Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:11, 12 March 2019

Template:FSS

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ecology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Insects Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misleading article

@Andrew Davidson: I think this article both misleading and incorrect, over-sensationalised and reminiscent of the tabloid press.

In the "Reviews and studies" section the first paragraph is about invertebrates, and not just insects. The second paragraph is about arthropods and not just insects. The third paragraph is about IUCN-listed insects, the big noticeable insects that the public are interested in, and not insects in general.

The fourth and final paragraph is more worthwhile but it is using insect biomass and specifically mentions butterflies, bees and moths. One missing butterfly has rather a heavy weighting in biomass terms compared to aphids or midges. Also, the source mentions such things as intensive crop production, removal of field verges and pesticide use in the area where the research was done, not necessarily typical of the whole world.

Our Insect article states that globally, there are estimated to be "5.5 million insect species with around 1 million insect species currently found and described", and this article states "About 40% of species are threatened by extinction". What rubbish! I'm tempted to send the article to AfD, but the subject is probably notable because the "science for the masses" journalists have written about it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are certainly some difficulties, and the use of figures about invertebrates-in-general and arthropods-in-general does not help the article's case. However, evidence of decline is available from many reliable sources (not yet cited in the article) describing insect declines in different regions of the world. I think what is needed is a more thorough examination of the evidence of declines

a) in different parts of the world

b) in different species

c) in total numbers of insects.

Something also needs to be said, as you imply, about the difference between the presumed total number of insect species, and the number described by science. Then any figures for decline can be related carefully to one or other of these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This had already been discussed extensively over at Insect with respect to all the "Insect Armageddon" stuff and criticism of science media report as well as occasional journal articles. The short of it was that this subject should be handled at Insect#Diversity and the daughter article Insect biodiversity. That was the preference over even creating an insect decline section, so creation of a new page goes well beyond that.

The best course of action would be to just redirect this to Insect#Diversity. A lot of this is stuff already discussed that didn't pass muster because of being primary sources, and there are a ton of reviews discussing the subject of insect decline. This article gets more into WP:SYNTH territory by just listing studies because the weight of those reviews aren't really coming into play here. I'm not sure what if anything could really be merged over there yet though. This is definitely a subject to stick to reviews on given all the scientific criticism out there on poorly designed studies or ones overblown by reporting. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy to support a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not be hasty here. While brief, this article by The Colonel (Andrew D) is a first class piece of work, accurately reflecting scientific consensus. Whereas the treatment of Insect decline at the main Insect page doesn't even rise to the level of fringe - it's appalling bad. There's just a couple of sentences on the subject. In blatant violation of normal practice for science articles, a blog by a junior ecologist has been given equal weight to rebut a meta study. Even the blog has arguably been misrepresented to claim the study often excludes "data the (sic) shows increases in diversity". (The study doesn't exclude such data, and even the blog doesn't claim that, though granted it makes some spurious arguments in that direction.)

Going back to your original point Chiswick Chap, there unfortunately doesn't seem to be much discussion in the literature on the apparent difficulty in estimating the overall % of species at risk. This is likely as for statistically sophisticated scientists, the issue can be seen as almost too obvious to mention. But let me lay out the basics.

Assuming it's correct that there's very roughly 5 million insect species, with only about 20% of them identified, it's obviously impossible to individually track their declines. What we can do is track overall declines by measuring total biomass, which to a large extent captures declines for all species, whether or not they've been individually identified. As per multiple studies in places like UK (Shortall et al., 2009) , Germany (Hallmann et al., 2017 ) and Puerto Rica ( Lister and Garcia, 2018) total insect biomass has been declining these past few decades at a rate that averages at about 2.5% / year (Linear). Clearly by basic maths, a 2.5% linear decline would mean total insect biomass declining to zero in just 40 years. So if there really is an ongoing 2.5% linear decline, it's trivial to extrapolate that 100% of insects species would be extinct by about 2060.

