Talk:Introgression

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 4 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AsteforiiAlbicans.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge?
See discussion at Talk:Genetic pollution. The present, short article is an attempt to make a serious discussion. Genetic pollution is much longer but a load of opinionated, crappy, disgraceful and ugly bullshit. And this is a Very Bad Thing, because the phenomenon is real and known to be (at least in some cases) a problem requiring human intervention. Having knee-jerk shitty articles is a disservice. Dysmorodrepanis 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this. i had been trying to fix up genetic pollution working on a paragraph here and there, but its such a mess that a fresh start would help a lot. David D. (Talk) 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have given up working on that page, but I still stand by my belief that the Genetic pollution page should ONLY discus that term in its more narrow understanding, its not a scientific term (gene flow covers invasive species and genetic pollution should stay focused on GMOs) even if its been occasionally used by quasi scientific and governmental sources. The article as formed is a hodgepodge of concepts blended into a political piece. David D has done a lot of work on it and its more focused than it was but its still a blending of concepts that is injurious to truly communicating what each concept really represents.  Hardyplants 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think its a complete mess. I had contemplated just removing two whole sections, but i thought I'd wait to see what the "owners" reaction was before continuing. There is no doubt that genetic pollution is popular in the press, activists and with politicians, even their scientific advisors seem to be gravitating to it too.  Part of the problem is that Nature, itself, the supposed voice of science, used the term to describe the wolf/dog hybrids albeit in a headline for a news item, NOT a paper. I'm sure they thought it was cute at the time but the political activists seem to have hijacked that little joke for their own means.


 * If used incorrectly enough, the definitions of terms can change. As I pointed out on the talk page, genetic pollution has been used in some scientific papers now too, although from Japanese authors. Possibly we might be surprised to find more scientists describing hybridisation of invasive with the wild population as genetic pollution in the future. As far as I can tell, however, the only common usage of this term is too describe the potential hybridisation of GE crop plants with wild relatives. I think I'd favor a redirect to introgression, or possibly one to GMO's. Both these articles should mention the term and its correct usage.  David D. (Talk) 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse merge into Introgression so as to limit Genetic pollution article to discussion of the term in the popular sphere, and Introgression to cover the science, along the lines of Hardyplants' suggestion above.  (FWIW, I put some effort into hackimg back the over-linking, rampant "see also" and uncontrolled cateorization related to the Genetic pollution article back in August, and I see no real evidence of Atulsnischal coming to grips with the issues, but I do keep seeing his name pop up at AN/I, someone drop me a line when it comes time for a user conduct RFC or whatever). Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, it's good to know I'm not the only one getting frustrated with his ownership of articles. I think hardy plants' idea could become a reality as recently Atulsnischal has not fully reverted genetic pollution back to his preferred version. That is a step in the right direction.  David D. (Talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about what you're considering merging. Having an article just talking about introgression is good; for example, there are some instances of possible or even likely introgression into humans from archaic human forms 50,000-100,000 years ago, and it would be kind of questionable to use the term "pollution" with regard to those introgressions.  Having a separate article covering undesirable introgression from GMO plants to wild plants is also fine, I guess, but it should be a separate article.

"THE introgression"?
Is it normal usage to have an article with "introgression"? I see "the introgression" several times. And "the simple hybridization" sounds even stranger to my ears. 174.70.58.119 (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)jamie

Quality and importance assessment
I have made an initial assessment of quality and importance. This is an important topic in genetics, and is about to become even more important because evidence now suggests that it happens more than we previously thought. The topic is poorly served by the article. There is confusion with citations on Introgression and citations on Hybridisation - they are not the same thing. William Harris •   talk •   03:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Page update
Heya! I'm currently working on an updated version of the Introgression article, including some graphics and improvements to the wording. As it stands, this article is rated pretty low on the quality scale, and I am working on it as a part of a WikiCourse for a college class. Please keep in mind, I am relatively new to this process, and may make mistakes. I do hope to signifcantly improve this article for public use, and you can see a live version of the update process on a specially made sandbox page under my account, at Sandbox:Introgression. Please leave any suggestions under the talk section, and do not edit the page itself. I appreciate feedback, and hope to meet the standards of Wikipedia by the end.

Thank you, AsteforiiAlbicans (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Update I've made my changes to the article--including two photos, and I've reduced the plagiarism that was present in two places. Please note, I wasn't able to fully fix the definition section because I could never find another way to state the information without losing quality, so I would welcome any recommendations for that. In all other ways, this should be my final draft. Lineage fusion was a very important addition in my opinion, as it is a high-impact event that has happened historically.

Thank you, AsteforiiAlbicans (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)