User:Discospinster/Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex

Weird stuff happening here

See this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolutionary_theory_of_sex_(ETS)&diff=prev&oldid=731337577 I edited the lead and the rest of the article appears to have disappeared. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to have been an unclosed HTML comment, but that's sorted now AFAICT. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, obvious when you see it... Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw this article when it had a more meaningful introduction in its earlier versions, explaining the context of the theory, and now this introduction is deleted by Staszek Lem. This user also had made several other major cuts to the article - all without justification or explanations. Staszek Lem questions the notability of the article, but so far I don't see any problems with it: the theory was not self-published - it was published in a number of scientific journals that existed and still exist in the Russian scientific comminuty. Plus I see that there are several citations to the Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Science - this takes care of "veritability" and "reliable sources" rules related to notability. To be published in these Proceedings is as hard as to be published in the Proceedings of the NAS USA. I was in Russia from 1970-90s, and this theory was known to many people in academia there. I agree with Staszek Lem that current Russian science has significantly dropped in quality over the past 15-20 years but I wouldn’t generalise it to pre-perestroyka's Russian science (when Geodakian’s ETS was proposed). Russian science offered to the world the periodic table of chemical elements, several Nobel laureates, our currently working space program and leadership in mathematics, physics, philosophy, educational and neuropsychology and evolutionary research. Their level of evolutionary research on plants, fruit flies, mammals and rocks, especially in 1960-1990s, was exceptionally high and analytically deep. Only specialists know that, and it is worth to start making this knowledge available to the public. As noted by the user DoctorJoeE, the necessary references are already presented for readers to explore in this article, and the pdf link gives the description of their content. I wonder if quiet and unjustified cuts of large parts of the article constitute vandalism. Iratrofimov (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

re: "explaining the context of the theory" - It was deleted as unreferenced. Expaination by a wikipedian is not allowed in English Wikipedia. Besides the explanation was dubious. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't find the explanation dubious, it was very basic and straight-forward. This means that several users have a subjective views on what is dubious and what is not, and these views relate to the content, not to a format. Considering that you confuse the content with the format, it seems that you have a personal vendetta either against this theory or Geodakyan... Plus references are needed only for the main content of the page, not for the introduction (this is not a theoretical paper). Many pages in English Wikipedia have an introductory remark what a theory is about, when describing the main content of the theory. If any, just a link to the page on Sexual Reproduction is needed. I believe the cut should be discussed first before the execution, and you are acting out as if you own the Wikipedia. Besides, you keep returning the version where the name of Geodakyan is linked to non-existent page - this is not recommended in English Wikipedia. Iratrofimov (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confusing referencing of the introduction (description of what the issue is that the theory addresses) with the referencing of the theory itself. Looking at the introduction section that you deleted (without comments) we can see that it is very brief, basic and too general to bother about referencing, a simple link to the the page Evolution of sexual reproduction that covers this issue is sufficient.Iratrofimov (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

re: "Staszek Lem questions the notability of the article, but so far I don't see any problems with it" - You don't see problems because you are not familiar with English Wikipedia rules, in particular, of WP:NOTABILITY. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your assumption, but actually I am familiar with the English Wikipedia rules, and I consulted them again for the past several days when analysing why you are making such big cuts without comments and using such strong extreme language referring to the rules. After this analysis I posted my comments about vandalism. You made comments about single-primary sources whereas the article is obviously not posted by Geodakyan (I wonder if he is even alive, he must be over 90, and I doubt that he is editing Wikipedia); I am going to remove this tag. You also ignore the fact that multiple people edit this page and that this page refers to multiple secondary verifiable sources; having these sources in English is not a requirement, according to the guidelines; you also ignore the rule "Article content does not determine notability" mixing theoretical debates with the discussion of the Wikipedia rules. Intimidation is not the best strategy in sorting out a complex matter. Iratrofimov (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The above reply shows you nave absolutely no understanding how wikipedia works. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

re: "Only specialists know that, and it is worth to start making this knowledge available to the public" - Yes, but Wikipedia is not the place to start doing this. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia is the place where experts share their knowledge with the general public using summarised and illustrated descriptions.Iratrofimov (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This statement shows you have no idea how wikipedia is being written. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

re: "I wonder if quiet and unjustified cuts of large parts of the article constitute vandalism." - I let this accusation go only because it seems that you have no idea how English Wikipedia works. If you have any specific questions, please ask "what/why". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why you repeat this rather insulting expression "you have no idea how English Wikipedia works" - are we talking about the same English Wikipedia that I, as a Canadian, contributed to, or have you another English Wikipedia in mind?Iratrofimov (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Because you have no idea how wikipedia works and you show no desire to learn. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