The 2.5% linear discussion was just to make the extrapolation point in simple terms. Naturally, the good scientists in the Sánchez-Bayo meta study appreciate there isn't really a linear decline, and that a more accurate approximation is an exponential decline of about ~4.6% (i.e., each year there's about a 4.6% loss of the previous years biomass). This implies total biomass declining by over 40% in just 11 years, by over 70% in 26 years, and by over 99% in 100 years. The Sánchez-Bayo study treats this and much other data (e.g. relating to actual technical extinctions, where certain insects haven't been observed for >50years) in a sophisticated manner. For example they make good use of rigorous methodologies like ANOVA. Thus they can make extrapolations to the claim that we may see "extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades." (direct quote from the abstract of the Wyckhuys & Sánchez-Bayo study FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

So basically, no reason against a redirect, especially discounting the aggrandizing language. Do keep in mind you've also been made very aware it's inappropriate to cherry-pick undue studies like Sánchez-Bayo based on discussions at Insect and attempts to make it clear to you what policy problems you were getting hung up on previously. You've already been invited multiple times to develop content at the diversity section/article if you felt strongly about something with appropriate sourcing and weight, so it's really odd just to continue soapboxing about the coverage there being "appallingly bad".

The take home has always been that the insect armageddon thing as presented in media and sources you are picking is largely undue in terms of what the literature as a whole actually discusses, and that if someone wants to develop specific content based on secondary sources, the WP:BURDEN is on them to do it over at Insect/Insect biodiversity first in order to even begin assessing if something like a split is needed from there or the biodiversity article. Based on what we've seen so far here, there hasn't been any reasoning for keeping this page as more than a redirect with the other articles in mind. I also consider this inadvertent and not intended by Andrew Davidson, but we also need to be careful of a POV WP:COATRACK when insect decline gets pulled out of the larger context of the literature like what happened here. Andrew at least avoided common tropes like extrapolating the 2016 German study as a worldwide claim, but we really need to stick to what the totality of reviews say on the subject rather than focus on primary studies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

And just to be clear, the redirect target probably should be Insect biodiversity rather than at the Insect page's summary of it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing undue about the Sánchez-Bayo study. I've produced stacks of high quality papers & science journalism in line with what Sánchez-Bayo says. All you've presented to support your OR opinion that it's undue is a random paper by a long since retired 98 year old and a blog by a junior ecologist I can't believe you have the gall to imply I've been soap boxing on talk rather than working on developing content. Since 2017, I've many times added high quality, balanced & well sourced summaries of the decline phenomena, which you’ve 100% reverted. Hence the need for these admitedly annoying talk page discussions. FeydHuxtable (talk)

