * There are two equations for the frequency of two alleles of a given gene (see Hardy-Weinberg principle).

 * Equation 1: $$p+q=1$$,

 * Equation 2: $$p^2+2pq+q^2=1$$''

This sounds very silly since Equation 1 clearly implies that equation 2 is also true. Does it make sense to say that the frequency of 2 alleles is predicted by 2 equations? Why not 3 with the third being $$p^3 + 3p^2q + 3pq^2 + q^3=1$$?

This is indeed a very muddled section. It mixes the frequency of certain alleles ($$p$$ and $$q$$) with the alleles themselves. The main article on the Hardy-weinberg equilibrium is clearer and perhaps this whole paragraph should be deleted and redirect to that article. --Crusio 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be true: $$ p^2 + 2pq + 2pr + q^2 + 2qr + r^2 = 1 - (p^2 + q^2 + r^2 ) = 1$$  Because If $$1 - (p^2 + q^2 + r^2 ) = 1$$ then $$(p^2 + q^2 + r^2 )= 0 $$ If $$(p^2 + q^2 + r^2 )= 0$$ then $$p=0, q=0, r=0$$ If $$p=0, q=0, r=0$$ then $$(p^2 + 2pq + 2pr + q^2 + 2qr + r^2) = 0$$ Am I missing something? 76.121.251.78 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Types
This section is still rather muddled after I did some cleanup. I propose to delete it, thre is already a link to dominance and recessive in the opening paragraph. --Crusio (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about complete deletion but at the very least I think everything after the first paragraph in that section should be removed.--Woland (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

 * I have placed a "disputed" tag on the article because, although many scientists speak about "dominant" or "recessive alleles", technically speaking, only traits are dominant/recessive. On the DNA level, all alleles of all genes act in an additive way without any dominance being present. An allele may be dominant/recessive for one trait, but not for another. An example is the albino allele, c. The albino trait is recessive as Cc individuals are pigmented. However, if you look at the underlying enzyme defect, Cc individuals are intermediate between CC and cc ones for tyrosinase activity. So for the character "tyrosinase activity" dominance is absent, but for the character "pigmentation" albino is recessive to pigmented. --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

-- It is ok to map alleles to the inheritance model of the trait, it is not really a mistake. Originally, phenotypes were thought as markers of the genetic factors that controlled them. Now we are quite aware that most phenotypes are complex and we cannot speak of phenotypes as markers of a gene or a locus. Notice Mendel spoke about genetic factors, the word gene and allele did not exist yet (the word allele was not invented by Bateson but by a a German or Austrian scientist that I forgot his name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.120.117 (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

--I don't think this warrents the tag as this appears to be pretty minor and almost seems to be about semantics, so have now removed the tag. When I saw the tag I assumed there was a major error. It would probably be better to add this to the article. Any other comments? 194.83.139.177 (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above means that the definitions currently given in the article are wrong. What else justifies a "disputed" tag? I am reverting this. --Crusio (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken on two levels; one, the tag is not for such a small dispute, and two, you are wrong about your claim that the phenotype is what is recessive. An organism has only one phenotype. Provide a source that makes this distinction. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here in a book with Lewontin as a coauthor, they use the terms in the usual manner . Abductive  (reasoning) 10:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is Hartl's take on it . Abductive  (reasoning) 11:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this incorrect usage has become a shorthand, like people studying KO mice, who find no difference with controls saying "my mouse has no phenotype". Google it, you'll find plenty of reputable geneticists who have said this. That doesn't make it correct, though (see DOI 10.1034/j.1601-183X.2002.10201.x). I have currently no time to continue this discussion. Just one citation: Gregor Mendal stated (as cited by Reeve, Encyclopedia of Genetics, p. 63): "The dominant character can have ..." No need to continue. Mendel defined dominance, without knowing anything about genes of alleles. He talked about characters (what we now call phenotypes). And look at my albino example above. Whether C or c is dominant or not, depends on what character you investigate. --Crusio (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest this be explained in a footnote to avoid breaking up the flow. The article is rather wanting in many respects. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! :-) --Crusio (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call Abductive, sometimes it is best not to interrupt the flow, however right you may be, as genetics is a very complicated field wherein the data collected from experiments is not exactly as precise as measuring temperature, it is much closer to recording peoples description of the weather often including emotional interpretation. Mendel himself was only doing pre-cursor work to science on genetics. Now days scientists can order restriction enzymes to cut strands after a specific sequence of a single strand, they can custom order any sequence they want. Genetics and gene expression is a science that may never be fully understood, but we are rapidly approaching our limit. Scientists like Mendel and Darwin were instrumental in the progress, but even they were only correct as to the jist of the events. Citing Gregor Mendel doesn't give proof to scientific correctness, it gives a historical account, but it just happens to be one of the "close" shot arrows that caused the tree of knowledge to bleed a littleDirtclustit (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Most organisms probably not diploid
I think the article should read most animals, or perhaps most multicellular organisms, but not most organisms, as most archaea and bacteria are not diploid, and they are arguably the most well represented (depending of course on your definition of species). 71.209.2.169 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Even using multicellular organisms isn't really accurate in my opinion, as a lot of Plantae are polyploïd.

The mess I created.
I'm sorry for all the unnecessary edits. I don't usually need so many edits just to revert to a previous version... But during the editing my internet connection was unstable, and I clicked on save page and nothing happened, I did something else, and suddenly the edit was saved even though I was not finished with it, and furthermore I suspect I sometimes got a "cache-version" of the page, which is why I thought things needed to be fixed that didn't need to be fixed. However, 60.240.109.108's edit was clearly improductive (removing text and instead writing that something was wrong), but also EagerToddler39's edit was incorrect, because the footnote was not unused. However, I did not realize did until I copied EagerToddler39's edit and discovered that there was a problem in the ref-section.

Anyway, the article is back to a previous version now. Lova Falk    talk   10:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sort of thing happens to all of us. The important thing is that you fixed it! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :)  Lova Falk     talk   13:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it! I sooo know what you mean, I get cached versions of many sites on my home computers and if I log in anywhere it's guaranteed to be cached. The internet ain't a friendly place when you seriously upset both sides of any bitter division. I don't recommend doing so when the fence separates those who would knowingly lie to get folks to believe that God exists and the those who knowingly lie to get folks to believe that God doesn't exist. The hard cores of the religious right and the angry Atheists/IT people can be vicious. Luckily though that is exactly what makes the normally difficult tight rope walk across the top of the fence so darn easyDirtclustit (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Latin Greek and "Genetics"
The term used by Greeks, way back when, was in regards to generation (like the generations distinguished by terms like ""grandparent", "parent" and "child" . It is related to the term "genetics" but I think a distinction should be made between "generations" and "genetics" as noting phenotypic inheritance from parents is not to have knowledge of genetics. The difference between having actual knowledge of the two subjects "generation" and "genetics" can be night and day, as in knowledge of generations but not genetics by today's understanding of the life and the world it inhabits is akin to knowing a story but not being able to tell what IS real and what is  not. There is a difference between the actual occurrence in the present and the story of it retold as history. Their is a difference between being affected by the occurrence happening to You, and the effect of listening to a person's story that you yourself did not experience and not being able to tell the difference is to not be able to distinguish what Is real from what is not. The etymology of a word is NOT synonymous with intimate knowledge of the topic. There was no ancient Greek word or even root for "genetics" even though the words relation is obvious.

