Difference between revisions of "Talk:Inbreeding"
From Conservapedia
(gonna start over) |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
::I'd like to begin working on this page anew, presenting it from a population-genetic and mathematical perspective and omitting whatever offensive material was present in the original version of the page. Let me know if this isn't okay. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:56, 3 April 2009 (EDT) | ::I'd like to begin working on this page anew, presenting it from a population-genetic and mathematical perspective and omitting whatever offensive material was present in the original version of the page. Let me know if this isn't okay. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:56, 3 April 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::This variant of the page is probably a little too technical. I'll go over it later and try to clarify it. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 17:59, 3 April 2009 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:59, April 3, 2009
That is not entirely accurate. Sorry Ed, but I can find a source later. Flippin 18:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
This article should be deleted. It's not family friendly material, and does nothing but take offensive pot-shots at various religions. I tried to edit out the unnecessary portions, but another user quickly reverted. --Thammersmith 18:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
- It certainly appears the intention in creating this article was as a hit piece. RobS 17:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, I don't think I'm clear on the lingo yet. What is a hit piece? --Thammersmith 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- It is intended to attack and denigrate a group of people here, and not really give us any better understanding of the problem of inbreeding. While this group may serve as an example, there is little or no discussion of what inbreeding is and what the potential problems are regarding it. The article singles out this group of families without providing any context whatsoever before hand. That's why I say intent. RobS 17:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, I don't think I'm clear on the lingo yet. What is a hit piece? --Thammersmith 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Yikes, where to begin?
Inbreeding is not "the act of sexual intercourse among members of an immediate family." Perhaps someone is confusing it with "incest?"
Is it asking too much for people to at least check a dictionary before writing definitions? AHD, for example has:
- 1. The breeding of related individuals within an isolated or a closed group of organisms or people. 2. The continued breeding of closely related individuals so as to preserve desirable traits in a stock.[1]
No time to work on this now... Dpbsmith 19:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Deleted. --Ed Poor 19:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- I'd like to begin working on this page anew, presenting it from a population-genetic and mathematical perspective and omitting whatever offensive material was present in the original version of the page. Let me know if this isn't okay. TaKess 15:56, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
- This variant of the page is probably a little too technical. I'll go over it later and try to clarify it. TaKess 17:59, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