This has been repeatedly discussed and refuted at other pages, so we're more or less required by WP:CONSENSUS to ignore your claims that this is not a heavily criticized topic. If it's still unclear why this is such a problem and you don't wish to listen to me, try asking some of the other insect-related editors at Wikiproject Insects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Talk of the tabloid press is absurd as this topic has been covered in detail by the quality press, based upon reputable scientific papers. It is therefore quite notable and so we should resist any attempt to delete the topic as the OP suggests. The title and scope of the page is modelled on the similar Decline in amphibian populations. That is rated as a Good Article and so seems a good example to follow. It took five years for that page to reach that level but we have only just started here. I expect that that there is much more digesting of the detail to be done but one has to start somewhere and so here we are. Andrew D. (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and at least put in the previously agreed upon consensus text for the insect decline topic as a stopgap until some time has passed for others to comment on a redirect. We can't WP:COATRACK the subject like this. Keep in mind that since this deals with pesticides and 1RR, we have to stick with the consensus version and generally follow WP:BRD when new edits are disputed. As it stands though, this scope is just entirely redundant with the other articles, which was the problem from the start. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted as your claims seem false. For the reasons described above, the coverage of the decline phenomena on the Insect page is appallingly bad. At least there a case could be made to keep coverage very brief as main article is about the wider topic, not purely about the decline as is the case here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, you're arguing for a WP:COATRACK, so it's inappropriate to that much less edit war it back in despite warning. Please remember to undo that edit warring some other editors don't have to fix that mistake. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• WP:COATRACK is an essay which, in a nutshell, says that "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." This article is about the decline of insect populations and mostly focusses on that topic. That essay therefore seems irrelevant. More relevant is WP:BLANK, which is a guideline and so stronger than an essay. This indicates that we should not edit to leave the page "without any substantial content". An indiscriminate and wholesale removal of the body of the article is therefore improper. Reversion of such disruptive action is to be expected. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Essays supplement policy and guidelines often as explanatory reading. You could read WP:POVFORK too, but at the end of the day, circumventing WP:CONSENSUS policy through a new page is disruptive no matter what you call it, and it should be expected that such actions will be reverted, especially since they violate the intent 1RR DS. When content is disputed as part of the 1RR pesticide DS, you are expected not to edit war it back in as Feyd did (and they've been warned about that many times). Instead, you need to gain consensus for it. It was clear from the start of this discussion that your version did not have consensus starting with Cwmhiraeth, so we needed to go back to the last consensus version that was being circumvented to avoiding blanking the page if we're going to have anything. If it wasn't for that, we'd automatically be at AfD rather than letting this conversation go for a bit as others might chime in on the redirect. If you're not happy with that and want to flesh out content of the subject, it's been repeatedly pointed out where that work needs to be done in order to have appropriate WP:WEIGHT before even considering anything like a proper WP:SPLIT. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like wiki lawyering nonsense I'm afraid. The version you've edit warred to seems to be Fringe, as well described here. I'm restoring the stable version, until there are either sound arguments or at least majority support to do otherwise. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If edit warring continues, I am going to block the involved users. --Leyo 09:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

With great respect, I'm not sure that would be warranted. I'm not sure King's editing has been that bad, in some respects he has been quite careful to comply with policy, and at least he has been civil. I know I've been suggesting some of King's editing amounts to Fringe pushing, but its probably a little more nuanced than that. You know what MEDS editors can be like, I'm just trying to talk to them in their own language.

Your previous minor edit to the article doesn't rise to the level of making you involved, but it does somewhat suggest you agree with the mainstream view. From a quick review of your contributions, your technical and scientific proficiency seems to massively exceed the typical science editor so I don't see how you could possibly not agree with the rigorous science. So in a sense, if you were to block King it might be seen as non neutral. If you judged I deserve a block on the other hand, I don't see why that would be problematic. That said, you're the admin so whatever you decide. Thank you for warning before blocking. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Being a non-expert in the article's matter, I simply fixed a technical issue (missing title) in the article. That's why I've had the article on my watchlist. I am concerned about the edit warring. If at all, I would surely need to block all involved parties, not just one. --Leyo 10:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Leyo, as you've already been warned, you are a WP:INVOLVED admin where the pesticide DS are in play and due to attacks towards me, and cannot act as an admin in those areas. The page may need to be protected though if Feyd continues to edit war this in without gaining consensus.

As it stands right now, this version that FeydHuxtable seems to forget they are edit warring in despite lack of consensus (pinging as another reminder you forgot to undo your edit warring and gain consensus here). We cannot game 1RR like that. The WP:ONUS is on those wanting to keep the new text Feyd keeps introducing, not the agreed upon consensus version. So far, editors have mostly considered deletion or redirect instead, less so the consensus text I restored, and even less the current state of the article. Unless we have a sudden shift in consensus on that matter in the next few days, we could always just go ahead with the redirect to prevent the WP:POVFORK issues. At the end of the day though, this is extremely WP:UNDUE compared to what's been agreed upon at other pages and circumvents WP:CONSENSUS policy by proxying an old dispute at a new page, which is why the current version isn't going to remain in the long-term considering the lack of consensus for it on this talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• The bold edits made by Kingofaces43 on the 4 and 5 March, attempted to completely rewrite the article with an article fragment, lacking numerous elements which we would expect in such an article – a lead, picture, contents, reflist, categories, &c. The sourcing was inferior, as much of the brief content was only supported by a personal blog. So, those edits violated numerous guidelines including WP:BLANK, WP:BLOGS, WP:CITEVAR, WP:EDITWAR, WP:MOSLEAD and especially WP:RECKLESS. Reverting such over-bold edits is to be expected, per WP:BRD and, given the applicable sanctions and the clear warning by admin Leyo, they should not be repeated.

