Talk:Telegony (inheritance)

message: What kind of crackhead would believe this nonsense? The only real support I've seen for this viewpoint in popular opinion is from halturnershow.com, a viciously racist and jingoistically ignorant site run by the worst kind of agitator. 71.116.217.242 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow!

message: In other words, does any website of pigeon breeders advise to “kill female pigeons that have mated with wild pigeons”? Being a native Russian speaker, like the User # 72.227.3.100 probaly is, I can't remember any source of such nonsense, except the numerous clones in Russian ultra-nationalist, xenophobic and/or religious fundamentalist press - those who know Russian can see the references , , , . Curiously, Russian fundamentalist Christians are together in this topic with neo-pagans and even neo-Hinduists. That is why I reverted the article to the "academic" variant Nikola Borisov 11:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What official resource of any animal breeders' club can confirm their belief in telegony? 

message: I'm looking for a link for the un-cited argument stating that telegony has been discredit by English, German and Brazilian researches. Does anyone have more information on these papers?  Jonathan Dum (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research of Disproof 

message: The Chinese version of this article proclaims that telegony is completely compatible with established genetics. The only active author compiled long list of references that he claims to be supporting telegony. Can someone help verify if those references support telegony and are reliable at all themselves? Kxx (talk | contribs) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrespective of what those pages say, that material should be removed. СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help request with Chinese version 

message: I always assumed that this theory (if one may call it such) is discarded long ago. But the first paragraph of the article does not clearly states whether it's really considered by modern science as a valid theory or not. I'm sure there are people with strong biological background here that could make the first sentence more obvious about that, aren't there?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tema Yozh (talk • contribs) 13:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of theory 

message: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11133203/Could-previous-lovers-influence-appearance-of-future-children.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.135.178 (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and Wikipedia:Why MEDRS%3F#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology one peer-reviewed study does not trump long-standing scientific consensus, at least not for Wikipedia purposes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that laymen are generally not in position to validate proto-scientific claims. But long-standing knowledge that some hypothetical possibility was never scientifically confirmed is refutable by a single confirmation. In this particular case the theory was discredited politically but never scientifically disproven. Hiding new findings would disinform public. Therefore, statement "Nongenetic paternal effects reinvigorate the POSSIBILITY  of telegony" perfectly reflects current status of theory for Wikipedia purposes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.40.113 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Mendelian inheritance is not speculation, it is hard science. Of course, this leaves open some non-Mendelian mechanisms, but those do not seem too important for human reproduction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Telegony, as initially formulated, is simply incompatible with genetics. This is not to deny that events have outcomes, it has been shown e.g. that starvation has an epigenetic effect on human offspring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

text: So, the question isn't "do events have outcomes?" but "should it be called inheritance?". E.g. an excess of vitamin A during pregnancy has outcomes, but we do not call it inheritance. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

text: It has no basis in sound science. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: True, we simply know that the initial theory contradicts genetics. This is not a political claim nor a conspiracy to silence the politically incorrect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  homoepathy applied to a vagina.  it "remembers" prior sperm that were there and somewhat transmits that onward?  ffs. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  You guys should check this source 

message: I deleted a section that was not suitable. The material removed was:
:Earlier, a team of scientists from Oxford, Uppsala and UCL had conducted a similar research and obtained a similar result.
:In 1979, Professor Leonard Herzenberg of Stanford University proved that fetal DNA can pass into the mother during pregnancies. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in 2012 has shown that it is not uncommon for fetal DNA to get through the blood–brain barrier and into the brain of the mother. Leiden University Medical Center in the same year published a result which indicates fetal DNA from previous pregnancies can enter the bodies of younger siblings. In 2013, scientists around the globe demonstrated in animals, the significant effect of incorporating foreign DNA..
The first section is about a male changing gene expression in his mate, not in his mate's future offspring. The paper linked contains no mention of inheritance, and the other source is the Daily Mail LOL. 
The second change is synthesis - that fragments of foetal DNA (in the form of Microchimeric cells) can end up in future foetuses (or at least in the cord blood, which is what is actually studied here) does not mean that their genes will be expressed or that the microchimeric cells have any inherited effect - the only "citation" is about glow-in-the-dark pigs, which is totally irrelevant to the topic of telegony unless the sow's previous mate was a jellyfish.
All that remains is a single study and one scientist's analysis of it. Smurrayinchester 15:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringeness 

message: I knew nothing about this, but intrigued by various recent changes, I looked for (English-language) source material, and rewrote the section. I note in passing that the recent Russian (mis)use of telegony is also mentioned in They Got It Wrong: All the Facts that Turned out to be Science Fiction (Simon and Schuster, 2013). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia 

message: Karl Pearson's opinion is notable opinion, it is mentioned in the historical background of telegony and he was at that time widely recognized as an expert on such matters. Also WP:PARITY applies. Therefore the deletion of his opinion is wanton. As for the deletion rationale (discrediting the theory), believe me, this theory is pretty much discredited, except for one recent study to the contrary, see Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit war 

message: I added a  to the last sentence of the lead paragraph, that currently says: " A similar phenomenon, whereby environmental (non-genetic) traits were passed, was later discovered in a species of fly."
As someone else noted, above, exceptional claims require exceptional substantiation.  Anyone who took grade nine biology should recognize this as a highly exceptional claim.
If no one adds any citation, i a reasonable period of time, this claim should be removed.  
Meanwhile, the sentence above it contains an unnecessary (IMO) citation needed.  The corollary to exceptional claims is that we don' need to provide references for things like "the sky is blue".  Of course no scientific studies could substantiate telegony, as it is patent nonsense, without regard to what some superstitious pigeon breeders might believe.
For what it is worth, how would our readers even know what "environmental (non-genetic) traits" are?  Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the lead paragraph

