Talk:Insect

Template:WP1.0

Biomass decline

Just a note that I removed a recent edit that primarily involves a recent study by Hallman et al. There have been some issues with the study and the media reporting on it lately with the standard overstating study findings, etc. such as low sample size (or only sampling some sites only one year), making it seem like it had findings that applied worldwide, and so on. There's been some good commentary here explaining this background, but I'd prefer to wait for more formal secondary sources to pinpoint what we should say about the study. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The section you deleted was broader than Biomas decline, it refers to over a dozen studies that have all found declines in various insect populations across the world. The 2016 Yale source you also removed is in no sense primary, and it also referenced various other studies, including one with evidence of a decline stretching back to 1840. You've essentially removed all mention of insect decline despite it being a topic that's been covered in dozens of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. While it's very far from fully quantififed, there are no serious scientific voices claiming insect decline is not a real thing.

Accodingly, for our article to omit any reference to this well studied phenomena, which is obviously central to the wider topic of insects, ammounts to a gross and finge like NPOV violation. I'm therefore restoring the section. Please can I request you don't further delete without establishing concensus here first?

If concensus develops that we should remove the Hallman source, it would be ideal if it was replaced by other sources so we retain adequate information on the decline phenomena. The Hallman source appears to be the most rigourous available source on this phenomnena however, and has been used in a way that's complilant with WP:PRIMARY, so I'd prefer it remains if possible. Even the source you cited to support your removal broadly agrees with Hallman study, saying it's important and that further funding for this sort of work is needed. It does support the view that the media over reported the Hallamn study, but it seems to be just a blog. If you find a more reliable source to say that media reportiong of the Hallman study has been overstated, we can of course include that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

First, please slow down and please follow WP:BRD instead of edit warring by undoing the removal. I only undid your entire recent edit because it was primarily interlinked with the study in question. First, please remember that we do not engage in WP:RECENTISM at Wikipedia. No one disputes that insect declines are in important topic, but there is also a lot of hyperbole out there (pollinators are a good example) of Insectageddon type talk with individual studies overextending their own claims or news sources doing it for us. We basically need a WP:SCIRS source such as a review (or at least another peer-reviewed publication) putting Hallman et al. in context. It's generally enshrined in WP:PSTS policy that we need secondary sources for this kind of content.

In order to adhere to NPOV in this topic, we really need reliable scientific sources (see SCIRS for examples) and to generally avoid newspaper type sources. Nothing really adhered to that in the removed edits (even the Yale 360 source, which was written by a journalist). I'm perfectly fine starting a section on insect decline with appropriate sources, but we'll need better sources first such as to summarize the first sentence, "Over a dozen 21st century studies", which needs a review for such a statement.

There doesn't seem to be any merit in your justifications at all. For example, contrary to what you say, WP:RECENTISM makes clear wikipedians do engage in recentism, and even has a section on how this can sometimes be a positive. Policy does not require us to avoid sources like Hallman this sort of topic; it seems to the best avaiable source, there are no recent formal literature reviews or metastudies focusing on insect decline AFAIK. Several uninvolved scientists have already informally reviewed and supported the Hallman study, there is no need to wait for formal peer reviews for something so uncontroversial. Especially when the near total omission of the insect decline phenomena detracts from neutrality. Still, this is all just my opinion, and as another editor agrees with your removal, then unless others agree it's problematic, I guess it will have to stand for now. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have just come across this article, and agree with FeydHuxtable that “problematic” is an appropriate term for the 2017 deletions. Jusdafax (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this matter Jusdafax. Our paths have only crossed a few times across the long years, but I always know I'm going to see a well reasoned view where I run across a post from yourself.

There have now been hundreds of secondary sources and peer reviewed papers citing the Hallman study, including in the very most prestigious journals like PNAS. So the case for omitting insect decline totally collapses, not that it had any merit to begin with. This is not to suggest the two editors who tag teamed to delete mention of the decline are fringe POV pushers. Clearly they are good faith. But even back in 2017, the omission was in many ways a greater NPOV violation than if climate sceptics had somehow managed to delete every mention of anthropogenic global warming from our climate article. • Even back in 2017, the rate of insect deline had been estimated to possibly be in the region of 5% a year, far higher than the average global rise in temperatures. • While a minority view, some such as Monbiot warned that insect decline may have greater impact on humans than climate change. • With anthropogenic global warming, there are at least a tiny minority of apparently independent sceptical scientists. I'm not aware of even a single scientist who argues that insect decline isnt a thing.

The numbers suffering from extreme hunger have been increasing these past 4 years across the globe, both in absolute terms and as a % of the worlds population. Ecological stress caused by insect decline is one of several reasons for this. I understand Thanatos and the desire for chaos better than most, but I can't understand how anyone could be so anti life as to try and cover up the existence of this issue. At least not now the data is even clearer than it was back in 2017. I'll integrate some of the latest science into the article. Lets hope this time there is no Fringe POV pushing to omit coverage of this phenomena. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll ignore most of the above unrelated to content at hand, but first please remember that casting WP:ASPERSIONS about editors is highly inappropriate, especially since this gets into a discretionary topic area. I made it very clear above why the content was originally removed, and you more or less ignored that reasoning and make an extremely common mistake of using primary sources, editorials, etc. The way Wikipedia works, especially for science topics, is that you need secondary science sources like literature reviews or meta-analyses. That's especially in a topic like this where it's a high-level article, complex ecological data, etc.

