Jump to content

Talk:Agricultural biodiversity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

removal of POV

[edit]

I've just removed this from the article. it is too POV and has been pasted into at least three articles. It should at least be tailored to this article, the references should be fixed and the rantish nature should be made NPOV. David D. (Talk) 04:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional hybridization for higher yield, genetic engineering and the resulting loss of biodiversity, a threat to food security
See also: Biodiversity, Genetic pollution, and Food security
In agriculture and animal husbandry, green revolution popularized the use of conventional hybridization to increase yield many folds by creating "high-yielding varieties". Often the handful of breeds of plants and animals hybridized originated in developed countries and were further hybridized with local verities, in the rest of the developing world, to create high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and industry since have been pushing hybridization with such zeal that several of the wild and indigenous breeds evolved locally over thousands of years having high resistance to local extremes in climate and immunity to diseases etc. have already become extinct or are in grave danger of becoming so in the near future. Due to complete disuse because of un-profitability and uncontrolled intentional, compounded with unintentional crosspollination and crossbreeding (genetic pollution) formerly huge gene pools of various wild and indigenous breeds have collapsed causing widespread genetic erosion and genetic pollution resulting in great loss in genetic diversity and biodiversity as a whole[1].
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using the genetic engineering techniques generally known as recombinant DNA technology. Genetic Engineering today has become another serious and alarming cause of genetic pollution because artificially created and genetically engineered plants and animals in laboratories, which could never have evolved in nature even with conventional hybridization, can live and breed on their own and what is even more alarming interbreed with naturally evolved wild varieties. Genetically Modified (GM) crops today have become a common source for genetic pollution, not only of wild varieties but also of other domesticated varieties derived from relatively natural hybridization[2][3][4][5][6].
It is being said that genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution is destroying that needed unique genetic base thereby creating an unforeseen hidden crisis which will result in a severe threat to our food security for the future when diverse genetic material will cease to exist to be able to further improve or hybridize weakening food crops and livestock against more resistant diseases and climatic changes[7].

Atulsnischal, apprarently you do not agree this is POV since you keep reverting my edits here and on genetic erosion (same text pasted into that article too). Why are you unwilling to discuss these POV contributions you are making to wikipedia? Is it because you believe you are "right" and therefore consider any criticism of your contributions unworthy of your time? Below I have bolded blatant POV phrases that make this section completely unbalanced and representive an extreme opinion.

"in the rest of the developing world, to create high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and industry since have been pushing hybridization with such zeal that several of the wild and indigenous breeds evolved locally over thousands of years having high resistance to local extremes in climate and immunity to diseases etc. have already become extinct or are in grave danger of becoming so in the near future."
"Due to complete disuse because of un-profitability and uncontrolled intentional, compounded with unintentional crosspollination and crossbreeding (genetic pollution) formerly huge gene pools of various wild and indigenous breeds have collapsed causing widespread genetic erosion and genetic pollution resulting in great loss in genetic diversity and biodiversity as a whole"
"Genetic Engineering today has become another serious and alarming cause of genetic pollution"
"can live and breed on their own and what is even more alarming interbreed with naturally evolved wild varieties."
"Terminator technology represents one currently neglected technology that could prevent the spread of genetic material from GMOs."
"It is being said that genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution is destroying that needed unique genetic base thereby creating an unforeseen hidden crisis which will result in a severe threat to our food security for the future when diverse genetic material will cease to exist"

Much of this seems to come from Devinder Sharma who is sourced throughout this section. Devinder Sharma is a journalist turned activist, he seems to be well thought of from the perspective of a political voice on this subject, but he has no science credentials and if above mirrors his articles, clearly has an axe to grind. He may well be correct but the language he uses borders on propaganda. Wikipedia should view this issue from all angles and as objectively as possible, clearly Sharma's opinions can be mentioned but we must also ensure readers understand his role in this debate. i.e. one side of the debate. David D. (Talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've just logged on and seen this message... I agree with you.
Having been an initiator of this page I am very concerned how it has been POVd.
The issue of agricultural biodiversity will be at the top of the agenda of the UN CBD and World Bank IAASTD meetings in 2008 and we should ensure that this page reflects the essence of the debate. I am so sad that the references that were in the article in 2006 have been removed and I will reinsert them.
At a time when agricultural biodiversity is so threatened and yet so essential for future food security, livelihoods and planetary health, we should reflect the challenges and opportunities on this page
Patrick Mulvany 22:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)PMM (talk)
PS have a look at the ODP pages for some useful refs on the subject
I'll be happy to collaborate with you to try and make the article the best possible representation of the current issues. David D. (Talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ “Genetic Pollution: The Great Genetic Scandal”, Devinder Sharma CENTRE FOR ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL MEDIA (CAAM)., [1]
  2. ^ THE YEAR IN IDEAS: A TO Z.; Genetic Pollution; By MICHAEL POLLAN, The New York Times, December 9, 2001
  3. ^ Dangerous Liaisons? When Cultivated Plants Mate with Their Wild Relatives; by Norman C. Ellstrand; The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003; 268 pp. hardcover , $ 65; ISBN 0-8018-7405-X. Book Reviewed in: Hybrids abounding; Nature Biotechnology 22, 29 - 30 (2004) doi:10.1038/nbt0104-29; Reviewed by: Steven H Strauss & Stephen P DiFazio
  4. ^ “Genetic pollution: Uncontrolled spread of genetic information (frequently referring to transgenes) into the genomes of organisms in which such genes are not present in nature.” Zaid, A. et al. 1999. Glossary of biotechnology and genetic engineering. FAO Research and Technology Paper No. 7. ISBN 92-5-104369-8
  5. ^ “Genetic pollution: Uncontrolled escape of genetic information (frequently refering to products of genetic engineering) into the genomes of organisms in the environment where those genes never existed before.” Searchable Biotechnology Dictionary. University of Minnesota. , [2]
  6. ^ “Genetic pollution: Living organisms can also be defined as pollutants, when a non-indigenous species (plant or animal) enters a habitat and modifies the existing equilibrium among the organisms of the affected ecosystem (sea, lake, river). Non-indigenous, including transgenic species (GMOs), may bring about a particular version of pollution in the vegetal kingdom: so-called genetic pollution. This term refers to the uncontrolled diffusion of genes (or transgenes) into genomes of plants of the same type or even unrelated species where such genes are not present in nature. For example, a grass modified to resist herbicides could pollinate conventional grass many miles away, creating weeds immune to the most widely used weed-killer, with obvious consequences for crops. Genetic pollution is at the basis of the debate on the use of GMOs in agriculture.” The many facets of pollution; Bologna University web site for Science Communication. The Webweavers: Last modified Tue, 20 Jul 2005
  7. ^ “Genetic Pollution: The Great Genetic Scandal”; Devinder Sharma can be contacted at: 7 Triveni Apartments, A-6 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110 063, India. Email: dsharma@ndf.vsnl.net.in. CENTRE FOR ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL MEDIA (CAAM)., [3]