re: "but I wouldn’t generalise it to pre-perestroyka's Russian science (when Geodakian’s ETS was proposed)" - I have read some of Geodakyan. I admit it was an interesting reading. However I got an impression that some parts of his texts were based on concepts which are no longer valid now, 50 years later. This is exactly the problem of writing wikipedia articles based solely on primary sources - a wikipedian by our definition cannot judge the validity/correctness of texts. Therefore in English Wikipedia we place a great deal of emphasis on secondary sources, where independent experts judge/interpret the original/primary research . Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Now I see the problem: you confuse the verification of the theory (which is a subject of scientific debates) and the verification of the sources. That is why you deleted the introductory paragraph. There should be no doubt that the sources of information for the GETS are verified, so the article is good to go - you admitted to reading these sources yourself. Your (dis)agreement with the theory should not be mixed with monitoring the rules, and, as KaiStr noted, many theories are only partially right (examples are Aristotle's, Freud's, Einstein's, Newton's, Piaget's theories and others). It seems that you have personal issues against the GETS and anything Russian, considering your interests in military globalisation, how bitterly you fight against posting this article online, deleting the whole article first, or cutting big pieces out it after its re-posting. I think KaiStr should review all these comments and return the introduction, and include the comments about the differences between the GETS and other theories.Iratrofimov (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I confuse nothing. You complaned that I am repeating the phrase "you have no idea how wikipedia works". Here is the phrase I am repeating here even more frequently: wikipedia requires references independent of the proponents of the theory, which you refuse to hear. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC on relevance and context

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to know whether this theory is sufficiently notable to have its own article. Furthermore, I'm not sure whether this article puts it in the right science-historical context, so I'm opening an RFC to get more eyes on the topic:

• Should this have its own article, or should it be discussed as part of Evolution of sexual reproduction?
• Does this article fairly present the importance and context of the topic?

--Slashme (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• The article does look like a promotion of the theories of a Geodakyan. Also the very introduction of the article looks suspicious. In particular, it contains plain false statement ("Since the offspring of each asexual individual is a clone with the same genotype, the chances of beneficial (most adaptive) configurations for survival are much better than in sexual reproduction."), which I am removing . I am also going to remove all unreferenced stuff. The second step is to verify the WP:UNDUE, i.e., whether the theories of Geodakyan are recognized by mainstream. And after that we may consider either to merge or to delete or to rename to Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've found ru:Эволюционная теория пола В. А. Геодакяна, so I moved the page as I suggested. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we need some comments about his theory from non-Russian sources. As you've noted , this is not part of the actual biological theory of sex differentiation. The few non-Russian refs cited here are peripheral to the theory. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Slashme and Staszek Lem on relevance and context

I know a little bit more about evolutionary biology and I think that the article Evolution of sexual reproduction is too messy and bloated with material. That article combines descriptions of several theories but doesn't classify them and doesn't list all the theories. Even so, it is already too big. My opinion is that that article should have a listing (a map) of theories related to sexual reproduction, but each of these theories should have their own pages, and the Evolutionary Theory of Sex (ETS) should be one of these independent pages.

Re: the representation of the topic: The topic is the ETS theory, and the issues that this theory deals with. In other words, the article on the ETS is not the introduction of the evolution of sexual reproduction, but rather an introduction to the position of one of the theories related to it. By analogy, there is a topic of gravity and several competing theories related to it. These theories have their own articles, such as modified Newtonian dynamics and general relativity.

To Staszek Lem, Re: promotion - can you identify the difference between a description of a theory and its promotion in the form of its description? By the same reason describing anybody's theory becomes its promotion, with all personal misconceptions attached to it. For example Einstein in his writing was (wrongly) criticising main stream quantum mechanics but part of his theory appeared to be useful. This is just the human nature of science. Wiki informs people about theories (and authors) that addressed important issues of science, and the ETS was addressing an important issue in its own way.

Re: the removal of the sentence about the clone - it should not be removed but edited by addition of a specifier "in stable environments" at the beginning of the sentence.