Not being conscious of your thoughts and word choice in encyclopedic writing is detrimental mistake to make, and will lead to unfathomable levels of confusion and misery, EVEN IS EVERY SINGLE WORD WRITTEN IS TRUE. Similar topics or words that describe a topic, when the words come from languages which serve different purposes cannot be used interchangeably.

As for as Understanding Everything, using words like "genetics" in terms of Ancient Greek knowledge of "generations" brings about complete misunderstanding of fundamental core knowledge, it fosters confusion. It's the difference between between two understanding the books like the Bible wherein the first book is titled Genesis and the understanding of it with the first book titled Genus

This is not knocking Greeks, to be fair Latin terms from the etymology of "genetics" are just as unrelated as the night and day difference between "generations" and "genetics"

Both languages have terms to describe the topic "genetics" and they could tell stories about genetics, but they did not have the vocabulary because they did not understand genetics. It could be said that neither had knowledge of it's existence. So to employ sentences like...oh I stand corrected, as the article now has that wording omitted without admitting to it under the historical records. Yeah wikipedia Gods.Dirtclustit (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Relationships?
I remember from all those CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes I watched, that the number of matching alleles determine the biological relationship between two persons. Call me a dumb-bunny (I don't mind), but I don't understand how that relationship thing works and the articles seem not to mention that aspect of allele-ism. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My main memory of those programs is that they'd get things wrong sometimes, such as saying that siblings must have 50% alleles in common, when full-sibs would actually share anywhere between 0 and 100%, though 50% on average. Genealogical DNA test, which is listed under "See also" should have the material you need. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Allele frequency - no consensus
Substantial conceptual overlap, but Allele frequency strays into textbook, demonstrative territory. Having one centralized article is better than having multiple parallel strands of a topic, in my opinion, and neither articles are long enough to warrant a size-related split. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I object because allele frequency is an explicitly searched basic biostatistical concept. --M2k1 (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Both should remain distinct for clarity and ease of access. --Lukedehart

 * Okay, I can go with this, oppose based on above arguments, I'll remove the tags, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Relationship to SNPs
Should we explicitly say one allele can include many SNPs - eg as used in CYP3A7*1C Allele Associated With Poor Outcomes in CLL, Breast, and Lung Cancer ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Genes and alleles - "Two different meanings of allele", again
The section above Two different meanings of allele seems not to have been concluded.

Wiki is meant for general readers, so not written just for those already competent in genetics. I was looking to Wiki for some brief clarity on genetic evolution. My helicopter view is that genes mutate and this (together with drift) via selection drives evolution. But the article on evolution refers copiously to alleles so I wanted to check I understood correctly.

The question I couldn't find answered though, and which I think should be answered by the introductory paragraph, is when is a gene a different gene and when is it the same gene but with different alleles??

Another question that arises from that Talk section is what are Non-gene DNA loci? I thought that genes were DNA, but if so the phrase would be the equivalent of Non-forest wood tree. Can someone clarify?

Making technical writting succint is extremely demanding (at least I find it so!) but articles should still aim to progress from general overview to technical detail (wiki policy). At the moment though there seems to me to be a tendency to make them lean increasingly towards the sort of CYA perfectionism that plagues legal documents. Be bold?

LookingGlass (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't have an answer for your "it stinks" comments, but as to what non-gene loci are, please read Intron. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 * This confused me further. What: "it stinks" comments?!?  Thank you for the reference, and yes I could always learn about genetics and answer the questions myself without using wikipedia at all, but at the moment concerned I was a template wiki reader for whom articles are supposed to clarify not depend upon other articles in order to be understood by non-spercialist readers.  Notwithstanding your comment here however, I see that you have in fact made a subtle change to the article that clarifies the second issue I raised, for which my thanks at least.  That edit eliminates the need for your reference it would seem. LookingGlass (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "allele"
An allele is commonly defined as a an "alternate DNA sequence at a locus" where locus refers to any stretch of DNA. What this means is that alleles are not confined to genes. There can be alleles at regulatory sequences, origins of replications, SARS, and all other functional DNA sequences in the genome. There can also be alleles in junk DNA. SNPs are alleles.

Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population and that's not confined to genes. The human and chimp genomes have evolved since the split from the common ancestors and most of the differences are due to the fixation of neutral alleles in junk DNA by random genetic drift. Nobody reading this article would be able to understand that statement.

We need to change the definition of "allele" to reflect the meaning that was established more than 50 years ago. Genome42 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Praxidicae wants to stick with the old, incorrect, version of 'allele' where it's restricted to variants of a gene. That's just wrong. You can have alleles at any locus and some of them (e.g. regulatory sequences) can cause genetic diseases. Others (SNPs) are widely used in mapping genetic diseases (Genome Wide Association Studies). No explanation was given for rejecting the correct definition.

 * I have no idea whether Praxidicae is knowledgeable about this subject. (Probably not.)

 * Genome42 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Now Praxidicae has re-posted the incorrect definition of 'allele' and criticized me because "that's not how consensus works." That's weird because I opened a discussion about the definition but Praxidiae is acting like a dictator and refusing to discuss it. THAT's not how to arrive at a consensus.

 * Genome42 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When reverted, it is necessary to justify a proposed edit without talking about other editors. Attacking Praxidicae shows an unfamiliarity with standard procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I announced my proposed edit on August 3rd. Nobody replied. I posted my correction to the Wikipedia article two weeks later. It was removed within hours by someone whose only justification was "Unexplained removal of content."
 * Are you sure you are directing your criticism at the right person? Shouldn't Praxidicae be required to justify their action? Genome42 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We are used to people with three month's experience telling us how Wikipedia works, but as is normally the case, the new editor misunderstands core procedures. WP:Teahouse is a good place to get independent advice. Regarding announcements: thanks, that was good. However, a moment's thought shows that an announcement does not provide entitlement. What counts is an edit to an article. Now is an opportunity to show whether you are here for the benefit of the encyclopedia (which would require collaboration with other editors, even if they are wrong), or whether you are here to push some new line. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I started editing on Wikipedia over 15 years ago so I'm used to dealing with Wikipedia editors who are wrong.
 * Many scientists have tried to fix Wikipedia with the best of intentions but they usually get frustrated after a short time because they have to deal with an entrenched cult of Wikipedia editors who are more concerned with "core procedures" than with scientific accuracy.
 * It's not possible to "collaborate" with these editors because they just pop up out of nowhere to revert our attempts to improve science articles on Wikipedia. They don't give any reason for rejecting our corrections and they don't engage in any discussion afterward. In most cases, they don't seem to have any expertise in the subject matter.
 * You (Johnuniq), for example, are accusing me of trying to "push some new line" instead of opening a collaboration on the best scientific way to explain the definition of 'allele.' Why are you behaving like that instead of addressing the scientific issues? Aren't we both supposed to be interested in improving Wikipedia?
 * What, in your opinion, is the best scientific way to define 'allele?' If it's not the way it was defined on the old version of the Wikipedia article then what is the best way to make a change that won't cause some other editor to wrongly reject it out-of-hand? Genome42 (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia editor posted this on my personal homepage, "Friend, Wikipedians aren’t interested in what you know. They are interested in what you can cite, i.e. reliable sources."