If there is good additional content introduced in those edits, such as the paper about the hundreds of recorded extinctions, then this might usefully be added to the article, rather than replacing it. I suggest that a history section be added to cover the period before the recent acceleration in the decline. There is more good material from the past which will go well in such a section. For example, the sources commonly cite the example of the Rocky Mountain locust – a remarkable extinction given the previous great abundance of this species.

Andrew D. (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Your first paragraph would violate WP:CONSENSUS policy, as well as violate WP:DUE per previous talk discussions, so no, and do not misrepresent my edits trying to keep the current edit warring in check despite lack of consensus for the reinserted content. This has already been hashed out repeatedly at the relevant pages (and why I'm not rehashing it again), so we stick with the consensus text until something changes. There's no way around that regardless of attempts at edit warring it back in (it's beyond me why any experienced editor would think that's ok). You should have expected your bold edits to be removed per WP:BRD and restored to the consensus text that this article circumvented while deletion/redirect discussion continues.

Please remember that further attempts to violate BRD and the intent of 1RR will simply result in removal and possibly enforcement of the DS. BLANK applies to blanking the page, not stubifying to fix the very issues brought up on this talk page. These attempts to shoehorn in the undue content at a new article is indeed getting sloppy and reckless as you say. Both you and Feyd now know your content should not be reintroduced unless consensus is gained for it, so the next time the content is removed, I would expect both of you to follow basic policy like WP:ONUS as well as the intent of the edit warring DS restrictions and stop reintroducing the content. This should be nowhere near as difficult as it's currently been.

With that said, I've also repeatedly stated where this content should be worked out per previous talk page discussions. If editors are interested in fleshing out this subject, they need to do it carefully and in the proper context, which is why it was agreed to handle it at the insect and biodiversity articles. Creating a new article does not change that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

As you don't seem to be WP:FOC I'll allow myself to comment that this invincible level of self confidence is extremely impressive. Though it may be leading you to miss-read things to suit your pre-conceptions; for example, when the good Colonel referred to recklessness, he clearly meant your own overly bold removals. Sadly, even after reading this several times I can't find much to agree with. Especially with regards to how your comments pertain to this article rather than Insect , where I would concede burden is largely in your favour (though it seems an overreach to say consensus supports your version even on the Insect page.)

In my view at least consensus on this page remains for the existing stable version. Which gives due weight to the main stream scientific consensus expressed in the dozens of conciliant decline related studies, the recent United Nations report, and the only existing meta-study on global insect decline(Sánchez-Bayo). It's not just the media using dramatic language to describe this phenomena. The scientific papers themselves, including the meta-study, repeatedly state that if not soon mitigated, current rates of insect decline risk impending "catastrophic" collapse of the planets ecosystems. It will be interesting to see what other editors have to say, especially now this matter has been raised on wiki project Insects. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

First, please keep in mind the only time I've been rather patiently commenting on behavior here is when you've been directly interjecting those issues into your edits across multiple related pages making it near impossible to work on specific content without wrangling with those problems. If you need help resolving those issues, I suggest reviewing previous user talk discussions, your AE case, getting advice from other editors, etc., but this not the place where it should be taking up talk page space, and you've been given more than enough caution to knock it off. I've given you plenty of advice on avoiding such battleground behavior, but it's probably better if you hear it from someone else at this point.