At the time, Hallmann et al. had no citations by appropriate secondary sources, so it should be no surprise it had to be removed. Now there are, so if you felt strongly, all you had to do was a simple search of the citations for a review to use, not the above kind of comments. I've gone ahead looked through those reviews on Web of Science instead, and none of them really mention the study in any depth like done here. At most, reviews typically use it in a one-liner to the effect of, Insect abundance is suspected to have declined in recent times in western Europe based on data from German protected areas.[1] at most if it's not just buried in a list of citations. Given that lack of coverage, it looks like it's better not to try to zero in on this particular study, but look for sources that instead give a good overview on the subject of insect diversity and abundance to source content to if you want to expand the subject. There are a lot of overview sources on insect biodiversity and abundance out there, so we wouldn't have to stretch for high quality sources. Once that is done, then a good overview piece of text could be added to the lead, but it's WP:UNDUE to focus on single studies in quite this manner.

I don't know if that single line I quoted would be useful for a line at Insect biodiversity (I'll check that out tomorrow), but I don't know if it's really appropriate for a higher level article here at Insect#Diversity unless we're talking about things more region-wide, continent, worldwide, etc. than just Germany to keep the scope width appropriate for the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm struggling to see much merit in arguments for omitting coverage of the decline.

It's inevitable that if one makes Fringe POV type edits, there's going to be risk of getting negative implications from the response. I went out of the way to take the sting out of that by saying both yourself & the other editor who reverted are "are good faith.".

I was grateful the first time you put the Pesticides DS tag on my talk - it led me down some rabbit holes where I discovered interesting Biotech/science dynamics. There was no need to post it twice. I don't care either way about how pesticides are represented on wikipedia. I haven't looked into the science on this & have no opinion on what would constitute NPOV per our pesticide coverage. IPC has been a growing thing since the 70s, even conservative government have been recently banning harmful pesticides, despite the illusion of scientific support that 10th rate shrills manage to create. Those shrills are fighting a war they've already lost. On the other hand obviously pesticides have +ve as well as -ve effects, sometimes being hugely beneficial.

I added nothing about pesticides to the article. The closest I got to that was in stating scientists would like to develop a clearer understanding of the cause. I strongly advise you consider not wasting admins time by posting about this on the DS enforcement board. There would be a risk of it boomeranging on yourself. Folk could easily form the perception you're editing from a Fringe pro pesticide POV. Also you possibly care what happens to you on Wikipedia. I have no such concern. If Im perma banned, I'm perma banned. (Obviously Id not get a formal perma-ban, the worst would be an indef, but as there's no way I'd post an unblock request suggesting I wouldn't edit in the same way again, it might be functionally a perma ban.)

Granted, many good sources addressing insect decline list pesticides as a possible cause, a few even suggest they are likely the primary reason for the decline. But there's no consensus about that.

Now onto your point about formal reviews & meta studies. If I was adding a summary of debate about the causes of decline - something that's controversial - with some blaming global warming, some blaming urban sprawl or light pollution, most saying it's likely a mix of causes or we just dont known - then you might have some kind of policy based case for insisting on meta studies. Even then it would be strained. And all I've done is summarise views on insect decline, without mentioning a single possible cause. The phenomena of insect decline is something that not a single credible scientist disputes is a real thing.

We don't always need to use meta study type sources even for MEDS articles. Nothing in our policy prevents us using primary papers for something uncontroversial. Even the essay WP:SCIRS talks about cases where using primary papers is ok.

As for your argument that you're finding only passing mentions of the Hallman study, obviously that's going to be the case if you search the literature so broadly that you pick up things like the source you linked to: Environmental DNA Time Series in Ecology. If you search for recent secondary sources focused on insect decline, then they invariably give significant attention to Hallman. For example the Leather source I added to the article, suggests that before Hallman, insect decline was largely neglected, despite the abundant older studies. Then after Hallman, there was an explosion of interest in the topic. So obviously we need at least some focus on Hallman for due weight.

The one thing I can agree on is we don't necessarily need to refer to Hallman in the lede. If you edit down my addition to the lede to something shorter, along the lines of "Various insect taxes are experiencing declining populations around the world, a topic that has received increased attention since 2017." then no worries, you won't be edit warring.

There's also no objection from me if you want to edit the decline section. I took some time to achieve what I think is NPOV, giving fair attention to the view that the decline is not necessarily going to have devastating consequences. If though you want to add further weight to that view, then no worries. In the mean time, I'm going to restore the addition - as there is noting resembling a coherent policy based argument for ommiting coverage of the decline, and also not a single editor posting on talk in favour of your view, there appears to me strong concensus for doing so. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

None of this addresses the content issues at all again. Please undo the edit warring and gain consensus for your edits. I already pointed out there's a whole section and daughter article on insect diversity where this should be fleshed out first. Also, editorials are not appropriate secondary sources to supplant peer-reviewed review articles. Please slow down and read what's been covered in this talk section already as there is absolutely nothing outlandish here or anything close to the aspersions you are making about my edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If you'd talked like this to start with we'd not be having this little dispute.