 * This is an excellent description of the problem with Wikipedia. The only way to judge reliable sources is to know something about the subject. Wikipedia editors assume that anything published in a book, newspaper, or popular science magazine is a "reliable source." Therefore, anyone who disputes those sources must be wrong even if they come up with other reliable sources. That's why some of my recent edits were "restored" (reverted) by Wikipedians who were not knowledgeable about the subject.

 * Wikipedians need to be interested in what experts KNOW because it's only the expects who can tell you what sources are reliable. Genome42 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am certainly no expert in this field but I fail to see why you are repeatedly removing sourced content, and replacing it with largely unsourced content that is poorly written and hard for readers to understand. Further, I suggest you change your tone when discussing changes and in general - you may be knowledgeable about the subject but are not the sole arbiter of what any Wikipedia article contains, and lastly in the spirit of collaboration, it would be wonderful if you would stop attacking other editors outright and also making underhanded comments about their intelligence. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for engaging in a discussion about your actions. I'm happy to collaborate on making this article better.
 * Let's begin by discussing the quality of sources. We're talking about the best way to define the word "allele" - the topic of this article. The old version, which you want to restore, used standard English dictionary definitions of this scientific word. My source, which differs from the dictionary version, uses a well-known textbook written by one of the world's leading experts in population genetics.
 * Which source do you think should be referenced in the Wikipedia article?
 * This is part of a much larger issue that comes up repeatedly on Wikipedia. How do you know which sources are reliable if you are not an expert in this field? How do you know which sources represent the standard scientific consensus in the field if you know nothing about the field?
 * Please collaborate with me by explaining why you think your version of this article on allele is better than the one I'm working on. We should be talking about science here, not Wikipedia policies. Genome42 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Allele


text:
John Michael Hayes

John Michael Hayes (11 May 1919 – 19 November 2008) was an American screenwriter, who wrote four of Alfred Hitchcock's films in the 1950s.

Early life and education
Hayes was born in Worcester, Massachusetts to John Michael Hayes Sr. and Ellen Mabel Hayes. Hayes Sr. was a tool and die maker but had performed as a song and dance man on the Keith-Orpheum vaudeville circuit earlier in life.

As a child, Hayes missed much of his school career from second grade through fifth grade due to ear infections. During that time away from school, he discovered a love of reading. In junior high school, he became a staff writer on The Spectator, the school newspaper, and at age 16, he wrote for the high school yearbook as well as editing a Boy Scout weekly, The Eagle Trail. His work brought him to the attention of Worcester's Evening Gazette, and Hayes began penning articles about Boy Scout activities for the paper.

Later stints with the Worcester Telegram and a profile in The Christian Science Monitor led to a job with the Associated Press. Working diligently, Hayes managed to amass enough money to attend Massachusetts State College.

Radio
At college, Hayes became interested in radio and won a contest to write radio stories for Crosley Corporation in Cincinnati, Ohio. Following his stint with the U.S. Army Special Services division during World War II, Hayes moved to California and resumed his radio career. In California, Hayes wrote for various radio comedies and dramas, including The Adventures of Sam Spade, Alias Jane Doe, Inner Sanctum Mysteries, My Favorite Husband, Sweeney and March, Suspense (radio drama), Twelve Players and Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar.

Films
His success in radio led to an invitation from Universal-International Pictures to write screenplays. His first screen credit was for Redball Express in 1952. Much of Hayes's career was spent writing screenplays for glossy, big-budget melodramas like Torch Song with Joan Crawford, BUtterfield 8 with Elizabeth Taylor, The Carpetbaggers with Carroll Baker, and Where Love Has Gone with Susan Hayward, Mike Connors and Bette Davis. His adaptation of Grace Metalious's steamy bestseller, Peyton Place, earned him an Academy Award nomination.

Hayes collaborated with director Alfred Hitchcock on four films: Rear Window (for which he won an Edgar Award and an Oscar nomination), To Catch a Thief, The Trouble with Harry and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Their first collaboration, Rear Window, is considered by many critics to be one of Hitchcock's best and most thrilling pictures. The Man Who Knew Too Much, a remake of Hitchcock's 1934 film of the same name, became one of the most financially successful films of its year of release. The pair parted company forever after that film.

After several years of retirement, Hayes resurfaced to co-write director Charles Haid's family adventure drama Iron Will, starring Kevin Spacey, in 1994. He taught film writing at Dartmouth College until he retired in 2000.

In 2001, Hayes' collaboration with Alfred Hitchcock was the subject of the book Writing with Hitchcock by Steven DeRosa, which gave a full account of Hayes's four film collaboration with the director. In 2004, Hayes was the recipient of the Writers Guild of America's highest honor, the Screen Laurel Award. Hayes died of natural causes on November 19, 2008 in Hanover, New Hampshire. A movie based upon Writing with Hitchcock is currently in development and a new edition was published in 2011 containing additional material.

Select filmography

 * Thunder Bay (1953)
 * Torch Song (1953)
 * Rear Window (1954)
 * To Catch a Thief (1955)
 * The Trouble with Harry (1955)
 * The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
 * Peyton Place (1957)
 * The Matchmaker (1958)
 * But Not for Me (1959)
 * BUtterfield 8 (1960)
 * The Children's Hour (1961)
 * The Chalk Garden (1964)
 * The Carpetbaggers (1964)
 * Harlow (1965)
 * Nevada Smith (1966)
 * Judith (1966)
 * Winter Kill (1974)
 * Pancho Barnes (1988)
 * Iron Will (1994)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: John Michael Hayes


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychopathology

= 2004 =

What is this project about?
I have a question: What exactly does this project do that WikiProject Medical Conditions does not do? I'm a big fan of WikiProjects, but I don't actually know what this would do to enhance the topics. Of course I do not have a deep knowledge of the subject as many other people might, so I would love to be enlightened. -- Ram-Man

Largely, because this serves as a way for people interested in this particular area to focus, gather and discuss. Since much of the professional world is organised in this way (for example psychiatrists and psychologists having specialist knowledge in this area) it would be beneficial to have this reflected on Wikipedia. Also, WikiProject Medical Conditions aims to describe the diagnoses, prognoses and treatments for medical conditions. For example, entries for anti-psychiatry (movement), James Tilly Matthews (person), hallucination (sensory distortion, not necessarily medical) and Martha Mitchell effect (concept) do not seem to fit very well under these WikiProject Medical Conditions headings, despite the fact they are all relevant to psychopathology. Just aiming for a 'birds of a feather' effect really. -- Vaughan