For a pointed content comment, there is very clear opposition to the way this page was presented from multiple editors, so you cannot claim consensus in the opposite, especially since it gives undue weight towards non-mainstream views on the subject. I still understand you have personal views that differ from that, but your comments have made it very clear you are drifting into WP:OR territory and repeatedly aggrandizing selected sources as you just did with the Sánchez-Bayo. The mainstream science has been very clear that some of the views you've been wanting to include are definitely not such. That's why many of your comments have to be dismissed here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS policy. With that, adding the ESA statement in a criticism section gets into some of the issues outlined at WP:NOCRIT essentially obfuscating the mainstream science view that's very tempered in its statements on the subject. We can't bury the lead the like that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

On the content overall, it's clear that the current version hasn't gained consensus even after letting this sit for awhile, so per WP:ONUS policy, I have removed it. That’s especially considering that multiple editors have brought up issues with the original state of the article, and nothing has been done to really address those issues. Some of it is use of primary sources or undue use of secondaries. At the risk of repeating myself, that cannot be readded without gaining consensus here both due to ONUS policy, and the 1RR restriction that made it clear readding such disputed content would be WP:GAMING.

There needs to be something stable, but even if we disregarded the onus problem, the removed version was not it at all since it was only maintained by edit warring despite talk page opposition, not consensus. We do have the consensus text from over at the insect article, and since that discussion there made it very clear presenting the science in the way done here would be very WP:UNDUE, the removed version would also directly be a WP:POVFORK if it were maintained only because it was a new article. That means at a minimum, we stick with the consensus text and build from there by stubifying it first. Since it's been thrown out there a few times, that is not a WP:BLANK (nor would a redirect be for that matter). Unless someone has additions that would also work at Insect biodiversity without creating undue weight, that book should be closed for now with the consensus text reinserted as a stopgap unless new information comes in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for the half-baked stub that Kingofaces43 has repeated. Its content and sourcing is inferior and it does not help us forward. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We already established that functional consensus over at Insect, or at least decided that the information needs to be presented in a similar manner rather than the style presented here (which also came up over there). That's why this became a WP:POVFORK. The sourcing is your version is "inferior" in that it uses primary studies and it reports results uncritically of reviews that have been criticized or buries that information. The stub at least describes the mainstream science view focusing more weight on a higher tier source like the ESA rather than a handful of lesser sources. If the statement from Sanders is your concern, it doens't matter that it comes from a blog. Unless it's a clearly fringe position, we often use statements from experts in the field with attribution as criticism of studies that require it in terms of due weight.

Like I've said before, if you're interested in fleshing out this content, the exact same framework is over at Insect biodiversity ready to be worked on rather than creating a redundant page. Until then, we have to stick with the settled version from the insect page and work forward from that, not keep restoring your version without the problems taken care of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• As ever, the good Colonel summarises the situation with perfect concision.

King, possibly you'll find it helpful if we have a more verbose look at some of your points, with a special focus on what Sanders actually says in her blog and how it was being misrepresented. If so, please open the below.

I'm glad to see we agree that it would be most helpful if wiki project Insects editors would like to chime in. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any colonels here, nor would any such title have any meaning, especially when my PhD in entomology has no meaning here. In short though, you've made arguments that violate WP:POVFORK, so most the above is a no-go. I've talked to you about inserting your own personal opinions way too much, injecting denialism into things, going on tangents (hence the walls of text and lack of actually working on focused content), etc. so no need to rehash that again. You're mostly just rehashing what you said at Insect that didn't gain acceptance, so that's mostly a WP:DEADHORSE and can't be used to change consensus at this point, so Talk:Insect#The_planet_is_on_track_for_total_Insect_extinction_,_according_to_1st_ever_global_review just needs to be re-read.

As for Sanders, etc. calling that undue or even insinuating fringe or even minority viewpoint like you've been gets into that WP:OR problem again and will likely end up conflicting with our polices and guidelines considering that. You should also know by now that what you tried to do with the Sanders text is disputed, so you should be proposing content at the talk page first as part of WP:BRD.

