Jump to content

Talk:Decline in insect populations/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Randecker Maar study

@Kingofaces43 and Jeschken: could we please get away from this teeter-totter of over-coverage vs complete erasure? The Randecker Maar results are important, a rare class of longitudinal study, and well covered in secondary sources. They absolutely belong in this article. On the other hand, there is no call for laying out the results in such excessive detail, nor for adding what really looks like an entire puffery paragraph to the "History" section. I'd suggest condensing this material to 3-4 sentences and then we are good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I left a message for Jeschken trying to give them a little guidance on how Wikipedia works, so hopefully they join in here.
Right now, I'm not seeing any reason why it should be included (from a wiki perspective at least). I could talk about interesting things about the study with my entomologist hat on, but this isn't the place for anonymous editors to discuss opinions on the scientific merits of a primary study. As of right now, this article has no secondary coverage or citations in various literature databases. That's a red flag whether it's from a WP:RECENTISM perspective or WP:DUE. If we get some secondary coverage, I would definitely be on board with looking at what to include from what the secondary source distills for us to see what to include piece by piece.
Even if/when it would be included, there's also the issue of scope that was getting to ingrained in the edits I had to remove. It's a single location study mostly focusing on three families from what I've seen so far, so it can't really be placed next to the more meta-level commentary from secondary sources we already have. It's a bit more nuts and bolts type content rather than something that works well for a broad article like this. Time will help on this one, so there's no rush to include it at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The study seems significant for the following reasons:
  1. Its duration of 50 years
  2. The interesting technique of monitoring a migration choke point
  3. The dramatic result
  4. Its political impact
I therefore agree that we should have an entry for it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
"Dramatic" results are typically one of the main reasons why we avoid primary studies like this and look to secondary scientific sources. This is not a difficult subject to get such sources on, so no one should be jumping for very recent sources like this carte blanche. If any of those points actually come up in reliable sources to really establish WP:DUE, then that should be discussed instead of relying on personal editor interpretation of primary sources. That will also prevent things like embellishing the amount of data (the number of years were discontinuous and not 50 years of data). If there are impacts of the study, then that will be reflected in sources beyond standard press release things we often see in promotion of a study directly after publication. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a reminder that no one should be edit warring content related to this back in again and again. I had to clean up some blanket edit warring again. Please gain consensus for specific edits instead of blanket reversions at this point. I am also concerned by WP:SPA accounts related to this study. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • We now have articles for the Randecker Maar and its observatory, corresponding to those in the German language Wikipedia. These relieve the need for detail in this article but we should have an entry for the findings. I'll be getting to this after completing work on such supporting articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

News article in PNAS

This is a high-quality news article that could be used as a source. It mentions various bits of research that I don't think we have covered here e.g. the most recent Rothamsted paper.

  • McDermott, Amy (16 December 2020). "News Feature: To understand the plight of insects, entomologists look to the past". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 202018499. doi:10.1073/pnas.2018499117.
SmartSE (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
That one has some definite use for summary information. I'll see if I can take a crack at it later this week if no one has gotten around to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Scope not clear in title or in lead - since when?

I think we need to make it clearer what time frame we are talking about. Decline in insects since when? Do we mean since the start of humanity (unlikely) or since 1850 / industrial revolution or anthropocene / 1950? I think this should come out, ideally in the title already but if not then at least in the first sentence of the lead. Or at least in the first paragraph of the lead. EMsmile (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