Clinical depression needs another review. It's got all fuzzy from too much editing to-and-fro and has accumulated some strange things (some of which I have just removed). In particular, the whole Unipolar-Bipolar-Manic Depression set of distinctions is no longer being made clearly. -- The Anome 08:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Drugs
I note the generic/proprietary mention. I thought generic drugs were not capitalised whereas trade names were. It this is the standard then this should be mentioned. Again if it is then it is a bit misleading to list Fluoxetine (Prozac) as this should be fluoxetine (Prozac). What about drugs names that vary from country to country e.g. frusemide vs furosemide (the only one I could think of at the time). While on this point, what is the standard here for reference to concepts and spellings? Does spelling depend on the country of origin of the author? e.g colour vs color? But more relevant to this topic, adrenaline vs epinephrine? --CloudSurfer 06:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Cloudsurfer
 * > capitalisation of generic / proprietary drug names: this should be fluoxetine (Prozac)
 * I agree, this is a standard medical convention, so probably best adopted here.
 * > What about drugs names that vary from country to country e.g. frusemide vs furosemide, adrenaline vs epinephrine etc
 * I think it is probably best to leave it to the author of the article and make sure that the article for the drug itself lists the various names it is used under (as most of them do already).
 * > Other alternative spellings e.g. colour vs color
 * Either are acceptable on wikipedia. See the Manual_of_Style.
 * - Vaughan 15:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categories
I realise that I am new here but the categories don't make a lot of sense to me. If we take health science and work down from there we find it has three subcategories, one of which is medicine. Medicine then has a subcategory Psychiatry - so far so good. Psychiatry then has four subcategories: addiction (wouldn't substance use/abuse be a better category title?), mental illness, then two treatment modalities of psychiatric medication and psychotherapy. At this point we are starting to get wooly. If we follow mental illness we find that psychiatry is a subcategory (so the hierachy goes medicine-psychiatry-mental illness-psychiatry)! We also have a mixture of specific illnesses and broad categories. Mood disorders is one subcategory but so is mania, which really should be a subcategory of mood disorders. We have one treatment modality of Psychiatric medication - yet again. If we follow mood disorders we get no subcategories. If we follow anxiety disorder we get anxiolytics and phobias as subcategories with anxiolytics having a subcategory of benzodiazepines which itself has a subcategory of imidazopyridines. If we follow psychiatric medication we get antidepressants and antipsychotics.

I could go on. The point is that the categories are not very systematic and are at times circular. Some subcategories don't belong where they are and many reasonable subcategories are missing. It would seem that a good start to the psychopathology project would be to sort out the framework of categories. Is there a group that is responsible for this sort of organisation? I am reluctant to change things as I am not really sure how to go about it.

Below is a suggested tree which has partly come from the DSM and partly out of my head so please excuse any glaring oversights:
 * Medicine
 * Psychiatry (and the others, most of which I will omit)
 * Military medicine (these two given as examples)
 * Military psychiatry (also a subcategory of psychiatry)
 * Aviation medicine (these two given as examples)
 * Aviation psychiatry (also a subcategory of psychiatry)
 * Psychiatric symptoms
 * Psychiatric signs
 * Mental disorders
 * Child and adolescent mental disorders
 * Organic mental disorders
 * Mental disorders due to a general medical condition
 * Substance-related disorders
 * Psychotic disorders
 * Mood disorders
 * Anxiety disorders
 * Somatoform disorders
 * Factitious disorders
 * Dissociative disorders
 * Sexual and gender identity disorders
 * Eating disorders
 * Sleep disorders
 * Impulse-control disorders
 * Adjustment disorders
 * Uncommon psychiatric disorders (an additional category for all the rare disorders e.g Capgras syndrome would be in this category and under psychotic disorders)
 * Personality disorders
 * Cluster A PDs
 * Cluster B PDs
 * Cluster C PDs
 * PDs not otherwise specified
 * Other conditions for focus
 * Mental disorder assessment
 * Brain imaging
 * Other psychiatric investigations
 * Psychological testing
 * Mental disorder treatments
 * Prevention of mental disorers
 * Psychiatric hospitals
 * Community psychiatric treatments
 * Psychiatric nursing
 * Physical psychiatric treatments
 * ECT
 * Neurosurgery
 * Psychopharmacology
 * Antipsychotics
 * Antidepresants
 * Mood stabilisers
 * Anxiolytics
 * Miscellaneous psychiatric medications
 * Psychotherapies
 * Psychiatric social work
 * Psychiatric occupational therapy
 * Transcultural psychiatry
 * Liaison psychiatry
 * Forensic psychiatry
 * Military psychiatry (also a subcategory of military medicine)
 * Aviation psychiatry (also a subcategory of aviation medicine)

Not exhaustive but it is a framework on which we could hang our articles as well as pointing out deficiencies in terms of articles that need writing. What do people think? Please add/edit the tree as you see fit. I do not as yet feel confident to create such a tree and then migrate current articles to a new classification. I have also put this list in WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/categorizations so perhaps it is best to discuss it there.--CloudSurfer 09:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I have also edited this list to remove plurals to be consistent with the naming convention. Please comment on or edit the list at WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/categorizations. In the absence of comment so far I have started to implement parts of this tree. --CloudSurfer 18:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Symptoms and Signs
I have copied the entry below from my talk page, taking out the stuff that was irrelevant to this topic. --CloudSurfer 22:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * We now have a classification that is based on disorders: you can look up a disorder and read about its symptoms. That's good. But I think it would also be useful if there was some kind of "reverse lookup table": an article with a list of symptoms along with the disorders that each symptom is associated with (along with a cautionary note at the top of the page not to jump to conclusions). Something like:
 * Compulsive hoarding: Obsessive compulsive disorder, Obsessive compulsive personality disorder
 * Overeating: Bulimia nervosa, Binge eating disorder
 * Shyness: Avoidant personality disorder, Social phobia

 * What do you think about it? Any idea about a short title for such an article? ;) Sietse 18:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea but I think there is an even better way of doing it. If every symptom and sign had its own category then that category could be added to each disorder entry. Thus there would be a way of looking up the category for "thought disorder" and finding that it had articles on schizophrenia, borderline PD, anxiety disorders etc. People could then go to the articles and find that it was core symptom of schizophrena, that it occurred transiently associated with psychoses in borderline PD and that it occasionally occurred in states of high anxiety. The problem is that it creates an overhead of many additional categories. It also means that the category section at the bottom of the page could get really big. The benefit is that it is automatically updating. Someone writes an article on a minor disorder that has "thought disorder" as a symptom. As long as they include that as a category it is immediately available to all on the Category:Thought disorder page. I think we have to have a relational database mindset when we approach this subject and thus try to "normalise" the data base. If we hard code this stuff into a page, like the many lists in Wikipedia, there will inevitably be mistakes. --CloudSurfer 22:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * That sounds good to me. I guess it would be best if we'd organize the symptom categories in a hierarchy, like disorders. Something like:
 * Mental disorders associated with problems in social functioning
 * Mental disorders associated with inhibition in social interactions
 * Mental disorders associated with lack of interest in social interactions
 * Mental disorders associated with antisocial behaviour

 * I think it is important to make the categories very specific. For instance, just about every disorder can be thought of as being a 'thought disorder'. Categories like "Mental disorders associated with negative self image" or "Mental disorders associated with inflated self image" would be more informative. This will also reduce the number of categories to which disorders are assigned. Sietse 11:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that. Your entry didn't come up on my watchlist. I have only just seen this. What I am talking about is not disorders but symptoms and signs. In those terms formal thought disorder is a specific feature of some disorders. A delusion is another. Anxiety is a symptom that occurs in anxiety disorders but also in depression and psychosis. Psychomotor retardation is a sign that occurs in depression. Derealization is a symptom that occurs in ... etc. etc. Perhaps to look at a general medicine example. The person presents with symptoms that they report of a runny nose, cough, sweats and headaches. You examine them and you find they have signs of fever, pharyngitis, tender lymph nodes in the neck. You put all that together with the diagnosis of an upper respiratory tract infection.