I'll just keep working to maintain the functional consensus text at this point considering nothing has changed here if you or Andrew don't undo the edit warring. I've been very patient with both of you, but at the end of the day, the Arbcom case was very clear that trying to horse in content through slow edit warring to get around 1RR like this is gaming, especially considering the POV fork problem. I have a high amount of patience for people having trouble with edit warring like that, but this has been enough time of letting the DS be lax. You're also well aware of how studies like Sánchez-Bayo have been criticized and can easily become WP:UNDUE, which was the whole discussion over at the insect page and a continuing problem here now. If anyone has content to introduce centered over at Insect biodiversity where all the framework already exists, then by all means bring up content proposals. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope you've noticed WP:OR is clear that it "does not apply to talk pages". Sadly it's yourself that has been violating OR. For example, Your alternative version explicitly states a conclusion not found in Sanders blog, namely that she claims the data on increases is "excluded". When it comes to article space, WP:OR is clear that if you reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. Hopefully this is clear, and you won't further revert once editors once again correct the misrepresentation on the Insect page.

As for the POVFORK, this is something that should be resolved in due time. It's to be hoped that experts from wiki project Insects will arrive and help us reach a consensus. If you'd like an immediate resolution, all you need to do is cease your objections to a NPOV presentation of the main stream science.

i.e stop insisting on a version that sets a blog against a high level review and the dozens of peer reviewed studies that support it. And which distorts the finding of said blog so as to violate WP:OR and to risk making the author look like a Denialist. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

OR does apply to talk pages when it comes to misusing sources or going into your own personal analysis, and I've given you enough guidance on that. There is a point where your personal views on this get into WP:NOTFORUM territory, and this talk page is long enough due to that.

On Sanders, she is quite explicit that they used terms that would largely exclude studies without increases. So no, it's time to drop that claim, especially since WP:BLP is indeed in play as you've mentioned. Sanders will also continue to be used because what you suggest would directly violate WP:DUE unless we want to exclude Sanchez-Bayo entirely. We need to the due weight from other scientists in order to use that source. Again, already discussed to death on other pages, so there's no reason to rehash that here.

On WP Insects, keep in mind that you are already talking to one expert from there, and others who frequent there have also grumbled about undue issues with respect to insect decline studies both directly to you and elsewhere, but have generally only made a comment or two, and some just didn't want to get involved after seeing what I've been dealing with here too. I'm used to that though, so that's why I've been trying patiently to get you and Andrew to knock off the edit warring so we don't have to resort to AE sanctions.

On your "immediate resolution" comment, I'd be glad to have that considering I've never had any objections to presenting the NPOV mainstream science. In fact, I've been trying to remove the non-mainstream presentation of it here, and replace it with the mainstream presentation here instead. I wouldn't mind closing the book on that if you've changed your mind.

Being serious though, that request you just made was getting into gaming the DS and WP:ONUS. You are supposed to gain consensus for those edits, not force them in by edit warring or offering "quick resolution". The current stopgap solution is to stick with the functional consensus text from Insect while you and Andrew try get consensus on something or other editors chime in. I'm bound by the discretionary sanctions here, so I need to follow those and remove content that fails ONUS like that and at least try to help you two work on getting consensus for the edits. It's not helpful when you or Andrew skirt the DS and force me to continuously have to revert you, so I won't try to help you out in that area anymore and focus on cleaning up the ongoing edit warring.