message: I've added Maternal effect to the See also list, as there's plainly some connection. One option is simply to merge the articles, but it may be worth keeping Telegony as a more detailed subsidiary article on the history of science side of that topic. At the very least, the relationship of the topics should be spelt out with wikilinks and citations. What do other editors think would be best? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship to [[Maternal effect]]

message: There's only a single line relating to racism in that section, most of it talking about Telegony in russian orthodoxy. As it is right now, linking to "Scientific racism" doesn't  properly reflect the section's (somewhat scarce) contents. If telegony plays such an important role in scientific racism, it should be elaborated upon (common sense dictates this shouldn't be too hard); otherwise, such a link is just somewhat misleading. 95.22.117.215 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural influence - See also "Scientific racism"? 

message: The comments at least on the discussion site feel ideological.
The intro text in the article talks only about research in the early 20th century and one gets the feeling that it is taboo/off-limits to even conceive the possibility. 
Under "recent developments" in the article one can come to the conclusion that the categorical denial might not be accurate.
Animal research besides flies with mammals (ex. with horses and zebras) would make more sense - I'm sure it exists.
If the theory holds some truth it would be responsible to talk about it in sex-ed. Like the psychological effect of the more understood issue of emotional trauma that is caused by multiple previous partners that interfere with a current relationship and at least in part cause high rates of divorce and despair or at least show a strong statistical correlation.
--Nedmira (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:RS/AC is that telegony in mammals is WP:CB. This is a mainstream scientific POV, not an "ideological" one. Anyone understanding the basics of genetics should know that much. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: the thing is intercourse introduces genetic material into a foreign body .. similar to the mrna vaccination .. which is capable of altering the genetic makeup - mrna vaccinations were originally marketed as gene-therapy .. besides the direct gene stuff you also have epigenetics - the issue of gene expression promotion .. from my understanding it is just too simplistic to say it is impossible due to the "basics of genetics" .. my question/comment was more about the existence of practical research not theory --Nedmira (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov 

message: No objections are raised to the fact that telegony is not a theory. Therefore, in order to avoid misleading readers, I had renamed the page to Telegony (inheritance), but Kid990 reverted it without any explanations.
Here, let me officially build a consensus on the name of the article. Please reply if there are objections to Telegony (inheritance) or suggestions more appropriate. Trusci (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether telegony is a theory or not, 'Telegony (inheritance)' is a better title, since it makes it clearer what the article is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Yup. -Roxy the dog  17:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

text: If telegony isn't a theory, what is it? Kid990 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what it is, since 'Telegony (inheritance)' is a better title, since it makes it clear to readers they have the right article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. tgeorgescu (talk)  16:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of the article 

message: This article appears to use three (!) different styles of referencing. Would anybody object if I tidy this up to use one? Bon courage (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference mess 

message: I looked through the edit history and discussions, WP:FTN. I also saw contributors classifying a recent study reporting the phenomenon of Telegony as an unreliable source. As far as this goes, I agree with them. However, from what I have seen, there's not just one report on Telegony. And these seem to be accepted unopposed in scientific community.
First of all, here are a few articles reviewing flies and beetles presented in the reverted edit.
As you can see, the experience cited is not just a primary source, it is heavily cited in many places in the scientific community. Here we must make one more thing clear. What is called the Telegony phenomenon(or theory), and to put it more narrowly, the effect of male semen on the female reproductive system, is studied today mainly under the name of the Paternal effect, not Telegony. While scientists don't usually use the name Telegony (this is my personal opinion, it probably has something to do with Influence in culture in this article), it's clear that they're essentially studying the same phenomenon. If you think that studying this phenomenon itself can be a big objection in the mainstream of science, please refer to related studies. 
If someone were to include Telegony heavily in Central dogma of molecular biology, I would be absolutely against it. However, this article, the Telegony (inheritance) article, does not deal with genetics in general, but only what scientists define as Telegony. It is clear that most of the peer-reviewed articles found under the keyword Telegony today deal with Telegony's modern approach – the epignetic approach. It is clear that for Telegony, the consensus of the relevant scientific community is that epigenetic approaches are worth exploring. So, why not include these in the article? The fringe view, at least as far as the telegony phenomenon is concerned, seems to be the "nothing happened" view.
In this context, this article should contain recent research results, according to which lede should be completely reworked. I think this edit reflects this point of view well. What do you all think? --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Zagoskin is discussion without evidence of translation from bug to human. The protein stuff is plausible and supported enough. Artoria2e5 🌉 06:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent developments and Consensus 

message: I removed any description of the theory as "scientific" or "pseudoscientific", as the historical beliefs were pre-scientific, experiments in the 19th century failed to support the theory, and revival of the theory in the 21st century is based on limited studies. I moved the report about observation of telegony in Telostylinus angusticollis to the end of the article, because it is one primary article, and I did not find evidence of other studies confirming telegony, nor of general acceptance of telegony as a mechanism of inheritance. At this point, I do not think mention of telegony in Telostylinus angusticollis belongs in the lead. If anyone can find secondary reliable sources discussing experimental evidence for telegony, we can incorporate them into the article. Donald Albury 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes on 13 August 2023