 * As far as symptom and sign categories go, no specific categories spring to mind. The mental status examination is one way of looking at them, in which case you could have a structure based on those headings, but they really could be in a flat file without a hierachy. If we went down the MSE approach then we could have symptoms/signs divided up into Appearance, behaviour, speech, affect, mood, though, etc. Then formal thought disorder would be under thought and so would delusions. Elation would be under mood and affect, stuttering and pressured speech would be under speech, etc. --CloudSurfer 09:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm talking about symptom/sign categories too. But if disorders are to be put in such categories, I think the names should reflect that. In general the relationship between an article and the categories in which it is put is a "equals" or "is a subset of"-relationship, so if disorders are put into symptom-categories, the categories should be named "disorder that involves ..." or something similar (e.g. "cyclothymia" "is a subset of" "disorders that involve depressed mood", instead of "cyclothymia" "is a subset of" "depressed mood"). I agree that it's a good idea to organize symptom-categories into a hierarchy that is based on MSE's. Sietse 19:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * PS: Of course the symptom/sign articles themselves would also be placed into such categories. (e.g. the category of mood-related symptoms would contain the article "depressed mood", as well as the category "disorders that involve depressed mood"). That's my idea about it anyway. Sietse 19:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Ahah! The penny drops. I understand what you are saying now. I have been reading elsewhere that categories really should have at least 10 items in them so I think this idea is doomed to failure.  Also, until there is an ability to do boolean category groupings this is not all that practical.  For instance if someone looked up the sign - fever - then they would get thousands of replies.  What they really want is to look up fever AND right lower quadrant abdominal tenderness they would then get a much smaller list of diseases.  One way of looking is go to fever and look up "What links here".  Again this is not boolean.  Using the search engine you will only find the text that is in the article, not the links so if you have pyrexia then a search won't find fever in that article. What we really need is a way to code in the possible symptoms in an invisible way and then have a specific search engine that can search the pages for matches. This would be a keyword search with the keywords being invisible on the page displayed. So, if people are agreeable to this I might suggest this as an improvement to the software and see if they are interested in doing it. --CloudSurfer 06:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I was wrong! The Wikipedia search seems to search everyting in the original text. This means we CAN put keywords into comment lines and they won't display but you can search them - in the Wikipedia search, not Google etc. This opens up more possibilities. --CloudSurfer 06:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still active?
I've moved WikiProject Psychopathology to the Inactive section of the WikiProject page, as it hasn't been edited since Nov 1st; I wanted to let you all know, and ask if you're still working on it. If so, feel free to move it back up into the active section. JesseW 08:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi JessW
 * It's still very much active as when not writing new articles, we still maintain and monitor current ones.
 * - Vaughan 09:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Multi-licencing: Creative Commons and FDL

 * Hello.
 * Many of you may have read on your talk pages (especially the 2000 top contributors) about multi-licencing, that is, using both Creative Commons and FDL licences.
 * I know there are several very good psychology and psychopathology Wiki sites that would benefit from this multi-licencing, especially those that follow a Wiki philosophy and haven't much content of their own.
 * I would like to know more about how it specifically affects members of this WikiProject and what their stance is, particularly those who play the role of administrators. I understand this is a user decision, not necessarily a WikiProject decision.
 * My stance? I am in favour of the Creative Commons licence. I took this decision on December the 11th 2004.
 * Please let me know about your stances. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion about this.
 * Thank you very much. I will answer lots of questions and respect all your decisions.
 * EuropracBHIT 10:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC).

= 2005 =

Unethical experiments using psychiatric patients

 * Dear Sirs of Wikipedia Psychopathology,

I would like to request a section or article about unethical experiments using psychiatric patients; and i would suggest something about recent experiments, like those shown in Robert Whitaker`s book "Mad In America" (Chapter 10 The Nuremberg Code Doesn`t Apply Here). I am not proposing sensationalism, but only the coverage of unethical experiments that have actually been performed, and are probably still being performed, in countries like the USA. I would like something like an investigative enquiry about this issue, involving simultaneously aspects of human rights, ethics in research, psychiatry and also science. I insist i am not proposing sensationalism. Wikipedia has already articles about MKULTRA, Project CHATTER, Project BLUEBIRD, Project ARTICHOKE, MKNAOMI, Tuskegee syphilis study, Louis Joylon West, etc, so why not cover this ? Examples of the mentioned experiments are:

 * - Giving hallucinogen drugs to patients suffering from hallucinations and delusions;
 * - Giving stimulant drugs to patients undergoing episodes of acute mania;
 * - Giving neuroleptic drugs (that are toxic and don`t have any healing power) to underage minors not displaying any psychiatric symptoms, for years and years, only because they have older siblings diagnosed with psychosis, with the excuse of "preventing psychosis".

Thank you for your attention,

Alberto

 * Hi Alberto

 * This sounds like an excellent idea, although perhaps a comprehensive article on the ethics of psychiatric research, rather than simply listing the unethical research which has taken place, might make for a more balanced (and interesting) article.

 * - Vaughan 12:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
The article Psychotherapy is currently nominated to be improved on on This week's improvement drive. If you are interested you can vote for it there.--Fenice 13:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls
Hello, Please notice this project. I hope that the List of publications in philosophy and List of publications in psychology will be adopted by the psychopathology project. Thanks,APH 06:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

About DSM criteria
Hi! I'm working on trying to improve Swedish wikipedias articles on psychopathology, right now I'm working on translating the excellent schizophrenia article. I have two questions: /Skagedal 16:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I wonder what people have thought about including DSM criteria in articles, in terms of copyright.  Could this be a problem, or is it justified quotation?
 * 2) The criterias often do not flow very well in the main text - how about putting them in floating boxes on the side, as is often seen in textbooks?

= 2006 =

DID
The attention of this project seems to now be directed at the DID article -- or at least, the vast changes there seem to be carried out under the aegis of this project, by Zeraeph and Mjformica.

Most of the old article has been axed and replaced with a precis of the DSM-IV diagnosis and an explanation that assumes that there is such a condition and that it is as real, recognizable, and treatable as any physical condition. My protests have been dismissed on the grounds that I'm not a psychologist.

While in general I welcome the participation of qualified editors, they should not be given carte blanche to defend the sacred cows of their profession by erasing any hint of controversy. The whole history of MPD/DID in the US (and to a lesser extent in other English-speaking countries) seems to be a somewhat embarrassing episode to the defenders of the faith, and it seems to be in the process of being expunged.

