Talk:Stem cell/External links proposals

This page is for discussion about external links that would be well suited on the Stem cells page.

Links to Add
Since this is a high volume/sensitive article, I've added a notice in the external links section to discuss all additions first on this talk page in line with a lot of the other good/featured biosciences articles. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. CyrilleDunant 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mormoncentury.org/www/ContentPages/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=206
I didn't read about the requirement for discussion before adding an external link abou why five senators who shared the same faith, but not the same party, decided to support federal funding for SCR. I hope this explanation will suffice.

I don't think anyone will aruge that SCR is a controversial topic, since this article contains a subsection about that very aspect. And since there are only two arguments for or against, the potential for developing treatments and the largely religious argument against embryonic stem cell research, a link to a discussion explaining why 5 percent of the senate helped turn the resulting vote is not irrelevant.

Right now there are no other links to discussions of the controversy. The explanation that was provided for deleting the reference was that it was "almost" a blog post and "too U.S.-centered." Since the subsection about the controversy is almost entirely U.S. centered, that seems an irrelevant objection. Also, if it isn't a blog, it isn't a blog. "Almost" doesn't seem a good enough reason; I don't know what the person's criteria for deciding a site is "almost" a blog. Preston McConkie 05:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, it is not an institutional source: neither journal nor news channel. It is a personal website. Also, if you think the source is relevant to the encyclopedia, why not put it on the controversy article, where it has its place? This article tries to focus on the scientific aspects, and material pertaining to the debate tend to upset the balance established over many months.CyrilleDunant 06:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not include/Disagree. The intro stub in this article is not framed as a US-centered debate. The basis of the debate is practically the same everywhere. It just happens that in the US, it tends to be very visible and vocal. The reasoning is the same though. I think this could be proposed as an addition to the Stem cell controversy article, but I'd rather see it as a reference for a sourced statement/information within an article rather than a bare link. There is a separate "US policy context" section in that article, so the information may fit in well there as long as the language used is NEUTRAL. Also, the source isn't really a blog, it's more of an interview or lecture as far as I can tell. However, whatever is in it should be presented as an OPINION. Also, I cannot see anything referencing why any US senators voted one way or another (Congress is mentioned once and only about someone testifying, not a vote), so there shouldn't be any representation as such. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Upon a further look, this source does not represent the official positions of the U.S. senators in question, but rather it is a lecture delivered by a member of the LDS. It should NOT be used to represent the views of those members of congress. Also, Preston McConkie is practically spamming Mormon-related articles with links to this web site. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the rules here better, and I respect Cquan's remarks. I have re-inserted the link into the controversy part, along with an explanatory sentence, so I hope that qualifies better. Also, I notice Cquan has accused me of spamming LDS-related articles. It's true I've been adding links to parts of that site to various LDS-related articles, but that's because I have a moment's enthusiasm regarding the site. I think it treats some of those issues pretty nicely, particularly polygamy and Blacks and the Priesthood. As I understand spam, it means just dumping a bunch of unsolicited stuff on someone, stuff they don't want. If the link is clearly germain to the topic, I don't know why the volume of links I've placed or the fact that they go to different places on the same site should matter. I'm brand-new to this forum, but I didn't start off with links. I started just doing minor copyediting. I'll get off this kick for mormoncentury.org pretty soon, since I've already made all the links I wanted to anyway, I've just been coming back to the ones that get deleted. In future, I will engage in more discussion rather than just throwing stuff on. Preston McConkie 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I've been saying, this link/content belongs (if anywhere) on the Stem cell controversy article. The section on this article is just an excerpt and going into a specific point isn't appropriate for it. The controversy article has a section on the U.S. policy context. However, I've read the site in question and I think it's a highly biased piece that doesn't do much to back up that anything it says about the U.S. senators is credible and should be taken as anything more than opinion. Wikipedia requires reputable/reliable sources, which I don't think this qualifies as. If other editors think otherwise to the point of establishing consensus, then by all means it can be included. At this point, it's equivalent to Joe Schmo expressing an opinion (which is NOT credible enough for use as a source). -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

International Society for Stem Cell Research
"The International Society for Stem Cell Research is an independent, nonprofit organization formed in 2002 to foster the exchange of information on stem cell research." As far as I know, this society is the largest one for stem cell research --Negative and Positive 11:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed external link - Stem Cells on PBS

 * Stem Cell Gold Rush - KQED-TV, Video & Resources

As per the page guidelines, I submit the above for inclusion Craigrosa 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. TimVickers 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)