Talk:Selective breeding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Statement
"The fallacy of breed purity "
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)
[edit] Regarding my recent edits
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:
- Deleted ‘landrace’. I can find no definition of this word beyond Landrace, referring to several breeds of swine in Northern Europe.
- Moved paragraph on the Appaloosa horse, to an example following the methods of selective breeding.
- ‘Fallacy of’ changed to the neutral ‘debate over’. Deleted North-American centric wording; this occurs all over.
- Copyedited paragraphs dealing with eugenics, added references to hybrid vigor and to domestic cats.
Quill 00:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Artificial Selection
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)
[edit] # of references
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)