Re: a definition of the "mainstream" is needed. Having publications in the English language literature should not be a criterion for being mainstream. Geodakian's work was published in several proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and this theory was widely discussed in evolutionary biology and biological modelling in Russia. Wiki's readers are entitled to know about it, without the necessity to learn Russian first. I added more references. Historically we better give the credit to this theory, even if someone else later came up with something similar. Let's not be ignorant of scientists who published their theories in languages other than English. After all, we are talking about science produced by the Academy of Sciences in the USSR. KaiStr (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

* Comment Though I had never heard of Geodakian's work, and now having seen a little of it here, I largely reject it in effect, as not having much merit except where it overlaps more familiar material. My reaction, unoriginally, is along the lines of "what is good is not new, and what is new is not good".
However, I find myself having to agree in part with all the foregoing comments. In short, the situation is not simple. For example, even if my dismissal were authoritative and correct, that would not be grounds for omitting the article in some form at least, assuming that the subject is notable enough, which I suspect it is. I differ here with KaiStr, in that the issue is not "whether someone else later came up with something similar", nor for that matter, whether it is correct at all, but whether the topic itself as it stands or develops is notable, though its acceptability or otherwise certainly should influence the tone and content of the presentation. In this connection I agree with Staszek Lem that it looks like "promotion of the theories of a Geodakyan. Also the very introduction of the article looks suspicious..."
However, along similar lines, no one to my knowledge has forbidden the articles that deal with Trofim Lysenko even though their contents are not friendly to his nonsensical and IMO uninteresting, but none the less notable theories. In the present case, we find ourselves in difficulties because the mainstream theories concerning sex, evolution, and sexual evolution are neither uncontroversial nor mature. Accordingly I agree with KaiStr that the current Evolution of sexual reproduction needs radical redesign (I had never seen it to date, so my views are fresh, if not authoritative). The thing is that the field is vast, has several intrinsic aspects that vary in their mechanism in different taxa and in different ecological and ethological adaptations, some of the categories applying more persuasively to certain fields of biology than to others; part of my rejection of Geodakian's work is because much of what seems to have any substance, seems too generally applied on the basis of evidence from special cases. To what extent this is cherry picking or invalid generalisation, I decline to speculate, but the point is that similar fingers could be aimed at some other theories covered in the main article.
Accordingly it seems to me that

• The current Evolution of sexual reproduction needs to change to an assessment of the general logic and structure of the field, more of the question and context, and fewer of the answers if you like. In any case, it should give a cogent and coherent, though not comprehensive review of the field.
• The various theories mentioned in the main article, either rival or contextually independent, should be stripped down to brief statements with at most minimal criticism, evaluation, support, or citation, plus links to the respective articles that deal with them independently. This article on Geodakian's ideas, possibly drastically edited, should no doubt be one such.
• Every article linked to, should link back to the Evolution of sexual reproduction article. The fact that the various branches of the field need separate treatment, does not reduce the need for detailed, flexible, and logical maintenance of context.
• Every article on any topic in the field not only should be properly linked to and from, but should get a title that reflects its context. For example, to call this one "Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS)" was ridiculous. "Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex" is a good deal more like it.
• Each article must be so named and written as to avoid either prejudicing its content, or misleading any reader into the impression that it is the "evolutionary theory of sex"

These are hasty and arbitrary suggestions, and I invite improvements. I don't mind assisting in the process as I have hastily sketched it, but I have neither the time nor qualifications to run it myself. JonRichfield (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless mainstream or not, Russian or not, the major problem with the article is that the hypothesis is sourced exclusively from a single author. Without secondary references which judge the validity/importance of the hypothesis wikipedians themselves are not in a position to judge whether the topic is acceptable for wikipedia nor we "..historically ... better give the credit to this theory". Giving credits is the job of experts published in scholarly sources. This is our rules and wiki readers are not "entitled" to read anything in wikipedia which does not conform wikipedia rules. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a theory offered by a single person (Geodakyan), so it is natural to have the main references authored by primarily this person. For verification of the source and notability we have to look if the writing of this author is worth anything - and the fact that his writing was published in the leading biological journals, as well as Proceedings of Academy of Science in his country, plus whatever referenced TV shows presented - indicates notability, but also verification of the content. So the article follows the rules of wikipedia. I also see that you cut some text referencing additional sources - a review of your cuts is required. Iratrofimov (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also remind you that currently Russian science has huuuge problems with all kinds of pseudoscience peddled to grab govt/mil monies. Russian Academy of Science struggles impossible battles with "torsion fields" and superwater often pushed hard by govt officials, obviously for kickbacks. Respect for Russian science is all-time low, a really sorry state. And recently control of Russian Academy of Science is taken away from scientists and given to bureaucrats, which will only lead to deeper plunge. Therefore sorry, there is no trust of importance of this theory just because it entered in some Russian textbooks. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, On the whole I agree with JonRichfield on both the problems and the solutions. Whether Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex is pseudoscience or not, mainstream or only of historical interest, it may be sufficiently notable to rate an article, and though a single source may not be ideal, once the notability has been established, the number of sources used is secondary, provided that other sources are known to exist. They can be added later. Also there is a difference between notability as defined on Wikipedia, and importance, which needs a context to be meaningful. Staszek Lem makes a key point in that readers have no entitlement. They have the freedom to use Wikipedia at their own risk,and articles in Wikipedia are permitted when they comply with the consensus policy of the editors, though what that is in itself often open to debate. In this case it is primarily the question of notability of the subject. The secondary concerns of tone etc. do not matter at all if the subject is found not to be notable.