No profession is beyond criticism. Wikipedia rules mandate the inclusion of notable points of view, even when those POVs are not majority POVs. Critics of the MPD/DID craze are notable -- especially when they're members of the American Psychological Association.

Mjformica seems to have based his practice on dissociative disorders, is a strong upholder of the diagnosis and of a certain POV within the APA, and does not seem to understand that he has to give the critics equal time. Could other members of this project take time out from the headlong rush to "standardization" to consider the WP ground rules? Zora 17:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe a review of the article as it stands, as well as a historical review of its content will assure all that Zora's issue is being addressed with full intention, and that her statements here are not only unfounded, but pre-emptive in nature.

 * To that point, the section entitled "The controversy over dissociation" follows directly after what I perceive to be a qualified and balanced introduction. The "controversy" section begins with a specific review of the DSM re-dress of MPD/DID over the years, and points to that publication's struggle with qualifying the disorder.  The section also includes no less than six different as-yet-to-be-cited (I'm being lazy about writing them out, but they are noted in the text) references to published points that review issues with the diagnosis. This section does need to be, and will be, expanded.

 * Frankly, I am not certain what Zora is talking about. If someone can enlighten me as to how her stated arguments above apply to the reality of the article, her perception of my professionla practice, and the mandates of this project, I would be grateful.

 * Thanks, all... --Mjformica 18:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Zora seems to have misunderstood what has become of the old article. There was a lot of work in it and it made some important points very well, but exclusively about the MPD/DID controversy, with only the most minimal mention of what DID actually is, so that I moved it (pretty much verbatum) to a new article Multiple Personality Controversy devoted entirely to this important topic.

 * MJFormica has actually added considerably to the excellent (and already adequate) section on "Controversy" that remained in the dissociative identity disorder article when I had finished...and in the course of so doing he put the Skeptics case very strongly.

 * I don't really understand what Zora's problem IS, unless she wants to suppress all definition and description of dissociative identity disorder from Wikipedia? (And Zora, as one civilised person to another I would ask you to give serious consideration as to whether this may be exactly what you are, unconsciously, trying to do?)--Zeraeph 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

NO! I just don't want the "official" DSM view presented as the truth. You have made a few pro-forma edits towards dethroning the official view, but the overall impression is still "this is the truth, there IS such a disorder, this is what causes it, this is how it is treated". But if you think that it's all a FAD, then all of that is suspect.

I need to try editing the article myself -- it's just that it would take HOURS to dethrone the psych-speak and reintroduce some of the material that has been removed, and I'm recovering from a cold, and tired.

I don't want the DSM material removed -- it's one of the POVs that must be represented -- but it is should not be treated as holy writ. Zora 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No one is treating the DSM view as holy writ. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to engender debate.  The article says, "This is what it is, and these are the problems with the argument."

 * Your evangelical position on the presentation of this article clearly no longer has to do with the article. Rather, it is clear that it has to do with your personal agenda, and you are using Wiki-policy to deflect attention to that fact.

 * This is an article on psychopathology. It does not matter if there is controversy around the diagnosis.  Dethroning the psych-speak (nice) is a clear expression of a personal agenda, and goes back to my original observation that your personal Talk page repeatedly indicates that you exercise your POV, soapbox (not my word), use Wiki-pedia as a forum for your personal agenda, etc. and hide behind policy.

 * I would ask respectfully that you cease and desist while the article is in process. --Mjformica 11:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Zora, four facts even you cannot deny:

 * 1) The DSM Lists Dissociative identity disorder
 * 2) People are really diagnosed with Dissociative identity disorder in terms of the DSM
 * 3) People really claim to have Dissociative identity disorder in terms of the DSM
 * 4) There is controversy over the diagnosis

 * The article now clearly makes those points, and defines them equally. What you want to do is remove all that and replace the article with irrelevancies about repressed memory and cult abuse, that, if and when they are relevant at all, relate only to point 4, - again.

 * Let's examine your original "colonisation" (for want of a better word) of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dissociative_identity_disorder&diff=5367204&oldid=5283780, which does just that. Your last idea of what the article should be is now multiple personality controversy, to which, I notice, you have not made even the smallest edit, so I must conclude you agree with me that it is totally relevant to it's current topic without further alteration, which begs the question of why, therefore, you thought it was also totally relevant as a definition of DID alone?

 * I will not speculate further on you motivation in doing this, nor on the "tactics" you appear to use to try and "enforce" it, but I will state that what you have tried to do is most definately NOT in accord with either policy or reality and I, respectfully, wish you would, "cut it out" too. --Zeraeph 12:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Joining...
Hey...I've just been lurking for a while, and this looks intersting. Can I just join up (which is something I presumptuously did...) or do I have to be invited or something? Sorry in advance if I did something wrong. --Seriphim 01:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Seriphim,

 * You just need to add yourself to the list. It's an interest group, so members are anyone with an interest.

 * - Vaughan 12:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Vaughan. I appreciate your taking the time to respond.  --Seriphim 15:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Ratings
Hello. WikiProject Psychology has begun rating the quality of articles on Wikipedia in the field of psychology. Would it be appropriate for us to rate and work on articles on psychological disorders, or would you rather we left articles relevant to psychopathology for your project to deal with? I just don't want to step on any toes here. Thanks! --Zeligf 16:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Zeligf

 * This sounds like a great idea. I think it's very appropriate for the Psychology Wikiproject to rate psychopathology articles as the more people who read through with a critical eye the better.

 * - Vaughan 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

New Articles
Dear colleagues of mine, psychiatrists/neurologists/pharmacologists/psychologists:

-I would like to invite you all to visit the recent pages we posted in Wikipedia (english & portuguese):

Dysphrenia: & Tardive Dysphrenia:

I wonder if they may be of interest for your relevant project. Comments, questions, positive criticisms posted on their discussion, as on private, will be wellcome, OK?!

Thankfully in advance, Cheers, Leo.

''Leopoldo Hugo Frota, MD Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry - Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. leopoldo.frota@uol.com.br''

Sister project
Just as heads-up, there is a somewhat related project, Pedophilia Article Watch in existance. We aren't on your line of descent (our ultimate parent is the Sociology project), but some of material intersects with your (although a good amount of the material we deal with is political). As you might image we are very busy, and as our name implies we are busy trying to keep bias out of our articles. Help is always needed and wanted! Herostratus 17:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychosis
Psychosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ TWO YEARS OF MESSED  ROCKER ★  03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

= 2007 =

Articles for Deletion: Mental Health Association of San Francisco

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC on the Rorschach test: fresh eyes needed
Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Should Rorschach test display all ten images used in the test and the common responses, or should we act on psychologists' concerns that doing so undermines the test? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anal Expulsiveness Disorder
Dear psychopathology experts: This page was created in Afc but never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Is this already covered in Anal expulsiveness, or is this a separate notable topic? Should the article be kept?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emotional amoral egoism
Hello psychopathology experts. Is this old Afc submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


text:
Talk:International trade of genetically modified foods

Is Canada not involved in this mess? Rmhermen 22:36 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * hum ? Which mess ? Rmhermen, since you are involved here...I wrote most of this article. Please, feel free to copy edit it strongly if you think it is necessary for fluidity of expression ; Thanks User:anthere