I'm not going to remove my edit unless I see at least a hint of a possible policy or concensus based reason to do so. The way I read this page, my edit already has concensus. The case I've made is based on policy and a sound reading of the sources. Until your last post, arguments for reverting mention of the decline seemed at best civil Fringe POV pushing & wiki lawyering nonsense.

I've been supported by another editor, you are a lone voice on this talk page. (Granted, another editor agreed with your deletion back in 2017 on the main page, but that may have been a hasty decision, not a considered view.) Untill your last post, previous arguments were so bad they were not even wrong. I mean come on, even a bright 15 year old wouldn't think it's helpful to point to a passing mention of the Hallman study in a source of such tangential relevence to insect decline as Environmental DNA Time Series in Ecology. Perhaps you're telling me to slow down as you're rather in a rush yourself? I can't think of any other good faith reason for such a mistake.

Something about your last post makes me think it's possible you're comming from a sensible good faith perspective I just can't fathom. Something that's never happened in all my years, but I guess there's always a first time. If this is the case I apologise if I've caused you any stress. Without making any promises, I'll consider making efforts to stay out of your way. As whether the fault is mine or yours, it is not looking likely that we can have a productive discussion. Obviously this means I may not make furhter edits to articles about bugs. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

At this point, you need to undo your revert since you're aware it violated 1RR and has not gained consensus here. Please remember WP:FOC is policy and that we rely on high-quality secondary sources like literature reviews over others. The source I provided is one of the reviews citing the paper in question and in more depth than many of the others. That's the about the highest source quality we can reach for by going for such reviews. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The following reviews might be useful:

• Richard Fox (2013). "The decline of moths in Great Britain: a review of possible causes". Insect Conservation and Diversity. 6 (1): 5. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00186.x.
• Callum J. MacGregor; et al. (2015). "Pollination by nocturnal Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: a review". Ecological Entomology. 40 (3): 187. doi:10.1111/een.12174. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

77.59.125.252 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I found a newer review that tackles the light pollution issue, but those could always be used to flesh out the subject more too. Seeing as there hasn't been consensus for the disputed text, I've removed it again per WP:ONUS policy until consensus is gained on that. In the meantime though, that text was redundant with the biodiversity section anyways, which is a summary of Insect biodiversity, so that text really shouldn't have been there anyways. I've added a bunch of reviews to both as a sort of intro paragraph to both articles. If someone wants to flesh out the biodiversity subject more, it's better to do that at Insect biodiversity first and then do the WP:SUMMARY over here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

AFAIS there is only one lone voice digging his heels in for the removal of content {==> Kingofaces}, while all others are in favour of including this content. Till there will be support for the single user's demand the content remains in the article. 77.59.125.72 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

IP, that is not how the process works (and I can't WP:FOC) here since it's impossible to be sure you get messages due to your lack of account. WP:ONUS is policy on this, so you need to undo your revert. Over a year ago multiple editors made it clear that non-primary sources were needed for this, and nothing has changed about it that would result in the required consensus for including it. Continuing to revert with no reasoning and not gaining consensus is disruptive. Everything is basically covered in this talk page discussion why the content did not gain consensus, so until someone makes some effort to sufficiently address those basic issues, the content cannot be reinserted. Time to knock off the revert wars and follow policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as nothing has changed on this talk page even in the last few days, I've gone ahead and removed it yet again. IP, remember that when this was first introduced over a year ago, I was not the only one to bring up the primary sourcing issues. Instead, we respect what appropriate secondary sources have to say on the study or the subject. Using such secondary sources is the only way to introduce content from that study at this point.

As I mentioned above, I already went through literature reviews to see what they say about the study to satisfy WP:DUE policy. The most I found were brief mentions not really appropriate in scope for a high-level article like Insect abundance is suspected to have declined in recent times in western Europe based on data from German protected areas.[2]

I already expanded the biodiversity section of this page to cover the topic of declines as far as reviews to point out, and if something were going to be added to this page about the study in question, it would go under that section as well. I'd prefer to see more than such passing mention from a review for inclusion at this article. It's probably better to flesh out the insect biodiversity article itself first though. Unless there's some great new review that cites the study though and gives it quite a bit of mention, I don't see anything that would come close to addressing the policy concerns previously brought up by focusing on the primary source. If someone feels strongly about including mention of the study, they need to find appropriate secondary sourcing. That's more or less the only way to move forward on content on this question at this point. If there is a source, this is the place to bring it up and craft new content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No mention at all in the article