So, step one is to establish notability or otherwise. I have no opinion of notability at present as I cannot read Russian. Not-notable is the default value as soon as it is challenged. It is up to the proponents of the article to establish it. However, I will state that the current state of Russian scientific credibility is not relevant, The credibility at the time of the publications cited to indicate notability is more relevant and the actual relevance is in the credibility of the individual articles. My suggestion to KaiStr is to list sources here to support the claim of notability. They do not have to be accessible on the net, but their existence must be verifiable. Also note, that if any of the sources are shown to be inappropriate in any way, it will cast the shadow of doubt on all the others. If possible, please add an English translation of each of the reference descriptions in parenthesis. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: On the whole I also agree with JonRichfield on both the problems and the solutions. And agree with Pbsouthwood that we need to establish the notability (or not) of the topic before worrying about other aspects of the article. This needs some reliable sources other than the proponent of the theory. Until we have those, we have nothing but an article which runs the risk of seriously misleading readers. If, by any chance, this article should persist for weeks or months without substantial improvement, I think it behooves us at the very least to note in the article itself that the theory lacks independent support so may not qualify as scientific. As I have no expertise on the topic, or on the more general and related topic of the problem: why did sexual reproduction evolve?, I don't have any relevant references to cite. But surely somebody does! yoyo (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Having substantially agreed with all the previous statements so far, I now still agree substantially with all the subsequent comments. Among my reservations are the fact that whether pseudoscience is currently rife in Russian scientific output or not, is not a compelling basis for rejection, but at the same time, "...just because it entered in some Russian textbooks..." does not guarantee its acceptability or accuracy. Anyone who wants the material published in WP must establish either its cogency or the material criticising its cogency in forms that establish the context in which it appears (eg whether as a substantial theory or as a topic in pseudoscience) Whether as an accepted, conditional or rejected topic, it must be covered by necessary citation. It is only reasonable to say that "Having publications in the English language literature should not be a criterion for being mainstream", but it also not only is reasonable, but a long-standing, explicit requirement that the support should accessible to English readers if the article is to appear in the English WP. Whether it appears in the Russian WP is a separate and different question, and need not concern us here. JonRichfield (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I am very interested in this field of research, and had never heard of this theory. This despite my efforts two months ago to catch up with recent research in the field. (In my view, this theory is serious, and not crackpot. It's certainly not pseudoscience. Also in my view, it's mostly wrong. I'll be reading more about it.) But what we must consider here is whether the theory is notable enough to warrant an article. I can't read Russian, so I'm not qualified to help with that. What we need to find out is, are there respected academics who have said they take Geodakyan's theory seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maproom (talk • contribs)
• Comment: my views are pretty similar to JonRichfield's. The topic does appear notable even though it seems discredited or at the very least rebutted, yet the article is way too broad and centred around primary sources, not to mention it is too prositively-biased. I think we all agree it needs a serious copy edit along the lines of what's been suggested above. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that Geodakyan irritates a reader with self-promotional attitudes and over-generalization of some facts. This makes it difficult to present the theory without trashing it. Otherwise there is a desire to throw baby with the water. For this reason I didn’t cover other aspects of this theory, to make more explicit "where is the baby". However I wished other wiki contributors add whatever they know about it. KaiStr (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Difference

An explanation of the difference between this theory and other competing theories would be useful to the reader. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing is we cannot expain any differences without independent sources which expain it. and THIS is the major problem with the current article: no third party sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The bibliography toward the end of this PDF -- and another, more concise one here -- do include third-party sources. Identifying competing theories could pose a greater challenge. As someone said, I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes they do contain refs. But which of them are independent and discuss the theory critically? The first one (pdf book) contain 684 refs, but they overwhelmingly are on peripheral topics. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here - as for any book offering an updated description of a theory, the book has references to examples of the GETS. The book also cites the main references for the theory published in verifiable sources, and it would be strange if 600+ references would repeat the same statements. In my academic experience of writing scientific papers, the original (most cited) papers of someone classic have a rather cursory or superficial presentation of the theory, which the author amplifies in follow-up writing.Iratrofimov (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