For the benefit of the other readers, here is my argument from a related discussion as to why this is unlikely to be a good idea. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, leave the title as is, but please indicate the time frame in question as soon as feasibly possible in the first paragraph of the lead. Ideally already in the first sentence? And also in the short description that comes before the lead. EMsmile (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, now that I have taken a closer look at the entirety of this article, I see what you mean. It really was quite unclear before! How about now? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a lot better now but I find again that the first paragraph reads too much like a "story", building up the topic slowly, in several sentences. The topic should really be the subject of the first sentence. See MOS:FIRST. I'll change it around now and you can see what you think about this proposal? EMsmile (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I've changed the lead around now, putting it in the order of what I consider the most important: The causes are extremely important so I think they should be in the first paragraph. The fact that there are not so many specialist researchers is not that important so I have moved that to further down (it might not be needed in the lead at all, in fact; it's also written in a Europe-centric way (I mean this sentence In 2016, it was observed that while 30,000 insect species are known to inhabit Central Europe, there are practically no specialists in the region devoted to full-time monitoring.)). EMsmile (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@EMsmile: Personally, I find the current first sentence to be very clumsy and a poor attempt to WP:BEGIN explaining what the article is about, particularly the reported decline felt sudden to many observers, even though the problem had in fact been building for decades which seems way too opinionated. It would be better to start with something like In the 2010s, reports began to emerge that there is an ongoing 'decline in insect populations which began in xxx. Also, there is a subtle but important difference between reports emerged in the 2010s about the widespread decline (current wording) and when the reports of widespread declines in insect populations (previous wording) as the previous version implies that there is some doubt in the extent of the decline, whereas the current wording implies that it is definitely happening. SmartSE (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi SmartSE, I agree with you, the first sentence needs further work. It's better though than the previous first, second and third sentence, right? They were: Insects are the most numerous and widespread class in the animal kingdom, accounting for up to 90% of all animal species. Yet, there are fewer charismatic species of insects when compared to mammals, birds and other vertebrate, and there has historically been much less interest in studying them. In 2016, it had been observed that while 30,000 insect species are known to inhabit Central Europe, there are practically no specialists in the region devoted to full-time monitoring. In my opinion, the old lead was taking too long to get to the point, i.e. to get to the actual topic of this article. It was more "telling a story" with an intro, building up a case etc. EMsmile (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
If the intent was to avoid "telling a story", then surely starting the entire article with "When" is really counterproductive to that, no? I now rewrote the lead again, and I think it should be a lot better now. And as an aside, the statistic about Central Europe was something which a content expert felt important to mention when talking to Yale - an American publication - and it specifically highlights the point about research being highly insufficient even in Europe, and even less adequate globally. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I quite like the first para of the lead now but I still question why this sentence is so important that it would be the very first sentence that our readers read: Insects are the most numerous and widespread class in the animal kingdom, accounting for up to 90% of all animal species.. Most people would just gloss over that. After all, they are here to learn about decline, not about the structure of the animal kingdom in general. And I don't understand why the information on "when" would be counterproductive as a first or second sentence in an encyclopedic article that is not doing "story telling"? Decline since when would be the first question on my mind. How much decline, since when, why, what are the impacts and what can we do about it. Those would be the facts that we need to present as succinctly in the lead as possible. EMsmile (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed further reading list

I've removed the further reading list, as it's not very useful. It would have to be continually curated to ensure it represents a worldwide and up to date view:

In general, I dislike these "Further reading"/"Bibliography"/etc. as well, since they effectively place some sources ahead of others and thus often introduce WP:POV. On the other hand, I was already able to integrate the last reference into the article just now, and I am sure a lot more useful information can be extracted from both that study, and the other reference once we put our mind to it! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, I am really surprised at the decision to remove several reliable and quite up-to-date references from the article due to being "unused" (although ideally some use should be found for them, sooner rather than later) and not even preserve them here!
I have found the use for one of them already, and will keep the rest here for the time being.
ref name=Braak2018>Braak, Nora; Neve, Rebecca; Jones, Andrew K.; Gibbs, Melanie; Breuker, Casper J. (November 2018), "The effects of insecticides on butterflies – A review", Environmental Pollution, 242 (A): 507–518, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.06.100, PMID 30005263, S2CID 51625489.</ref>
ref name=Farah6March2019>Farah, Troy (6 March 2019), "Are Insects Going Extinct? The Debate Obscures the Real Dangers They Face", Discover.</ref>
ref name=Sauvion2017>Sauvion; Calatayud, Nicolas; Thiéry; Denis (2017). Insect-plant interactions in a crop protection perspective. London: Elsevier/AP. pp. 313–320. ISBN 978-0-12-803324-1.</ref>
ref name=Tscharntke2005>Tscharntke, Teja; Klein, Alexandra M.; Kruess, Andreas; Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf; Thies, Carsten (August 2005). "Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity and ecosystem service management". Ecology Letters. 8 (8): 857–874. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x. S2CID 54532666.</ref>
We'll see what can be made out of them.InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
If any of those refs are good and useful then surely it's easy to use them in in-line citations, in which case they would come up in the reference list (perhaps even multiple times). If they are not in the reference list, then why should they be so important that they should be listed in "further reading"? Also who curates such a "further reading" list, makes sure it's up to date, relevant, global in scope, not Global North-centric etc. I think "further reading" lists are perhaps there for historic reasons only, when Wikipedia wasn't yet as strong on its referencing policies (lots of unsourced content in articles) or when Google and Google Scholar were not yet very good search tools. I see no purpose for them in "modern" Wikipedia articles and doubt that any or many of our WP:FA articles uses them. Can you imagine e.g. the main climate change article having a need for a "further reading" list? EMsmile (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I do not disagree with removing those lists, and I have already said that. I do object to seeing such unused references removed completely. Keeping them on talk pages until we can figure out what to do with them is fine by me. You have done that for "Further reading", but not for those unused references, which is what I questioned, and sought to rectify by keeping them here for now. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, which "unused references" do you mean? I'm confused. Where they under "sources"? I did a lot of edits this week so I can't remember this particular edit. Please point me to the revision history then it'll be clearer. EMsmile (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
It's this edit, and the one right before it. I have already moved those references to this talk page, a couple of posts up. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I had deleted those because I saw this error message below the ref list, so therefore I figured these references are no longer used so why should they be called up?:

  • Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Braak2018" is not used in the content (see the help page).
  • Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Farah6March2019" is not used in the content (see the help page).
  • Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Komonen2019" is not used in the content (see the help page).
  • Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Sauvion2017" is not used in the content (see the help page).
  • Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Tscharntke2005" is not used in the content (see the help page).

After deleting them, this cite error was gone. But perhaps I had misunderstood why this cite error appeared on the page? I am not sure now. EMsmile (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

British or American English?

I can't figure out if this is mainly British or American English as it's a wild mixture, see e.g. urbanization/urbanisation, fertilizer/fertiliser. Which language version should we settle on? See also WP:ENGVAR. EMsmile (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I started this article and did so using British English. For example, "analysed" rather than "analyzed". This was subsequently documented in the article source with a {{Use British English}} tag which remains.
But note that the s/z difference is not simple – see Oxford spelling. Both "urbanization" and "fertilizer" are traditional and acceptable when using this.
Andrew🐉(talk) 22:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi User:Andrew Davidson, firstly thank you for starting this article on this important topic! About the British English tag, I wasn't aware that it can be seen in source code editing on the article's page (I see it now). A more easily visible way is with that flag on the talk page. I would change everything to s to make it clearer. I didn't know that fertilizer was OK in the Oxford spelling, this is surprising me. Are both spelling types now converging? In any case, nothing speaks against changing fertilizer to fertiliser, right? EMsmile (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I am comfortable with either spelling of fertiliser/fertilizer (see ammonia pollution, which I also started). But the article is currently not consistent and so there are two of the s-form to one of the z. So, some copy-editing to align usage would be reasonable.
A bit more history may be helpful. I started the article and FeydHuxtable was a significant early contributor too. Another editor, SlimVirgin, then did quite a bit of work on the article including many copy-edits. She wrote several featured articles and was quite an influential contributor but is now deceased, alas. Other things being equal, the stylistic choices of such early experienced editors should be respected per the general guidance of WP:ENGVAR and WP:CITEVAR.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Colonel. How nice to see EMsmile & ITK have arrived to make improvements to the article. @EMsmile, to offer you yet more history, back in the day the article also benefited from input by an American editor, KOA, who is a professional entomologist. This might be the main reason for the discrepancy you noticed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations/Archive_3&oldid=1264656961"