Talk:Insect

Template:WP1.0

Strange sentence, perhaps uses the wrong word?

The section on phylogeny has this:

Most extinct orders of insects developed during the Permian period that began around 270 million years ago.

That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Perhaps the intention was "most extant"? If that is indeed true (that is, most orders existing today developed in the Permian), then the sentence would make a lot of useful sense. Jlittlenz (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Insect. 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/20090927000720/http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/circulatory.html to http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/circulatory.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:40, 14 November 2017 (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)