There is currently no mention at all of these orders in the article, which gives the impression that only living insect orders existed. Aethiocarenodea Alienoptera Archodonata Blattoptera Caloneurodea Campylopteridae Carbotriplurida Coxoplectoptera Diaphanopterodea Eoblattodea Eudiaphanoptera Geroptera Glosselytrodea Heraridea Hypoperlida Lapeyriidae Meganisoptera Megasecoptera Miomoptera Monura Palaeodictyoptera Paoliida Permoplecoptera Protanisoptera Protelytroptera Protephemerida Protodiptera Protorthoptera Protozygoptera Syntonoptera Titanoptera Triadophlebioptera.--Kevmin § 20:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kevmin:, I'm away from my copy of Grimaldi and Engel to check for a bit, but do you know of any sources we can use that give a good list? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

template and edit warring etc

Copied over from RfPP (EDIT CONFLICT) Please note that Kingofaces is is only one lone voice digging his heels in for the removal of content, while all others are in favour of including this content. "blanket reverting template fixes" is a bad joke: Template:Cite journal - as opposed to Template:Cite web - does not need to have an access date since journal articles are not changes after publication. Neither is a URL that is fully redundant to the DOI link expedient. 77.59.125.179 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal#URL: Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date; see WP:CITEWEB. Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates. Even Citation bot removes redundant URLs and irrelevant access dates [3][4][5]. In conclusion, my removal of the access dates for scientific papers was a reduction of cluttering. 77.59.125.179 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I find it different you're all of a sudden citing templates, etc. for a change, but do keep in mind you should be giving such justification in your edit summaries or talk posts so they can actually be addressed unlike your previous comments. That's at least a start towards consensus building. Had you of done that from the start instead of blanket reverting a whole bunch of stuff at once while adding in some changes, it would have been much easier to spot what was really going on. Please be more careful about that in the future.

In this case, the dois lead to the same url, so they actually can be removed. Urls are good to include when the doi link doesn't always lead to an open-access version among other logistical reasons for an access date like the publisher changing websites (which happens a lot surprisingly), so do keep in mind that what you quoted is not a requirement, but just saying they aren't required (mostly because some journal holdouts still do not have a doi or online version) where you can only cite a volume and page number. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The planet is on track for total Insect extinction , according to 1st ever global review.

The review , by good Francisco Sánchez-Bayo and Kris Wyckhuys , examines 73 of the most relevant studies on insect decline, and finds a 2.5% annual fall in total biomass over about the last 30 years. If this rate of decline is not arrested , the planet is on track for a total extinction of insects in the next 100 years.

In stunningly dramatic language, especially by the standards one expects from a high level review, the report says that about 40% of insect species could become extinct much sooner than that, with "catastrophic" consequences. Unless Insect Decline can be substantially slowed in the next few decades, the planet is at risk of an extinction event that could make the Permian–Triassic seem mild by comparison.

Accordingly, it would seen scandalous for the editing community to countenance anything less than a prominent mention of the decline phenomena in both the lede and body of the article. Hopefully, all might now agree it's the encyclopedia thing to cover the phenomena in detail. If not can I please request that they establish consensus here first before deleting any mention of the decline.

Per the fact the review already has hundreds of reactions, all of which are either positive or neutral (I've not been able to find a single negative reaction), it seems unencyclopedic not to immediately restore a prominent mention of insect decline. Especially as it now seems the world may have only a few decades to slow the decline, or else face an ecological collapse that would see the mass wipe-out of not just bugs, but also animal and human life.

The review systematically examines what previous studies have had to say regarding the causes of the decline. Previously, my view had been that it was premature to say anything about pesticides in the articles, but this new review is something on a gamechanger. For now, I won't add to the sentence on causes previously added by King , though I'll move it to a dedicated section on decline so that it makes sense in context. Unless someone else updates the causes per the review, I'll be back to integrate that into the article when I next have some time. Hopefully it will be possible to find words that won't be too contentious, regarding the major role assigned to pesticides. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Talk:Insect#Biomass_decline already dealt with a lot of the content you just reinserted, and this article doesn't really address all the issues there. Not mention that it undid some of the biodiversity edits that no one has had issues with for awhile now.

Instead, this article should be used to generate new content specific to it. I've gone ahead and given it a start at Insect#Diversity as already mentioned in the previous talk page section while removing some of the extraneous stuff about "first ever scientific review", etc. That source could be good for drilling down into more detail to flesh out the section a bit more, but we should probably discuss what first while having the text I just added leading into any secondary content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The planet is on track for a total extinction of insects in the next 100 years

— @FeydHuxtable:

Where EXACTLY does the study say that? Please do NOT fear monger on this article, as that is not an assertion that is made in the abstract you are referencing.--Kevmin § 23:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to SHOUT Kevmin. I'm not fear mongering, quite the opposite. I haven't just referenced an abstract, I've linked to the download page for the whole study. If one has the needed accademic credentials, it can be downloaded for free. If not, it costs about 50 bucks. The study itself doesn't say we have 100 years, it puts it even more baldly, saying: "The conclusion is clear: unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades" (my emphases). The 100 years thing follows mathematically from data in the review. And is also in line with this statement from one of authors: The 2.5% rate of annual loss over the last 25-30 years is “shocking”, Sánchez-Bayo told the Guardian: “It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none.” I'm not likely to have time to step through the entire review, can I suggest you obtain access if this is something you're deeply interested in? It's a strikingly good piece of accademic writing IMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The paper you link is about subsets of insects not Insecta as an entire class of arthropods, and the Guardian is iffy about its content as noted in the WP:Reliable sources, and the article is using fear mongering terminology (Re Insect population collapses). What page specifically in the meta-study specifically supports your wording of full class Insecta extinction in 100 years?--Kevmin § 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what paper you're talking about. The meta-study / review I cited a few hours back is about the entire insecta class. It's on page 22 that it says "insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades" FeydHuxtable (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@King, I'm not sure why you're refering to Talk:Insect#Biomass_decline. I've already been clear that I regard all the arguments for deleting the disputed content as spurious wiki lawyering. Additionally, there was only a single lone voice arguing against the detailed coverage of the decline phenomena, with two other editors and an IP who were pro including the disputed content. Also, it's not the case that edits to biodiversity were undone. All I did was move the following sentence to a section where it made sense in content: "Declines in insect abundance have been attributed to artificial lighting,[44] land use changes such as urbanization or agricultural use,[45][46] pesticide use,[47] and invasive species."

