Talk:Ex situ conservation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vrutherford99, Woodj2012.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Oppose merger. Each of the topics involved are destined to become very large articles. captive breeding is just one small part of ex-situ conservation. captive breeding itself is a very large subject. Anlace 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merger Ex-situ conservation means a lot more then Captive Breeding, like cloning, preservation of live tissue and even sperms in liquid nitrogen, preserving a live embryo in liquid nitrogen, transplanting embryos, etc. etc. artificial insemination, milking of sperm, egg harvesting etc. etc. and so on Atulsnischal 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merger Ex situ conservation and captive breeding can have components which are non-inclusive. For example, captive breeding might be performed insitu so that climate, dietary concerns are minimal. Again, ex situ conservation involves various features including rehabilitation, etc that are not under captive breeding. Also, captive breeding is a big enough topic in itself, just that it is a stub does not mean it will stay that way. ray 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

These articles must be seperate

Oppose merger As has been stated above, ex-situ conservation can involve things other than captive breeding, and captive breeding can be conducted in-situ. As another example of ex-situ conservation, the Banteng population that is feral in the Northern Territory is now being managed for conservation. Not captive, not in-situ. --Michael Johnson 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Concensus is to reject merger. Anlace 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The section on genetic management of captive populations is informative and extensive, but it does not represent an entirely neutral point-of-view. In many ways it reads as proposed protocols and less as an encyclopedia entry (i.e. a summary of knowledge on the subject) . Phases like "the best" and "it is important" indicate a bias. Furthermore, some of the directional statements lack citations. The drawback section seems to take a side instead of explaining both sides without editorial bias. I would recommend creating both a drawback and benefits section for ex situ conservation. Woodj2012 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Colony Relocation

Reasons for Removal of Colony Relocation. This section is better addressed in the article on Assisted colonization. Other minor issues with the section that warrant its removal include: (1) the use informal terms like "uproot" and "trap" that do not effectively convey the range of sampling methods used to acquire individuals for ex situ conservation (e.g. seeds and cuttings are not 'uprooted'), (2) sampling methods may be employed that minimize impact to the sampled population thus avoiding excessive or disproportionate harm (3) the statement starting with "the best method" is not supported by a citation and is misleading, and (4) the example doesn't demonstrate all basic components of ex situ conservation (i.e. sampling, transfer, storage, and possible reintroduction). Woodj2012 (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

More examples?

There are currently only two species of plants under the "examples" section. Shouldn't we either have a few more important species, or mention some specific frozen zoos, seed vaults, etc.? SimpleEdits (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ex situ conservation. 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/20070525135543/http://www.bioversityinternational.org/publications/pubfile.asp?ID_PUB=899 to http://www.bioversityinternational.org/Publications/pubfile.asp?ID_PUB=899
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121190945/http://www.bioversityinternational.org/Publications/pubfile.asp?ID_PUB=1167 to http://www.bioversityinternational.org/Publications/pubfile.asp?ID_PUB=1167
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211022959/http://www.bioversityinternational.org/Publications/1013/default.asp to http://www.bioversityinternational.org/Publications/1013/default.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ex situ conservation. 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/20070208205614/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/05/28/aust.thylacines/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/05/28/aust.thylacines/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209212554/http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/ReproductiveScience/ConsEndangeredCats/default.cfm to http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/ReproductiveScience/ConsEndangeredCats/default.cfm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Balancing the "Drawbacks" Section

Colleagues - I agree with the tag calling for more sourcing for Drawbacks, although I also agree with the author that drawbacks are a concern. Moreover, I think the section would be more balanced if it also references the value of ex situ conservation. To that end, I suggest the header of the section now stated as "Drawbacks" be revised to read "Promise and Drawbacks" and I encourage editors to add text upfront addressing the promise of ex situ conservation. In addition, I recommend adding the text pasted below immediately under that header. I would do this myself but I am the author of the DNA Net Earth article and so under Wikipedia policies it is best for me to raise this in Talk and encourage others to make the revision, with any additional improvement they might have. I do think the revision is important and would also add many source documents that are referenced in it. Here is the suggested addition:

A Brookings Institution publication DNA Net Earth reviews ex situ conservation, citing sources. The article notes that conservation in the wild is a priority, but asserts that ex situ conservation is an important, complementary initiative and then proposes an initiative for preserving the DNA of all known species and new species are they are described. Pelucidity (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)