<sigh> You don't see because you don't hear: per our policies independent sources are required, from scholars other than proponents of the theory, which discuss this theory . Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, how you demand that independent sources should be cited but you, Staszek Lem deleted big parts of the text (many times already) that cited these sources. I wonder that are the issues here... Iratrofimov (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please be specific: which sources do you have in mind? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The place of the Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex among other theories

I agree with KaiStr and JonRichfield that the Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex (GETS for short, here), as any other articles on the emergence and evolution of sexual reproduction, should exist as a separate page, having links to the article Evolution of sexual reproduction. I suggest (just a suggestion) having subsections in the Evolution of sexual reproduction: Theories related to...1) differences from other ways of reproduction, including information about species seasonally changing from asexual to sexual repr-n. 2) the mechanisms of evolution of s.reproduc-n 3) evolutionary benefits of sex.repr-n (and I agree with yoyo that it is here where the GETS belongs), 4) diversity of sex.repr-n, 5) computer simulations... etc... Whoever will be re-designing this main page might benefit from our proposals how to classify these theories, so let's think collectively :)

The user Peter (Southwood) makes a good point that a description of the difference of this theory from others is needed. The user Staszek Lem removed an introduction of this article that I saw earlier - I checked it in History and I suggest to return it and to recycle it with with an additional sentence, briefly pointing to the differences between this theory and other theories related to the evolution of sexual reproduction. I recall at least 4: 1- it addresses the question of benefits, and not mechanisms of sexual reproduction; 2 - it analyses the shape of distributions of phenotypes, and in the 1960s pointing to male variability was a novel perspective in analysis of sexual reproduction; 3- it assigns functionality to sex partitions of species (variable/experimental vs conserving the benefits) and therefore differs from other explanation by underlying this functional differentiation; only the "pathogens theory" addressed the benefits of male variability, and the GETS includes the "pathogens" explanation as well. 4 - it traces the different rates of transfer of genetic changes in males/females. At least these 4 topics are repeated in several of listed publications. There are many other claims of this theory, which pushed me off it, but these four differences are known in Russia and are sufficient for an introduction to this theory.

Most of listed references are verifiable and coming from reliable sources: in line with guidelines, they are not self-publications, online cites or self-promotional information (unlike some Wikipedia pages of porno-stars). If the information presented here is not correct, a large number of Russian-speaking scientists will notice it as they read English wikipedia much more than the read a Russian one. The Russian Academy of Sciences is also obsessive-compulsive about the standards of its Proceedings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iratrofimov (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

re: "I suggest to return it and to recycle it with with an additional sentence" - the judgement of a theory, including comparison with others, must come from independent reliable source. For example, "in the 1960s pointing to male variability was a novel perspective" - Who says so? Etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

See, here you are talking about "judgement of a theory" - these are theoretical debates. Please refer to the English Wikipedia rules WP:NOTMANUAL, "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal", bullet N7. If 100+ career-scientists in Russian Academy of Science in pre-perestroyka time (the best period of Russian science) reviewed this theory and allowed Geodakyan to publish it in their Proceedings, this is a reasonably reliable and independent assessment, and not self-publishing. For male variability please see Variability hypothesis but you are right - the links between this page and the GETS page is needed. BTW, the article Variability hypothesis is limited to the studies of a human IQ, and it should include the comment that the GETS analysed sex differences in the shapes of phenotypic distributions in animals and plants, not related to IQ whatsoever, and found higher male variability. This comment should be added in the Difference section of the GETS page. Plus I see Variability hypothesis page is missing important references to other studies of male variability phenomenon. Iratrofimov (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

re: "unlike some Wikipedia pages of porno-stars" - <chuckle-chuckle> You forgot Pokemon (another wikipedia-bashing item :-) In English Wikipedia we have different criteria for different areas of knowledge. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

re: "Russian Academy of Sciences ... obsessive-compulsive" Yes... but not when cronyism and appeal to authority kick in. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to factually report that theory A claims x and theory B claims y without judging either or resorting to original research. This is still useful to the reader who can then make their own judgements. It is also acceptable and encyclopaedic in the absence of an expert analysis from an independent reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs)