On a final note, trying to interject "denialist" towards Sanders is getting into WP:FRINGE violation territory. That is reaching so far with hyperbolization in your comments that it just requires dismissal at this point with respect to weighing WP:CON policy. If you want to start invoking denialist for whatever mainstream science you don't agree with and using it to raise a fuss like that, Misplaced Pages is not the place to do it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No one's trying to interject "denialist" towards Sanders! As per the collapsed section above, she's quite the opposite. To clarify, IMO it's the OR way that you're trying to use Sanders's blog that seems to arguably go beyond mere Fringe and into Denialist territory. Granted, like you say there have been hints that the good Wiki project Insect experts prefer your take, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

On the WP:Due point, I guess we could continue setting Sanders against the review & other peer reviewed papers. But as per balanced coverage I've been trying to add to mainspace since January, the lede face of scepticism should be her far more senior buddy Simon Leather. (the good professor has also blogged specifically towards Sánchez-Bayo.) We could mention both Leather & Sander's criticism, though ideally we shouldn't be giving their blogs equal weight against the high quality peer reviewed studies & their review. (The alt version we still have at Insect uses more words to represent Sanders's blog than it does the Sánchez-Bayo high level review.)

Returning to the OR question, the wording of the alt version - Some studies have suggested a large proportion of insect species are threatened with extinction in the 21st century,(cite to Sánchez-Bayo ) though ecologist Manu Sanders notes that many of these findings are often biased by excluding data that shows increases or stability in diversity, and limited to specific geographic areas and specific groups of species - is somewhat ambiguous. It can be interpreted in two ways, either of which is a WP:OR violation: 1) that Sanders is saying the other ("Some studies") sources exclude the data. 2) that she's saying Sánchez-Bayo excludes the data . Both are blatant OR. We could keep with the spirit of your version but just improve the wording to reduce the OR, e.g. say something like "Sanders argues that the search term used by Sánchez-Bayo excludes data showing increases..." That would be quite a bit closer to what Sanders actually says. But even this would still be OR. Here's the actual wording from her blog: "is problematic for a few reasons: (i) it will mostly find papers showing declines, not population increases..." Note the word mostly - clearly Sanders is making a much more cautious and correct statement than to imply the counter trend data is excluded. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You've been directly interjecting it or a sort of fringe skepticism with regards to Sanders in how her source is currently used. That is what was out of line.

On due, the focus on blogs is what seems to be tripping you up. We generally look to statements by scientists for assessment of studies. These are the types of situations when there are issues with a study we frequently use statements by respected scientists whether it's in a blog, editorial, etc. We just need to verify it was them saying it and use it with attribution. Those types of uses are done when they are needed for WP:DUE use of the questioned source, and are not used when it's clear the person is a lone outlier on the fringe. Again, we've already largely settled that text elsewhere, so that's just rehashing again.

As for the actual use of Sanders, you claim OR, but it's right there, so no, your claim contradicts the source. Sánchez-Bayo used terminology that largely excluded certain effects, and Sanders has criticized both that study and others for their limitations. In short, 1 and 2 are sourced. None of this does anything to move consensus on yours and Andrew's alternate version from the text we already largely settled on though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

So far, we’ve had three editors looking at either deletion or redirect. We’ve talked about how it’s very easy for both readers and editors to take the material in an undue weight without appropriate context here and at related pages. I’ve created this subsection for any new editors popping in.

WP:NOPAGE also gives guidance on this with Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. and One should particularly consider due and undue weight.

This topic first came up at the Insect page where the last paragraph listed there is largely what was decided on, and to handle material of further depth at the daughter article, Insect biodiversity, which does need to be fleshed out. That was also because the topic of insect declines needed to be handled very carefully in proper context to make sure the nuanced science is presented correctly as opposed to making it seem like we're going to lose most of our insect species in the next decades. That’s also what this article has currently been stubified to for now as at least a baseline.

