Talk:History of genetics

Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).

History of Science High‑importance

This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 May 2020 and 22 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Km86867. Peer reviewers: Marshtyl001, CS0218.

Above undated message substituted from

The current version of this page is what we would call in the field the "scientist's view of history" -- teleological, Whig history, etc. For those looking to expand this, I highly recommend Peter J. Bowler's, The Mendelian Revolution, which does a much better job at explaining the history of genetics in a non-teleological sense. Very accessible book, written for non-specialists by a well-respected historian of biology. --Fastfission 17:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some referencing with inline citations could help this article ☤'ProfBrumby 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.174.168.76 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the MEGT article has quite a bit of detail not found here, and it often gives more detail than on items here, so some effort will be needed in the merge (including maybe adding detail to items covered here but not there, for evenness), but the intention of the two articles is certainly very similar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is not real and should not contaminate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.174.168.76 (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for discussion of personal opinions. We are simply deciding on an article merge, to which those comments have no relevance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  Modern Evolution of Genetics Timeline is an article with a lot of good content but a bad title (who would search for that?) This is an article with a good title (along the same lines as history of biology, history of paleontology, history of evolutionary thought, etc.) but very minimal content (little more than a stub). Merging that article into this one would be a good start on a much needed expansion of this article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The contents of the Timeline of the history of genetics page were merged into History of genetics on 11 July 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

I'm afraid this was a terrible idea in retrospect. What we have now is a short but reasonably fluent and at least partly-cited article, followed by a bullet-list, almost wholly uncited, repeating the conventional "wisdom" of a first school course in genetics that is already in the cited text, and ignoring all the nuances (where's mutationism, for instance?) that don't fit neatly into such a naive directional (onwards and upwards! progress!) view of how science works. In short, it's both untidy and unwittingly dishonest. One option would be to attempt a merge, though the things really don't fit (and the whole thing would need a rewrite even more urgently if we put all those bitty uncited factoids into the text), or it could be split out again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the timeline has a better name than the one that was criticised, and that it is quite standard to have a timeline alongside a history article, I'm boldly reinstating the timeline now. Happy to discuss, but it really sits here in this article "like a mattress on a bottle of wine". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text contains the line "1953: DNA structure is resolved to be a double helix by Rosalind Franklin, James Watson and Francis Crick". I propose that either we simply remove Franklin's name or rephrase the sentence to something like 1953: DNA structure is resolved to be a double helix by James Watson and Francis Crick, building on work by Maurice Wilkins, Rosalind Franklin, and Raymond Gosling.Jjc2002 (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Jjc2002[reply]

Some of the sources of India required reliable citation but they are not providing it so we are going to remove it. Obiwana (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]