Reorganisation of the page

[edit]
Hi David
Sorry, only just logged back into Wikipedia. It would be great to get some guidance on restructuring this page. It was my first foray into Wiki pages (2004, I think) and the initial effort left much to be desired. But I did try to reference material and provide useful links. Since then, many have added to the page, including myself, some have deleted useful material and links, and it has become rather unstructured.
My aim, all things being equal, would be to get something useful and useable by early next year. 2008 is an important year for agricultural biodiversity as the Convention on Biodiversity debates these issues and World Biodiversity Day (22 May) celebrates this vital sub-set of biodiversity.
If anyone else is reading this page and wants to collaborate, let's talk... PMM 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good goal. Certainly there will be a lot of traffic through this page. David D. (Talk) 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off for a few days and then abroad next week, but would like to find the time to share a table of contents or something... Do you know of a similar page which could be used as an example of good practice?
Thanks PMM 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could just layout an outline here. As far as good practice, I would say we can worry about that when we have some content./ Formost we should worry about content and less about good practice. or am I missing your point? David D. (Talk) 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry David... it's late... I guess I meant examples of good layout/format for a similar type of topic...

It is a topic that would benefit from more photos and a few boxes/tables, I think.

But also from better structure into types of sections - for example: scope/definition(s); history/development of ideas; issues / current debates (including conservation, sustainable use, benefit sharing, losses/threats through technology, market pressures and legal systems) and related issues (including IPRs, Farmers'/Livestock Keepers' Rights, Genetic Engineering, GURTs); governance (including CBD, FAO, CGIAR, WTO, GEF, WIPO/UPOV); references/links.

All that can wait until content is clearer, I agree.

How much should one put into a single article, though?

Any advice welcome

PMM 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at DNA. Not exactly a similar topic but I think the layout is pretty good. I'd say it might be on the long side. David D. (Talk) 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- 10+ years have gone by since you mentioned that the page needs reorganizing. I completely agree with you. Would anyone mind if i just had a go? Does anyone want to collaborate with me? I would say that quite a lot has changed in the last ten years of knowledge creation on this topic. It might be a good idea to organize from genes up to ecosystem level. Plus your types of sections above, which make perfect sense. I am a newby with Wikipedia however and may need some handholding. ArwenIncognito (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Patrick, Are these the lost external links you refer to above? David D. (Talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all except the last one were inserted by me but I would change some of them now. However, there were also refs in the text that I think have been removed. Anyway, it all needs a thorough reorganisation, I think.

PMM 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Page

[edit]

Hi David and others

I've been dragged into other work and have not been able to work on the reorganisation of the page - as I had hoped. However, there is intense activity around the CBD meeting that is focusing on agricultural biodiversity from 19 - 30 May. I've added a couple of links to the meeting in the main page. After this would be a better time to pull together current thinking on the issue.

PMM 17 May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should 'Agricultural biodiversity' be merged with 'Crop diversity'?

[edit]

Hi, I recently created a new short article on genetic vulnerability which got immediately nominated for speedy deletion because it fit within an existing article. Fair enough! So I went looking for the most appropriate article to add my piece to, and I found two possibilities: 'Agricultural biodiversity' and 'Crop diversity'. Are these the same thing? Should they be merged? And if not, would either of them like to have a new section of genetic vulnerability? I shall leave this message on both talk pages and see what responses come up. The thing I wrote now lives in my sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Foonarres/sandbox in case anyone wants to see it. Foonarres (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- i don't think it should be merged with Crop Diversity, as Crop Diversity would be one component of Agricultural Biodiversity; they are not the same thing. 83.103.94.48 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)ArwenIncognito (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. -- Rohini (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Agricultural biodiversity. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agricultural biodiversity. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agricultural biodiversity. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested additions to the article future iterations

[edit]

Also to add:

  • policy issues
  • areas of controversy
  • databases on agrobiodiversity
  • perspectives from experts working on fish, forests, livestock, soils...

ArwenIncognito (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agricultural_biodiversity&oldid=1195402312"