Talk:Captive breeding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

California Wolf Center[edit]

Please show me whre in this web site, on whatever pages, there is any information about captive breeding that would make it necessary to be included per WP:EL. This is an org that may or may not do captive breeding, but if we wanted to list all of those there would be thousands. When asked to reply on the talk page instead of reverting, please do so. Bob98133 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this yet again. If there is information about captive breeding (not about services offered), then that information should be included in the article and the reference should be a citation to the specific page containing the information. This is an article about the nature and practice of captive breeding, not about who does captive breeding (I have about 900 candidate zoos if you really want to try starting and maintaining such a list in a separate article). This article lists the major organizations that COORDINATE captive breeding. It doesn't even list the studbook keepers for each of the species with programs (about 160 studbooks, though some organizations maintain multiple studbooks), let alone individual organizations. Donlammers (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


  • I noticed that when discussing success it is noted that "failure in other breeding habitats may be due to "poor" sperm morphology." I do not have access to the article from which this is referenced, but I have seen other articles which state that cheetahs have poor sperm quality themselves.
  • Included information about studbooks and how they are used by those in conservation could be useful to the reader, even possibly a link to another Wikipedia page.
  • Add details on how the breeding programs are implemented and cultural differences, for example in Europe natural mating is used more often. while in the US, artificial means are used in order to have more control over which genes will combine.

Langhorst.7` (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Needs a total rewrite[edit]

The writing style of this article is inconsistent and sometimes confusing. The information is good and useful to anyone needing information on this topic. This article has the potential of becoming very good. I also detect that there is a point of view problem, I call it the 'anti-anthropomorphic' effect. This is where human activity is cast in a negative light, creating the impression that anything that man does is bad and everything that occurs in nature is good. If editors stick to the facts, we should have a good article. If you want to include some point of view material it has to be referenced to some other source rather than the opinion of an editor. There shouldn't be any problems finding lots of people who have blamed humankind for the ills of the planet.

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)