In your version, contempory insect decline is not introduced. You have a one sentence mention of extinctions during both the ice age and over the last 500 years. Then straight on to a one sentence summary of causes that is relvent to contemporary decline, and not to the historical decline in the previous sentence. It's just plain bad writing even for a C class article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There already has been a lot of discussion over the all the content you just reverted back in again without gaining consensus despite that whole biomass talk section discussing how to handle that mass of content appropriately in the article. Some of it was sourcing, and some was layout and redundancy. Calling it wiki-lawyering is inappropriate at this point, and the policy issues have already been laid out elsewhere. As you're already aware, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for all that with sourcing including the Guardian, etc. That's all old stuff that really doesn't belong in this particular talk section though, and the new review was no excuse to just go revert it all back in again.

If you want to generate new content on this subject, the Diversity section of this article is the place to do for content appropriate for a high-level article like this (or the daughter article for more fleshed out content). The review you brought up is one way to do that. The section already included a bit about historical extinctions, including a subset within the last 500 years (i.e., up to roughly today). That's what the source lays out, so there's nothing odd about talking about historical extinction rates laid in reviews. That's exactly where content from the new review you just brought in fits in too for the initial sentence I added. Otherwise, please re-read my previous reply in this section as I'm not going to repeat myself further on why I added the sentence, fleshing out content from the review, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Briggs review shows measured concern, but not quite to the degree as Sánchez-Bayo. When we have two secondary sources that aren't in complete agreement, we need to follow WP:DUE. The current last paragraph here uses all those sources appropriately without getting too far into one source or the other that we'd run into policy issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The way I read the past discussions, there is already clear consensus for a detailed section on insect decline. The pro inclusion side was supported 3 -1 (if we include the Zurich IP.) And more importantly, the pro inclusion arguments were founded in policy and mainstream science.

The Briggs source is not a review , nor is it focussed on insects. No disrespect to Briggs who was a distinguished professor, but he retired from Accademia back in 1990! He was 96 when he wrote the paper you cited. Such a tenuous source doesn't warrant close attention, but from a quick look it only seems to refer to two papers on insect decline. The first (Coope 2004) is about insects in the ice age. The second was a 2016 self-cite , that Briggs only managed to publish in Environmental Skeptics and Critics , and which seems to make over stretched claims about insects as a whole based on limited data on just butterflies, tiger beetles, dragonflies, damselflies. It seems well established that we don't try to set such comically weak sources against a high level review.

It would be interesting if User:Kevmin would chime in. As they had seemed to be one of several editors who recently accepted the Zurich IP restoring the disputed section, it had appeared Kevmin had came to agree with the unanimous mainstream consensus. Possibly though, they still support yourself, in which case I guess the best was to resolve this deadlock might be to pose the question to wikipedia's wider scientific community.

Absent Kevmin or another editor supporting you, then unless you can come up with an argument based on actual policy, it would appear to me that if you want to exclude the content, the onus is on yourself to break the existing pro inclusion consensus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Trying to think of a compromise that might be acceptable, it is grantable that the Insect article is already well beyond the point where WP:split becomes applicable. So in line with King's previous comments, it may be best to add the disputed section to the Insect biodiversity article. As long as we have at least a one sentence mention of insect decline and the warning of possible ecological collaspe in the lede of this article. And at least a one sentence introduction to contemporary insect decline added to the body. Does this sound agreeable? FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll support King's approach, largely because of two things I perceive here: (1) having read the Sánchez-Bayo & Wyckhuys review, it is in and of itself more measured than the summary statements indicate. In essence, by harping on the one sentence about "insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades", you overlook one of the other major points of the paper, which very carefully and explicitly states that existing diversity is being replaced by increased numbers of individuals of common and generalist taxa, including invasive pests (a conclusion which, quite frankly, surprises no one). There is no point at which an actual claim of diversity going to zero or biomass going to zero is put forth in this review. They do not specify a lower limit, or a specific time frame, and the phrase "the path of extinction" is very ambiguous, so your interpretation of "total insect extinction" constitutes original research, and therefore represents a very clear WP policy violation. (2) I agree that by focusing on a single review, there is also a problem with giving undue weight to this one source; if you are sincere about producing a quality summary suitable for Wikipedia, then reading a number of the works cited in the Sánchez-Bayo review would be necessary, at the very least, to see where they do or do not differ in their conclusions from the review itself. Dyanega (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, which I find most valuable, even if I agree with little. There's a big difference between being "on track to total extinction" and straight up saying insects are going to zero. While the review does indeed very carefully and explicitly state that existing diversity is sometimes replaced, it's careful to deliniate that to specific localities (at least with land insects, there is a relatively unqualified mention of aquatic species being replaced by generalists). Even in the abstract, the review is careful to qualify that increases in abundance are limited to a "small number of species". Nearly the entire focus is on the much larger world wide insect decline, albeit building up the big picture via the 73 carefully selected relatively local studies. The central finding is clear - "an annual 2.5% loss of biomass worldwide" - what little replacement is going on is clearly massively offset by decline and extinction. There are mentions at both the review's beginning and end of impending "catastrophic" collapse of nature's ecosystems.