Well, if "theory A claims x" comes from source S1 and "theory B claims y" comes from source S2, then we are in a grave danger of WP:SYNTH with exception of very simple claims 'x' vs. 'y', such as "Anaxymedes died 765BC" vs. "no he did not". More complicated claims may depend on context. A simplest example: source S3 says "theory A claims x,y,z" source S4 says "theory B claims x,y,z, j,k,l". When left as is, a reader may conclude that theory B is stronger, while in fact they are equivalent because 'j,k,l' are consequences of 'y'. Therefore it is strongly required that a comparison must be cited from a source which does it in a proper way. For example, here in en:Wikipedia we had a serious discussion how to compare statistics, whether it is allowed to make a single stats table from data coming from different sources, etc.

That said, in an article about "theory A" it is OK to have a descriptive text "theory A claims x, p,q,r,s,t" citing only authors of theory A. In our context, it is also OK to write, e.g., " Author of theory A (i.e., Geodaqyan) claims that theory B ignores q,r,s,t" (notice the attribution). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As a career-scientist I see that most of Wikipedia pages have the format "theory A claims x, y, z" missing the fact that this theory also claimed very wrong "j, k, l", or even missing important key claims of the theory A. Examples are the theory of Vigotsky, Variability hypothesis and the Group selection theory. My hope is that good, but missing, items will gradually be noticed and added by other users of the Wikipedia. Staszek Lem likely means well but is rather idealistic to think that in science we have "sources which do it in a proper way" when describing the theories. Science is made by humans, not Gods, and the more complex the topic, the more diverse the opinions are and the less there is consensus. Books, including textbooks always have biases of the editors and authors, and often are just "good enough for a start". Just look at the history of re-writing of the Bible, and this re-writing was under the strong control of theological scholars of the time when there were not so many other books with alternative description or analysis of events. Even in reporting the seemingly most verifiable knowledge - statistics, i.e. numbers from objective measurement, there is a diversity of methods, or different results when the same methods are applied. Fortunately, scientific sources rarely diverge in such extremes like "Anaxymedes died 765BC" vs. "no he did not", and the quality of consensus in science is based on freedom of diverse contributions. The more diverse opinions, the more valuable is consensus, but diversity of opinions come with inevitable scientific debates, and this should be avoided in Wikipedia. The user Staszek Lem is perhaps too dramatic about additional verification of sources that by themselves went through scientific scrutiny. Plus this user is focused on theoretical discussions too much ("In our context, it is also OK to write, e.g., " Author of theory A (i.e., Geodaqyan) claims that theory B ignores q,r,s,t" (notice the attribution)") and at the same time, when I checked the History, I saw that he deleted the whole section about "upgrade of the GETS" from the initial posting, which described exactly how the theory A is missing q, r and s. Iratrofimov (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

As a career scientist you must be more humble when you delve into unfamiliar areas. As a "career-wikipedian" I am telling you that writing wikipedia articles is not the same as writing research articles or popular-science articles. I deleted "upgrade of GETS" of questionable relevance, because we did not figure out what's the deal with GETS itself yet. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

By deleting the "upgrades" section you delete the reference to independent sources, and then criticise the whole page for the lack of those. This is not a very productive approach, isn't it? Iratrofimov (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The "upgrades" section describes "upgrades" citing primary sources which made the upgrades, therefore in this context the sources are not independent. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

what was wrong with the "place of this theory among other theories" section? It should be returned, it is a useful section.217.117.86.78 (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

For improvement of this article

I will post the same text on KaiStr talk page, suggesting the following improvement (based on the discussion below)

• a return of the deleted introduction about the context of the theory (i.e. the problem with an explanation of the benefits of sexual reproduction). I saw the introduction, it was very basic and didn't need detail references except having a link to the Evolution of sexual reproduction page.
• deleting the reference to a non-existing personal page of Geodakyan (I think it was done already but Staszek Lem keeps undoing-it - could you please stop messing it up?)
• adding a section on the difference from other theories;
• returning the deleted text with references to additional sources using this theory;
• adding references to other scholar's work who analysed this theory, even in non-English publications
• for Staszek Lem - please discuss and justify cutting big parts of the text in this page (as you did several times already), and KaiStr might benefit from looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings, to protect the page. We invite other wikipedians and experts to contribute to improvement of the page, including their knowledge of criticism and upgrades but it's basis should be taken care of. In my experience with a description of various theories in the Wikipedia, updates of the pages about these theories mostly relate to their criticism or more precise description of their details. Such updates, however, come as a second wave of page's existence, and first the page should be established. Iratrofimov (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You got it everything upside down yet again. You cannot "return" anything without addressing the objections; the deleted part of the intro is anything but basic and even if it were, is a wikipedian requests refs, you provide them without squabbling; you cannot add a section about differences because you failed to provide independent sources which describe these differences; finally Staszek Lem explained the major problem you still refuse to grasp, and I am not going to repeat it for the 5th time already. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In wikipedia, new talk section is added at the bottom, not at the top. Therefore please stop referring to your "experience in Wikipedia": it is extremely limited even in the most basic things. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

