Talk:Selective breeding

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

Recent edits[edit]

  • Small expansion re plant selection in the introduction. Provided required citation in the "Plant breeding" section.Donach (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement[edit]

"The fallacy of breed purity "

This is not at all NPOV. This article need to be written from a neutral point of view. --mav

There seems to be an incomplete edit. I've removed the broken sentence from the end of the paragraph

Studbooks have been kept for centuries; the concept of the breed associations and clubs is more recent. Most of the "purebred horses" have open studbooks. For example, a "purebred" Arabian mare can be "examined" by the Trakehner authorities; if she is found acceptable, her offspring can be registered as Trakehner. in which mares and stallions

so it now reads grammatically. Agree that there is also a POV problem. Andrewa 22:13 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edits[edit]

I agreed with User Mav's concerns over the lack of NPOV. I also thought the article could benefit from some tightening, so I did some copyediting, and specifically:

  1. Deleted ‘landrace’. I can find no definition of this word beyond Landrace, referring to several breeds of swine in Northern Europe.
  2. Moved paragraph on the Appaloosa horse, to an example following the methods of selective breeding.
  3. ‘Fallacy of’ changed to the neutral ‘debate over’. Deleted North-American centric wording; this occurs all over.
  4. Copyedited paragraphs dealing with eugenics, added references to hybrid vigor and to domestic cats.

Quill 00:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merge with Artificial Selection[edit]

I attempted to link this article from another, and it wasn't at all what I expected. What I expected is covered clearly under the Artificial Selection article. This article covers an extremely narrow scope of the phrase "selective breeding" and discusses the term's use within the scope of domesticated animals only. Tarcieri 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. I have commented on the artificial selection page. Also, crossbreeding has to do with species hybrids, and this does not, there fore they should no be merged either. pschemp | talk 05:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

# of references[edit]

There only seems to be one reference for the entire article, which seems to be why it keeps getting marked as {{unreferenced}}. {{refimprove}} is a better choice, but I'll see what I can do to add citations instead of just tagging the article. —Rob (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "Selective plant breeding is also used in research to produce transgenic animals that breed "true"" doesn't really make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.12.244 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Artificial selection[edit]

This merger has not been discussed for more than six years and I believe that it deserves revisiting. From all I can tell, there is no difference between the meaning of "selective breeding" and of "artificial selection". The only difference between the two terms appears to be not in their meaning but rather in their usage; one term is used by the masses while the other term is used by scientists. If anyone can demonstrate that this assertion is incorrect, please do so. Otherwise, the Artificial selection article should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be correct; just for the record, tell me why you think the overall merge should land here rather than at Artificial selection, which appears to be the stronger article? I don't have a strong opinion on this, just curious, as the default tends to be to go with the more scientific terminology, isn't it? Montanabw(talk) 20:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Material is duplicated here from other pages[edit]

This article currently has a mass of material that duplicates other pages, which is not necessary or appropriate for a well-written wikipedia page. I'm being fought in my attempts to clean this up to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Signing off. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You made the same argument at animal husbandry. All you seem to be doing is randomly deleting things. You would do better to go do some research, add footnotes and do work to improve these articles. Better yet, create a sandbox in your own userspace where you can fiddle with the article to your heart's content and then put in a nice, finished, properly done, GA-quality article without having to worry about intermediate stages. Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

History[edit]

Does anyone else think the "History" section reads a lot like Monsanto astro-turfing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • That section may have changed since you left this comment, but I saw nothing resembling astroturf here. The artificial selection of corn and other crops, to which I believe you are alluding, is a well-documented historical phenomenon and highly relevant to the section. 167.244.212.246 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Selective breeding/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article appears biased from the standpoint of an animal breeder. The article should be written from a scientific, neutral standpoint. Please revise. This article is linked from 'negative selection' and yet it makes no mention of negative selection whatsoever. Someone familiar with negative selection should add material related to that idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.149.16 (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)