I wonder if the article as written doesn't underplay the importance of agricultural protectionism. One of the advantages of forcing GM food labeling, I would think, is that it would give an advanatge to small "organic" farmers. This seems quite convenient, given that the EU countries consider preserving the "quaintness" of their countrysides a cultural priority, while the death of the family farm seems to be more generally accepted in North America. Europe certainly wouldn't be alone in feigning concern over the supposed safety of foreign food in order to protect their own industries (look at what Japan is doing right now re: mad cow disease). -- stewacide 23:21 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but you hit with your "feigning" all the people that are worried. I am worried. So you directly hit me.
 * You are right, agricultural protectionism is involved. But please take care when you just insult hundret of millions of people. (I could also use words on the same level of yours: In Europe we have still the culture to disagree on certain points and not to follow our leaders blindly... do you feel better now? ;-) Fantasy 05:39 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * the usage of "feigning" is totally out of line :-) We don't feign. I would like to state that I wrote most of the initial article, and as such, it is only my perspective, and not enough to cover the topic by far. I tried to be far on both sides, but I am biased :-) In particular, it would be nice to have more on other countries positions on the matter. This is a planetary war, not to be reduced to US EU only. Yes, it would deserve much more on protectionism. Because this also very important. However, do not give too much importance in the topic to the advantage meant for the organic farmers. At least in my country (which is the first producer in the EU, so is of major importance in this trade war, since being the primary benefactor of protectionism), protectionism is meant to protect traditional agriculture, MUCH more than organic farming. We are first using traditional intensive technics, and the goal in requiring labels is to protect consumers, not organic farmers or organic consumers. Labels are envision for all food. There might be a different trend in other european countries, though I think generally not. ant

What I meant was that the governments in European countries may be overplaying the risks of GM foods as a cover for protectionism. I have no doubt that many citizens are personally fearful.

 * well, if you can find relevant references of people supporting this view, that is just fine. Anthere

Also, I agree that this shouldn't be characterized as just a US vs. EU thing. In fact, the US and EU are traditional allies on issues of agricultural trade in that they're both strong protectionists. The alliance between the US and the pro-free-trade "Cairns Group" countries (Canada, Australia, and the developing world) is quite unusual. There are probably other countries (Japan?) that side with the EU for one reason or another.

Also, I wonder about strains within EU, such as between food exporters like France and food importers (Italy? Spain?).

 * Well, you can wonder of course :-) But this has nothing to do with this current discussion :-) It should belong to another article. Since there is a moratorium in Europe, exporting countries such as France do not export gmo toward food importers. Anthere

p.s. If that "follow our leaders blindly" thing was a jab at the US, no dice, I'm Canadian (Happy Canada Day to ya' :)

Also, Europeans accusing North Americans of having a mob mentality is pretty ironic IMHO. When was the last time we had a war or genocide in North America? Europeans and your silly ethnic nationalism; when will you learn!?! ;) -- stewacide 07:00 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Stewacide, you did not get the point. I just tried to explain you (probably with the wrong example, but it seems that you got insulted, so the effect was right) that YOU ARE HURTING PEOPLE. If you want to discuss something, would it not be better to concentrate on the facts istead insulting people with a different opinion than yours with "feigning". Fantasy 11:57 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think, it is better to restart the discussion:

agricultural protectionism versus food safety

 * stewacide thinks, that the EU is using worries about food safety to achieve agricultural protectionism.
 * Fantasy and Ant agree that this is involved. But the main goal in requiring labels is to protect consumers, not organic farmers or organic consumers. Let the consumer decide, if they want to buy modified food.

Perhaps "Genetic Engineering"  should be added to the list of Demons and devils that someone is compiling, it certainly sounds very dangerous. Ping 07:11 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Despite the fact that no scientific study has yet shown genetically modified food to be unacceptably harmful to people ...

Has any study found GM foods to be acceptably harmful to people? Evercat 17:56 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * That's what I thought when I read it. I'm going to remove the "unacceptably" untill someone can show a study that indicated otherwise. -- stewacide

 * there were some "unacceptable" problems reported with severe cases of allergy. But the gmo have been removed. I am not aware of current relevant studies precisely on "acceptable" ones :-). However, I know of current environmental pbs which are considered acceptable. Fun :-)

Despite the fact that no scientific study has yet shown genetically modified food to be harmful or harmless to humans

How can any study or any number of studies ever prove something to be entirely "harmless"? -- stewacide

IT CANT - it is impossible to prove a lone hypothesis, one can only accumulate evidence that is consistent (or not) with a system of hypotheses that constitute a philosophy. There will always be room for your hypothesis to turn out false, because other assumptions may be violated. Add to this that (the departing agriculture minister indicated) British field trials and other government funded research has intentionally neglected any 'indirect' routes by which GMOs may cause harm to humans, such as damage to the ecosystem. So I am worried too (it's not like you can take GM out of the ecosystem if you got it wrong, and it's not as if Genetic Engineering is equivalent to the current system of genetic design).

 * I was pointing out why the addition of the word "harmless" was meaningless and lacking in NPOV. It gives the reader the impression that insuffecient research has been carried out, when in fact no ammount of research could ever be suffeceient to make such a claim (I'm sure there's a fancy latin name for this type of rhetorical falacy).

 * Would anyone object to me changing it back to "Despite the fact that no scientific study has yet shown genetically modified food to be harmful to humans..." ? -- stewacide 07:19 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think your proposed wording is true - IIRC some researchers added genes for manufacturing toxins to some previously edible food organism, then demonstrated that it did indeed become toxic... So we need to restrict the statement to stuff actually intended for human consumption (and to avoid giving a misleading impression, to indicate the extent to which people have looked - of course they wont have found a mechanism if they haven't looked at all - the amount of information in the statement is proportional to the amount of research done.).

I wonder if Trade in genetically modified food wouldn't be a better title? Calling it a "trade war" may have NPOV problems. -- stewacide 18:56 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * But If you say "trade war" every one knows what we are talking about. Wikipedia uses many times the "used" words, not necessarely the "correct" word. Bush is going to court against EU, and if he does not win, I don't want to know what is next. (By the way: was the "cold war" a war?)Fantasy 21:10 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * it might be different another day. But currently, the trade is a war. An economical war. And that is what the article is talking about. Just talking about trade of a specific product would not perhaps justify an article. In all honestly, I think it would be prudery (politically correct) to rename an article without the "war" word, just to talk about "trade war" in it. And yes, it would be misleading on the topic indeed :-) ant (the cold war was a war imho)

-

of course, you are all welcome to move that to the best host article :-) But...if we start saying GMO plants have not been scientifically been proved to be dangerous, it is just fair that information is *really* added on the topic, yes ? User:anthere

I think that most of this information on Roundup should be moved to its page, not here. Rmhermen 19:27 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I see no pb with that. But, I mostly wrote this because it was added there were no credible scientific proofs GMO could be bad for the environment :-) I think I even forgot to look for RoundUp article. The only thing important imho is
 * a high number of currently cultivated gmo are those resistant to glyphosate
 * Round up sales have skyrocketted since GMO surfaces increased, and farmers cultivating gmos tend to use much more than before. Round up herbicide active ingredient is glyphosate
 * Glyphosate (also cancerogenous- should I also add it ?) and other Round up ingredients have been proved (relevant scientific studies) dangerous at high quantities, safety issue for farmers, toxic for fauna, less degradable than claimed by Monsanto (even if it is *far* less toxic than plenty other herbicides)

Consequently -> use of GMO -> use of round up -> more glyphosate -> pb for humans, fauna, water quality...