copyrighted images

the images after Sept 5 were new, in comparison to the deleted previously due to copyright violation. I uploaded new images but Wiki did hang (twice) in this process. So I wonder what happened to my new uploads. In any case I am going to rename the images and rename the links, to avoid old references. So please treat them with attention, they are my product, not copyrighted. KaiStr (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Weird stuff happening again, would you stop cutting the page, Staszek Lem?

The user Staszek Lem did it again - simply cut a half of the page without justification, just because he/she personally doesn't like it. If you dont like the theory - please contribute to the criticism but don't deprive Wiki-readers of information on it. This is my last warning: I am returning the parts that you cut out, but if you cut it again, I will report a case of vandalism. KaiStr (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on continued disrespect for the editorial consensus on the talk page which outlines how this entry can be improved, I also move that Staszek Lem be warned and if necessary blocked from further vandalizing Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex. See Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism P.S. Staszek Lem from Bialystok's page shows his user box with photo of science fiction writer Stanisław_Lem with a Polish motto that google translates to mean "Until I took advantage of the Internet, I did not know that in the world there are so many idiots." In contrast the editors of the knowledgeable consensus comments have user pages which show math, science, biology edits and respect for wiki community.-Yohananw (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yohananw: you refer to Wikipedia:Vandalism. I suggest that you read it, or at least its first sentence. You may disagree with Staszek Lem's views and actions, but that does not mean that they constitute vandalism. Maproom (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I deleted "comparison" section again. Please don't restore text which is based on reliable independent sources. The ref to Trofimova published in PLOS is not a reliable independent source. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I restored the "comparison" section and will post the final warning about the vandalism on your talk page. Next time the matter will go directly to an administrator, as you had 4 warnings. There was a consensus in the earlier discussion that the comparison section is needed. The argument for your edit doesn't work: the reference that you mentioned does not represent Geodakyan's own work, so this page shouldn't suffer; other references are given as well (why are you focused on this one?) and, even your statement about PLoS as not reliable source is not correct. Your show not a neutral but a biased position with a special attention to Trofimova and Geodakyan's writing. Whatever your issues are in putting down these Russians, they are in line with your editing of other pages, and so your issues with the Polish-Russian conflicts might cloud your judgement. The Wikipedia is not the place for personal revenges. Re: COI - I have never published with Geodakyan or Trofimova, I just used their texts to put together this page. KaiStr (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Each and every statement must be based on verifiable independent sources. I can give a slack to Trofimova, but hers is footnote to a single phrase, which is basically useless: "ETS coincides with the theories that the emergence of sex assisted the fight against pathogens" - which theories? Therefore this statement is not even false. The rest of references do not speak about ETS, i.e. the whole section is WP:SYNTHESIS, not allowed in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

@KaiStr:: Acdcording to wikipedia policy WP:COI, please state your association with Trofimova and Geodakyan's theory. You appear to have a conflict of interest in this subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have conflict of interests KaiStr (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@KaiStr: Did you edit previously under the account Sashag (talk · contribs) ? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I never edit anything under the account Sashag (talk · contribs) but you seems like having a history of conflicts due to your vandalising actions. There was no need to delete the Comparison section, as this is a simple matter of pointing to similar theories. It is hard to justify Staszek Lem actions: they might reflect his biased scientific position to the ETS, or some political attitudes against the author of the ETS.KaiStr (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Last edit

For the user Staszek Lem: you added the markers in the Comparison section requiring citations where the links to the wiki's pages are given as citations. Plus your markers are inflammatory ("vague"? "clarification needed"?) when the matter is relatively simple and already cited in the above text. I am adding more links to the wiki pages, where citations could be found and removing your markers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiStr (talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't remove tags without addressing concerns expressed. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

re: "showed the results consistent with the ETS" since the sources cites are not easily accessible, please provide quotations from these sources which state that their results are consistent with ETS. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