There's very little talk of invasive pests as a 'replacement'; the review describes invasive species almost entirely in negative terms, mentioning studies that show them to have a net negative impact on both diversity and abundance (admittedly not in all cases.) I've already read a number of works referenced by the review, and cited them to the section that King repeatedly deletes. As per discussions above there are studies going back to the 18th century tracking insect decline. As the review states, scientists have been saying since at least 1989 that the decline represents "the first step towards extinction". It's somewhat perplexing why there's so much resistance to covering a phenomena that obviously central to the topic of insect, and which represents a clear civilisation ending threat. At least there is the consolation of Romans 8:28. It will be interesting to see if anyone else chimes in here. One thing I'll concede is that now you've supported King, there's no longer clear consensus to include the disputed section. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

First, a litany of policy and other issues have been brought up with this kind of edit related to the old edit-warred content. The issues haven't been addressed nor have you proposed new content that would fix all that either, so it cannot be edit warred back in here or at the diversity article. WP:CONSENSUS doesn't work by straw polls either even if I was the only person bringing up the issues. Either way, that diff is more or less a WP:DEADHORSE at this point as I repeatedly mentioned how it could be fixed despite no attempts to change it to consensus text. WP:ONUS policy is very clear that the onus is on those who want to included the disputed content. You're running into way to many issues with WP:OR violations as pointed out already.

Now like I said before, we need to focus on generating content from secondary sources if anything more is going to be added, not this forum-like discussion not tethered to specific content. We already have two reviews in the diversity section. Is there additional specific content based on those sources you want to include in addition to what's in the diversity section? If yes, then we'd need to make sure it's actually accurate considering Dyanega's comments, whether it's really WP:DUE, and whether it's fleshed out content that belongs at the daughter article instead. I've already given that a start actually based on the secondary sources. If there isn't anything from those two sources or other reviews, then there's no longer a need to fill up this talk page since we have already have content addressing the declines, which was the initial want over a year ago. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

One further point about undue weight; if you look carefully at the Sánchez-Bayo review methodology, it is based on studies that were searched via the ISI Web of Science using declin* as one search term. As expected, then, all the included studies document decline; this could rightfully be construed as very biased data, in that studies showing increase in insect biomass (e.g., invasive pests in agricultural fields) are selectively omitted. If a source is obviously biased, then care must be taken when adapting that source for inclusion in Wikipedia. In the spirit of disclosure, I am an insect ecologist, working with biodiversity. Yes, insect diversity is going down, and yes, in SOME habitats, biomass is decreasing, but it's a lot more complicated than that, and there isn't sufficient evidence to think that humans won't go extinct LONG before insects do (if anything, once humans are extinct, insect diversity will start to increase again). Reviews like Sánchez-Bayo's point to things we should be concerned with, but their conclusions don't necessarily have consensus support, given their cherry-picking of data, and their provocative phrasing. Dyanega (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I was even hesitant about this addition I made because of the things you mentioned, but I figured it would be a compromise. Considering the weight issues, I'd prefer not expanding much more based on Sánchez-Bayo and wait for other reviews to comment or else discuss changes to that sentence if anyone feels strongly. The review works for being in line with others talking about the causes of decline at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's two newly-minted reviews of this review: [6][7]. They both lay things out pretty carefully, and reiterate several of my points above. They should certainly be cited anywhere that the Sánchez-Bayo review is cited. Dyanega (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Too bad they aren't peer-reviewed reviews, but we can definitely use them with attribution. If no one else gets to it, I'll work on integrating them this weekend. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's an updated version with the Sanders source. I didn't use the Atlantic source since we shouldn't be directly citing a staff writer at a newspaper, but the quotes from scientists I did find didn't really seem to fit in here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that version does not have consensus. IMO it's worse than saying nothing about decline at all. It's the very definition of fringe pushing to give equal weight to a blog so as to refute a meta-study & the over whelming balance of well publicised studies published in high quality journals.

Some of the arguments in the blog are somewhat specious. Performing the literature search with a "decline" string no more invalidates the meta study than it would for a global warming meta-study to use a "warming" string. There's scientific consensus that both insect decline and global warming are a thing.

Yes you get occasional population booms in limited temporal and spatial areas. This is quite (though not exactly) analogous to the various cold waves we've recently had in USA. Unless you have the science ability of The Donald, those don't disprove global warming. As we know the overall worldwide data shows fairly steady global warming. And the data for insect decline suggest a vastly sharper trend.