Add cases of allergies, increase resistance, bt issues, studies showing diffusion of genes from one species to another (I have some virus diffusion at hand), I think that ultimately, the sentence "no credible studies have shown that some gmo have proven dangerous for the environment" should...just perhaps...be rephrased a bit ?

When done, we could perhaps explain why Gmos are good for a change ? Anthere

141, though I agree we should avoid to repeat unduly similar linkages in articles, I also think your way to hunt any double link is not a very good practice sometimes. When an article is - at two different places - referring to two different aspects of another article, it makes sens to orient the reader to this article again, not to let him search several paragraphs above the reference of this article he has maybe not focused on. This is very common practice in numerous articles.User:anthere

-- Polls done in 2000, (Libération), 73% of French people worried by presence of GMO in food (77% for women)

polls done end of 2002 show (libération)
 * French people totally opposed 48%, opposed 24 %

polls in april 2002 (eurobarometre)
 * Only 31% of europeans would encourage GMO in food.
 * Spain, favorable 35%
 * Germany 52% strongly opposed
 * England, 25% favorable

Basically, 3 persons among 4 opposed and worried, that does not mean "some" but "widespread". Imho. User:Anthere

Yknow, I coulda sworn waaay more countries than the US were fighting the EU in the WTO over this. -- Penta.

--

It seems to me that this article has a lot of irrelevant references to the Iraq war. Jtrainor 18:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey there, think Wikipedia's great and I'd like to learn more about html so I can contribute effectively every now & then. Thus, didn't want to tweak the main page by trying to add this information myself, but

While two of the main criticisms of the WTO dispute panel process have been 1. lack of participation by non-members (e.g. NGOs) 2. lack of transparency there may yet be hope. The Appellate board did, in a recent decision, consider an NGO submission previously unavailable to the dispute panel considering the decision under appeal. This may establish jurisprudence for NGOs wishing to make future submissions but there is probably a long way to go before these will have impact on decisions still made within parameters narrowed by financial concerns. Furthermore, given the significance of the GMO dispute between U.S. & E.U. it was recently revealed that the panel determining the dispute would need to extend the normally limited decisionmaking process due to the complaxity of the arguments before it. A speaker at the recent World Conservation Union meeting in Sydney, 2005, revealed that October has been set as the definite date for this decision. holigopoly 01:01, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

- Some parts of this article are pretty much out of date, speaking about coming events in 2003 and 2004. Don't know a lot about this topic, but it seems to me that this "trade war" is still going on. Anyone able to update this? Maybe one could also link this to other "trade wars"... 134.83.201.84 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Updating or not
An alternative to updating is to give that page a title reflecting the dates of the events. E.g. : "GM food war 2000-2004"

Then a link to a new current page shall be enough. --193.56.241.75 08:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WHAT PEOPLE???????????
why cant i find any information on the netherlands??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????):<

NPOV?
This appears to be an advocacy piece rather than an encyclopedia article, and reflects a basic misunderstanding of GM regulation and the WTO dispute. It quotes a German Greenpeace spokesman on the question of what US consumers want, and cites Aventis - a European company based in Strasbourg, France - as a "US biotechnology giant." The essay alludes to an EU "ban" on GM food products, but both the US and the EU "ban" GM food products until they have been approved through the regulatory process. The WTO complaint was not based on the failure of the EU to approve GM products, but their failure to make any decisions at all. The US asserted that the EU regulatory process had been stalled for political reasons and had effectively become a prohibition not based on scientific evidence as to health and safety, which is a non-tariff barrier prohibited by the WTO agreement. The US did not seek to have GM food products approved, it sought to have the EU regulatory process put back into use - to have the safety reviews conducted and the decisions - pro or con - made. 83.79.7.14 04:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

food crises during the 1990's?
"In Europe, a series of unrelated food crises during the 1990s created consumer apprehension about food safety in general, eroded public trust in government oversight of the food industry, and left some consumers unwilling to consider "science" to be a guarantee of quality."

What was the nature of these food crises?Zebulin 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I guess it refers to the mad cow disease. --Tweenk (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Marketing Biotechnology
This section appears to be copied from a textbook. It references chapters in the textbook. I'm not sure that it adds much to the article. Is there something in this section worth saving? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.254.147 (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In short, no. It was also an unsourced copyright violation from http://www.gate2biotech.com/biotech-holds-enormous-promise-1.  I've removed the section. 24.191.236.42 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq
Why are there so many references to the 2003 invasion of Iraq in this article? I would like to remove them all.Zebulin (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead: Be bold. I don't think the Iraq war is very relevant to the topic, though it may have seemed so back in 2003 when this article was written, so feel free to remove those references. Terraxos (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Arpad Pusztai
"Árpád Pusztai, considered by many to be the leading expert on GM foods" - you can`be serious? Who are those many? For sure not she scientific community, maybe by antiGMO campaigners, but in that case, a reference and more specifity is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavrentii (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed this description, it's an obvious example of weasel words. Robofish (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 * While the original reference was bullshit, I added the correct description back in: Árpád Pusztai, considered the world's foremost expert on plant lectins, This is sourced in the linked article about his person (no need to put a footnote in here, I guess?). 92.206.160.78 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

merged into Genetically modified food controversies article
This article was outdated and mostly covered topics already discussed in the Genetically modified food controversies article, so I merged it into that article.Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


text:
Van der Waals

Van der Waals or Van der Waal may refer to:

People

 * Fransje van der Waals (born 1950), Dutch medical physician
 * Grace VanderWaal (born 2004), American singer-songwriter
 * Henk van der Waal (born 1960), Dutch poet
 * Joan van der Waals (1920–2022), Dutch physicist
 * Johannes Diderik van der Waals (1837–1923), Dutch physicist
 * (1912–1950), Dutch spy, in German service during World War II (see Dutch resistance)

Physics
There are a series of subjects named after Johannes Diderik van der Waals:
 * Van der Waals force
 * Van der Waals equation
 * Van der Waals molecule
 * Van der Waals radius
 * Van der Waals surface

Other uses

 * Van der Waals (crater), named after the physicist
 * Mona Vanderwaal, Pretty Little Liars character

title: Van der Waals


text:
Thomas-Michael Gribow

Thomas-Michael Gribow was conductor of the Akademische Orchestervereinigung in Göttingen, Germany from 1991-2003.; He is also study leader and conductor of the Chemnitz Opera.

title: Thomas-Michael Gribow