The article has almost no secondary sources cited which discuss ETS in essence. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I see discussions of the ETS in Russian science, in various disciplines. For example, today I found one in the book "Psychology of Individuality, by Asmolov, a prominent figure in Russian psychology: Асмолов А. Г. Психология личности: Принципы общепсихологического анализа. — М.: Смысл, 2001. — 416 c. Iratrofimov (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

After reading this passage:

Жесткая логика, воспроизводимость результатов наблюдения, описание феноменов на языке математики — вот далеко не полный перечень атрибутов, без которых любой науке отказывалось в праве именоваться наукой1. Однако, как учит неумолимый опыт истории, лишь только вы встречаетесь с претензией на обладание одним и только одним путем к истине, лишь только в социальных или ес­тественных науках слышите фразу «Правильной дорогой идете, товарищи!», то знайте, что наука начинает перерождаться в веру. Идеал рациональности упрощает картину мира. ... <bla-bla>

A. Asmolov lost all credibility to me. A yet another example how post-Soviet science was destroyed. A person who rejects scientific method is a charlatan in my faithbook. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The very fact that in the context of sexual dimorphism he mentions nobody else but Geodakyan speaks volumes of his ignorance. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ant by the way Asmolov's brief papagraph is nothing but "discussion" of the ETS. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice that Staszek Lem posted too many aggressive edits and keeps insisting on major cuts to this page. A bit surprised here, since the ETS theory is useful to know as we ourselves bring it up occasionally in our anthropology studies. This is a legitimate subject, but this page is like a battle field, being cut and restored back and forth all the time. I really don't see why, the material is very basic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.186.57.4 (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I wondered why there were tags about primary sources since the secondary sources are already listed here. Plus the theory indeed is well-known, at least in the Eastern Europe, so there is no need to keep lighting torches over this matter. I scanned over the Talk page and it seems that evolutionists feel some strange need to act aggressively towards each other, even when they back up their theories with solid evidence. Here Staszek Lem made more edits, cuts and tags than any one editor before in other articles. I don't know what h has Geodakyan's theory and why he keeps ignoring a straight-forward text and just let everyone get on with it. Two tags at the beginning of the article duplicate the same message, so I will remove at least one tag. 89.108.181.76 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The tags serve different purpose. The first tag includes my comment about primary sources. Both tags do some automatic things which are different. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If something is well-known then surely you can add independent references which explain it in detail. Since none are added by the zealots of the theory, I guess there are none. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Magnitude of Geodakyan’s work

To many users of this discussion who are unfamiliar with Geodakyan’s work. There are three theories: ET of Sex (population level), theory of nomadic genes (transformation of ETS to chromosomal level) and ET of asymmetry (organismic level). All three theories are based on The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems. From this Principle follows the idea of asynchronous evolution. If somebody wants to attack the ETS, he needs to criticize the Principle and/or the idea of asynchronous evolution.

Therefore all talks about Russian science and scientists’ credibility, sources etc are ridiculous. To cover this body of work there should be multiple articles (minimum 4: 1 for Principle and 3 for each theory).

ETS article has a lot of mistakes, has pictures from other sources (not original) and gives wrong impression about the theory. The section about “The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems” has no information about the Principle. ETS does not coincide with “Red Queen hypothesis”. The article should be completely rewritten. Simple translation from Russian Wikipedia will be much more accurate. Catsweb (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

In wikipedia, we do not "attack" theories. We attack articles written without respect of the most basic rules about content in english-language wikipedia. Please read WP:V , WP:CITE , WP:RS , WP:NOR, WP:PRIMARY, for starters. Russian wikipedia seems to mostly ignore these rules. Staszek Lem (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talks about credibility of Russian science are not ridiculous. Pseudoscience is rampant in modern Russia. Russian Academy of Science is desperately outnumbered to combat it. Staszek Lem (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe but not here. I hope you see the difference between one scientist’s work and the country science in general. If you do not "attack" theories and consider yourself an expert, please help to make it better. Catsweb (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I know Russia has great scientists. Please provide independent reliable sources which evaluate Geodakyan' theories. I hope you have read our policies and understand the previous sentence. FYI the job I am doing here is not making something better, but to encourage those who can make it better to adhere our policies and guidelines. And in this way I am helping to make it in certain important respects better. Staszek Lem (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You say the article needs to be rewritten. You may start doing it here: /draft. I will gladly assist you in making it to conform our requirements. Unfortunately, as you may see from this talk page, previous accounts supporting Geodakyan didnt go beyond angry rants. Staszek Lem (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)