That said, we can certainly use the Sanders blog , ideally alongside the Leather source, in a well balanced coverage such as we had here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please be more mindful of WP:OR. You are injecting a lot of personal opinions in these comments sometimes going off in a different direction, and those cannot be used to change the agreed upon text or affect consensus. I'll ignore calling the mainstream science critique of this subject fringe, but please be more careful about that. Going on a tangent now in response to your comment, but if you really want a parallel example from the climate change world, this would be more similar to global cooling and how climate change deniers citing it exclude the data showing increased temp while focusing on on data showing declines, news media hypes things up, etc. This subject doesn't fall into the fringe realm like that one does, but it's a somewhat similar parallel in nuanced science. More detail on that wouldn't be focusing on content though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note that the Entomological Society of America has also put out a statement on this with respect to "insect apocalypse", etc. I'll see what can be integrated in the morning, but it should help as stronger sourcing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That won't improve the sourcing. The society is not comparable to a peer reviewed journal. Even the Sanders blog seems a stronger source That said, the society presents a relatively balanced opinion, avoiding the logical fallacies in some of the other skeptic arguments. So it may indeed be worth integrating it into our coverage, providing it's with due weight. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Statements from major scientific organizations in the field are a step above individual studies. We do that all the time whether it's the IPCC for climate change, WHO for health related information, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's true for WHO & IPCC. But the society is quite different to those top tier orgs. They seem to have received much money from Monsanto, and mentioned the corporation on twitter only a few hours ago. It's likely that most, perhaps all society members are honourable & objective. And as mentioned I regard Biotech firms like Monsanto as great net positives overall, despite their occaisonal problematic actions, so I hope this won't be taken as casting aspersions. But while the society is certainly a respectable source, it's just not credible to compare it to orgs like IPPC & WHO!

As you seem to respect UN agencies like WHO, perhaps you'll be receptive to this 2019 FAO report on the severe risks to humanity posed by declining bio diversity. Granted its scope is on diversity as a whole, not just Insects. But it accurately summarises studies you seem to doubt like Hallman, agreeing their findings are "alarming". It even goes on to link to inspirational reports on how responses to Hallman by government bodies like Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit have led to record breaking levels of citizen participation in efforts to slow the extinction of insects. I hope any sceptical editors have time to read the FAO report, as while lengthy and not focussed on insects, it's an excellent balanced reflection of much of the relevent main stream science. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not going to fly to try to discredit scientific organizations like that, nor are IPCC or WHO entomological organizations. Based on those comments, looks like there's nothing to really cause any consensus against the current wording, especially since you're getting off-topic again (and really again please really focus on specific content and what sources actually say). Even in the FAO report you linked, Hallman isn't used in the manner you've been pushing for. I get it that you personally feel some of the wider conclusions from studies like Hallman, etc. are valid, but it's already been established how they have been criticized directly or very carefully cited by others that do use their findings even without the media Insect Apocaylpse stuff. Due to WP:CON policy, we just move on despite your personal objections and stick to what the totality of sources are actually saying per our various polices related to scientific content.

Either way, at least in terms of Sanchez-Bayo, the subject of this discussion section, it doesn't look like we have anything new to add right now, so it looks like there isn't anything more to add here right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to discredit ESA, just to say they are not comparable to orgs like IPPC. Like I said, EAS is a respectable source, and the FAQ looks quite balanced, even if it seems more sceptical than most responses to Sanchez-Bayo. For example, the ESA says that "recent studies that show declines in global insect populations" are "very concerning". A very sensible perspective. What do you think about adding that statement to this article? FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No one ever compared ESA to the IPCC or have considered sources from that group (nor are sourcing anything where they've come up), so it's silly to bring that comparison up. That being said, you'd have very tough time finding a different organization with more significantly more authority on general insect related science than ESA with only a small handful being in the same tier at best.

The "concern" is already wrapped into both the statements about why insect decline is happening, and on ESA's concern with needing better data on specific areas, so it would be redundant to add it. Not to mention that it concern could be misconstrued as stronger undue support for some of the studies in question, so it's better to stick with what ESA was actually focusing on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Link removal

Kingofaces, could you explain why you removed the link to Decline in insect populations? It's standard practice to link in this way to other pages directly connected to a section. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As already discussed above, the insect biodiversity article was intended to handle all of the insect decline topic in a WP:DUE manner. There are WP:POVFORK problems that arose with the creation of the redundant insect decline article, so it's not really appropriate to link to that at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's meant by "intended to handle" (intended by whom?), but that's clearly no longer the case. We have a stand-alone article on the decline, a topic widely discussed by scientists and the media, and there's no reason not to link to it alongside the biodiversity article. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The biodiversity article itself handles or houses the topic and doesn't circumvent the content discussion we've had here with respect to how particular studies need to be presented. Of course it needs to be fleshed out more, but creation of that decline article doesn't really affect what we do here per the POVFORK guidance. As already mentioned above, the science is very nuanced, and some editors have had troubles with that, so there's no rush for links either as we try to fix the problems that have come up at that page while actually trying to flesh out the topic at a more appropriate page as already discussed here.