So basically, the main question for a redirect is how strongly that first bullet on NOPAGE applies here. We currently have two redundant pages with this topic, with Insect biodiversity basically meant to handle all of this subject with no reason for a split from there, and Insect has a summary. If anyone else is going to chime in, I’d be curious to see what they have to say specifically on a redirect since the above conversation has mostly said what it’s going to say on the matter already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This page is modelled on decline in amphibian populations, which is a good article. As there are many more insects than amphibians, this equivalent page has even more potential. These specific topics are notable and so pages for them are appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is basically why the redirect is needed and hasn't addressed the underlying problems. Insect biodiversity was already the place to handle all of this, so creation of a new page to do exactly that simply because a similarly named title existed for amphibians goes against the page creation guideline. Pretty much everything you've brought for content here has main sections over at the diversity article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The insect biodiversity article has existed since 2007 but is still graded as start class. The only person commenting on its talk page starts by stating that "This is a rather weak article..." It appears that the scope of that article is too broad and so it's better to have a more focussed approach based upon the latest sources. We have other topical articles such as windshield phenomenon and it is to be expected that we will have spectrum of articles from the very general to the highly specific. Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no practical limit to the number of articles and large topics should be split and kept to a reasonable size. Andrew D. (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly why we'll likely be going ahead with the redirect eventually. It's rather silly to say the biodiversity article needs work done, so a new one should be created, and that comment still doesn't address the main issues brought up at other pages on why we can't do this. WP:NOPAGE is very clear that some topics need to be nested with some broader areas for proper context, and that's what's needed here as already discussed previously before you created this fork. Eventually, that diversity page will encompass things like general insect diversity as well as changes in it (largely human mediated), and that's going to be the core focus of if it's ever expanded. If this really was such a huge topic that wouldn't work at the biodiversity page, someone should easily be able to justify a split but developing the content there. No one has bothered to do that yet aside from what I've added there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose In addition to many concerns expressed elsewhere on this talk page, the above argument for a redirect contains a straw man, i.e. making it seem like we're going to lose most of our insect species in the next decades No version of this article has ever said that. At least with regards to the mainstream version, this article has always been careful not to reach beyond the sources. As per the abstract of the only available high level review on global insect decline, "dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades.". Per basic maths, 40% != most. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

First, please strike the mispresentation of a strawman as you're well aware this is a DS topic. Losing most of our insect species in the next decades is indeed part of the "Insect Armageddon" neologism that requires caution in due weight this fork does not practice. If someone is going to oppose this based on pure semantics like many vs. most, that really does not matter. The end problem is that we're getting into the POV fork problem by cherrypicking studies claiming 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades when at previous pages we already determined it was not appropriate to use a highly criticized study finding like that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We're talking science here, precision matters. The difference between 40% and >50% is rather large. And even if it's true that some of the wilder media sources are claiming we'll lose most of our insect species in the next few decades (which I've not seen), that has little bearing on the mainstream version of this article, which is careful not to reach beyond the sources, and in fact doesn't currently summarise the more alarming predictions in Sánchez-Bayo. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That's going off on a tangent again. Now you're arguing about 40 vs. 50% for some reason, which is another thing we now need to dismiss in this long talk page. The end result is that even that 40% number has been criticized in addition the media reports exaggerating it, and you're well aware of that from past discussions. We've already discussed at other pages that we can't be just listing random studies, especially primary ones or undue use of challenged reviews, and this page is now being used to circumvent that as a WP:POVFORK. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Responding just to the 'challenged' point. Any high level review in a subject of interest to Fringe pushers is liable to be challenged. The fact there are a few personal blogs & other non-peer reviewed statements doing so means nothing. Granted, Sánchez-Bayo is less than 2 months old. But the fact there's close to zero peer reviewed challenges even to Hallman et la (a very high profile & rigourous study that sparked the Armageddon concerns back in 2017) does rather suggest the version you prefer doesn't warrant even the 'minority view' label. I hope you won't say the EAS source is among the challenges - EAS agrees with Sánchez-Bayo that the global decline is "very concerning". Any challenge from EAS is more directed towards the wilder media coverage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Casting aspersions about fringe like that is a WP:FRINGE violation here, and that does not address the redirect question at all. This page is still being used to push a very different view than what has already been used at the biodiversity page, which still makes it a WP:POVFORK. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Ecology articles
• Low-importance Ecology articles
• WikiProject Ecology articles
• Start-Class Insects articles
• Low-importance Insects articles
• WikiProject Insects articles