Talk:Plant breeding

message: This is the text from crop breeding, it may have something useful for use here, but doesn't really need its own article since the same concepts are covered here --nixie 02:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text from Crop Breeding article 

message: I'm not sure that the plant-made pharmaceuticals info added is relevant, the page it links to has also been taken down for copyvio.--nixie 01:13, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another promising new technology involving genetic modification is the development of plant-made pharmaceuticals. Transgenic agricultural crops can be developed to produce valuable therapeutic proteins with the ability to alleviate pain and suffering in patients around the world. The low-cost production of pharmaceuticals made possible by this technology may allow access to life-saving medications for people in the developing world. --nixie 01:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pharmacrops" 

message: I'm wondering about the introductory paragraphs. Hate to use the N word, but I will: is it neutral, or slanted towards chem ag? Specifically, the way Increased tolerance of herbicides is listed, makes that sound like a universally desirable trait (and that the use of herbicides, and herbicide-resistant plants, is universally accepted). Also, Plant breeding ... is important for ensuring food security and developing practices of sustainable agriculture is seems somewhat loaded. The whole intro I find oversimplified. Tsavage 23:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't intending to slant the intro in any way. It is a fact that plant breeders have focussed on certain charactersitics that fit into modern argiculture, like herbidide tolerance- the statement in the intro isn't a judgment or endorsement, leave the debate about conventional ag vs organic farming to another article. It is also true that development organisations believe that breeding appropriate crops for different areas and different needs (that why all the big development organisations have sections involved in plant breeding) will increase output so that people have food to eat. --nixie 02:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those relatively slight edits make all the difference in how the intro reads. I did of course have the conventional vs organic thing in mind, but just there (in mind), no thought to importing the whole debate from wherever it is now. :) Tsavage 04:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the article intro (Mar 2005) 

message: The link is cap sensitive there is no Ethane Methyl Sulfonate but you can link to Ethane methyl sulfonate.  Is there a bot or something to do this sort of thing?
--Veritas Liberum 20:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EMS Link

message: Added reference to the useful term cultigen.
Granitethighs (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cultigen 

message: Physiological and molecular wheat breeding should be merged into plant breeding since it seems mostly to talk about plant breeding. Other parts seem to be copied from . Suntag (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Could someone sort out the layout near "steps of plant breeding"? Thanks Smartse (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  messy layout 

message: There is something missing in #Domestication:
:Plant breeding in certain situations may lead the .
I'm not so sure what is missing exactly.
--LeCornichon (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing word 

message: 1. plant breeding by definition, doesn't include genetic engineering. It refers specifically to BREEDING plants to select for specific traits.
2. saying in the definition that it's done for, "benefit of mankind," is just cheesy. And you shouldn't insert motive for an action/activity in its definition. That's like saying running is a physical activity done for fun. Is it always done for fun? Well, not all breeding is done for the benefit of mankind.
3. GMO crops are banned in more countries than just Germany, the way this whole thing is phrased it makes it seem like a far smaller issue than it is. Also, why is this in quotations, why is it in italics, and the sentence, "Such concerns are not new to plant breeding," is just absurdly stupid and untrue-- probably why it's not referenced. The concerns with GMO crops are ABSOLUTELY different from any concerns that may exist with plant breeding. This is probably the single most biased sentence in the whole article, basically saying, "sure there are concerns with GMO crops, but these concerns are nothing new and GMO crops are therefore no more dangerous than regular plants, because people have the same concerns." Bottom line this sentence is just an absolute fabrication.
4. Large sections of this article, if not the entire thing, have been plagiarized.
5. Far more, and better, references are needed. This article is just bad.
173.26.55.148 (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor article 

message: I have resolved the outstanding old merge issue involving Physiological and molecular wheat breeding as follows:
# I moved the off-topic portions of that article to the new History of plant breeding article I just created.
# I moved the domestication section of this article to that new article, as its first section.
Then, I deleted the merge tag, and voila!, no longer off-topic, no more unresolved merge. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge resolution 

message: I feel that the article constantly bumps heads on the issue between classic plant breeding and genetic engineering/GMOs.  It never quite gets down to any detail about classical plant breeding (the part I care about) or the genetic engineering (which no doubt somebody cares about.) The way it is now, I look at it and consider adding cites and material, and I just get tired and I don't. How would the idea of a split be discussed/handled/whatever?  
If I were inclined to fine-grained splits, I'd even split it three ways: (1) Classical/sexual plant breeding, (2) Genetic engineering, and (3) the controversy between the two. 
ChickenFreak (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic and GMO entangled 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1491/557. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  /wiae /tlk 12:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Plant breeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021184545/http://www.agri.ankara.edu.tr/fcrops/1289__PBARTSCIENCE.doc to http://www.agri.ankara.edu.tr/fcrops/1289__PBARTSCIENCE.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm interested in plants for pollinators and how through plant breeding we have ended up over time with many double / sterile flowers.  Shouldn't an article on plant breeding include Horticulture? As alluded to in an earlier post, not all plant breeding is altruistic, plenty of thought and effort goes into breeding plants for marketing -- from fruit color and size to flower novelty. I expect (but lack data) that there are more plant breeding jobs in these fields than in those dedicated to increasing crop yields in essential grains. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant breeding -- Agriculture AND Horticulture? 

message: Hello  You can use  for Special:Diff/1143295169 this. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thank you! ManOfTheArk (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBNs 

message: This is a cool section. It's got great encyclopedic merit, and I'm happy that it's here in this article. I got here by meandering through mainspace links, from Ed Currie's article, and thought "Wow, what a coincidence! I should add Ed Currie, notable plant breeder, to this list of notable plant breeders. Easy good edit." 
... And now I've opened a can of worms. See, I'm certain that this subsection of Plant Breeding which lists a handful of notable plant breeders, is a good and encyclopedic subsection. But the list itself could prooooobably get much bigger, if I actually went and filled it up with plant breeders who already have wikipedia articles. But then we'd run into the whole thing of, like, should this be a subsection of plant breeding or a whole separate list? Anyhow, I see this turning into a medium-sized task, and I figured I'd ask for community consensus before haring off on some deranged meta-project.
Should I;
*expand this subsection until it's big enough to merit its own list-type article
* Not do that, but still do something else 
* Leave the poor botanists alone 
  Atomic putty? Rien!  13:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we have a separate article for "List of notable plant breeders" --?