That being said, the decline article is already wikilinked at the biodiversity article, but we don't need to be highlighting the decline article until these major issues get sorted out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, thanks for the reply. Who are "we", as in "what we do here" and "we try to fix"? The decline article is being developed, and it looks fine. It's a widely discussed topic at the moment, so it's appropriate for WP to host an article about it and to link to that article on other pages, as we always do. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate the concern the above editors have for getting the facts right, I do not understand why wikilinking is such an issue. I favour wikilinking or use of the {{further}} template. AshLin (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It's great to see SlimVirgin working on this and I'd support the link or any other improvmenets she wishes to make. That said, King seems correct about a PoV fork. There's been issues on this page with editors not liking what mainstream science has to say. So all mention was kept out of Wikipedia until 2019. And when some coverage was finally allowed on this page, it seems to downplay the decline more than even the most sceptical blog by a junior ecologist. Over at the new decline focussed article, we have relatively balanced coverage. I was hoping consensus over there would solidify a little more for the mainstream presentation, and then we could resolve the fork with NPOV on all pages. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Feyd, if you say I'm right about the POVFORK problems, you shouldn't be pushing for the content you currently are, but instead removing it and sticking to building up what we had here instead. We can't circumvent the consensus reached here by trying to horse that content in at a new page and circle back here as you're well aware. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

SV, we is plural for editors. There are a whole host a content issues being introduced there that circumvented process here, and a lot of disruption slowing that corrective process down, so it's still a work in progress to get to anything presentable. Also, no one is talking about not covering the subject at all. At the end of the day, nothing is solved by linking to the page, and discussion here was that the biodiversity page was the better area to handle the topic in a due fashion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, there seems to be consensus to add the link.

As for the other points: Decline in insect populations isn't a WP:POVFORK. It's a spin-off article, which happens all the time when an issue becomes substantial enough for stand-alone coverage. The reason I asked who you mean by "we" is that you seem to be referring to a consensus, e.g. "our rough status quo is what has been established over at Insect". [8] Who is "our" in that sentence, i.e. which editors established that status quo or consensus? You refer to it here too. I'd appreciate a pointer to that discussion.

In addition to removing links to the decline article, you've been giving a blog post by an ecologist and another post by the Entomological Society of America more space than to a systematic review, e.g. [9][10][11][12][13] You've also twice removed the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld study, [14][15] even though it's widely covered.

Can you explain your thinking here? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We can't really call consensus when there hasn't been legitimate reasoning to showcase two redundant articles.

For background, the third paragraph of Insect#Diversity is what was settled on for handling the decline topic in a WP:DUE fashion because particular studies needing that appropriate context within the same sentence/paragraph within this talk section as well as a couple others chiming in elsewhere on secondary review. That has been stable since most of February. That's also where it was brought up to flesh out the content carefully at the biodiversity article to take care of other weight issues.

In the meantime, the creation of the decline article was used to circumvent that consensus and the issues with particular studies it was meant to carefully address. That's where POVFORK applies as it dodged what was discussed here and isn't a label that can be removed until such issues are fixed like I already tried to do there, but the rest of what you ask is not for this page. On Sanders and ESA, Sanders' attributed comments were required per DUE policy there because of the repeated caution the rest of the literature gives on this subject and studies like this. ESA is a scientifc organization that's a higher tier source than an individual review.

Either way, the biodiversity article still handles all the relevant information at the decline article, so it's rather moot at this point to link to the decline article even we get to a point POVFORK didn't apply. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, thank you for the response. I'm not familiar with the background to this dispute. Consequently, when you use the passive voice (e.g. the "third paragraph of Insect#Diversity is what was settled on") or "we" and "our", I don't know which editors you're referring to. I see now that you may be referring to Dyanega and Kevmin, who seemed to support your position (in part) in February, but I think you're going much further than either of them indicated at that time. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That's the text that was agreed upon at the time with some updates on this page from higher quality sources like the ESA. The who doesn't matter, but what the content discussion was. There have been some recent changes over at the biodiversity article that you linked to diffs from above that were me just copying content already crafted by others, but what I pointed in the diversity section here is what has settled for some time as a baseline. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems a stretch to say even Dyanega agrees with your preferred text, certainly no one else seems to. And as for repeated caution the rest of the literature gives the subject, there's little evidence of this beyond the ESA statement, a blog by a junior ecologist & a poorly cited paper by a 98 year old (Briggs). Not to mention that the degree of scepticism in your preferred text goes way beyond that which is expressed by ESA & said blog. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

With that said, the way King's developed coverage over at Insect biodiversity seems relatively good, if still excessively skeptical. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Blog and industry lobbying sources

I object to this revert because "a large proportion" is less encyclopedic than "over 40%" as stated in the source; the blog post cited doesn't meet WP:SCIRS, and neither does this FAQ from a pesticide lobbyist organization (see e.g., "Advocacy Week" and their President writing that they, "lobby federal legislators ... as well as to tell the public that pesticides and genetically engineered plants, insects, and microorganisms can play a safe and effective role....") EllenCT (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)