Talk:Human interactions with insects

National Moth Week
National Moth Week is a project of the Friends of the East Brunswick Environmental Commission (Friends of EBEC), a 501c-3 nonprofit organization. All content and images on this website and materials produced for National Moth Week are the property of the Friends of EBEC and may not be reproduced without written permission from the organization, and are not for commercial use.

National Moth Week celebrates the beauty, life cycles, and habitats of moths. “Moth-ers” of all ages and abilities are encouraged to learn about, observe, and document moths in their backyards, parks, and neighborhoods. National Moth Week is being held, worldwide, during the last full week of July.

National Moth Week offers everyone, everywhere a unique opportunity to become a Citizen Scientist and contribute scientific data about moths. Through partnerships with major online biological data depositories, National Moth Week participants can help map moth distribution and provide needed information on other life history aspects around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetbrady (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Cultural entomology and Ethnoentomology
(Moved from Anthropology project page) I was thumbing through articles that needed work for WikiProject Insects and found that Cultural entomology has a (very old) proposed merge with Ethnoentomology. There are no comments on the Cultural entomology page, but one vote for and against merger at the Ethnoentomology page. These articles cover a lot of the same ground, and the merge request was never settled. Please provide additional comments [here]. M. A. Broussard (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, these articles overlap, and together can form the basis of a single article on Insects in culture, to cover all aspects from mythology to medicine, art and music, entomophagy and economic entomology. I'll get on with the merger now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The current article now contains the merged contents of these two articles, and new materials. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Examples
The article, by its nature, is full of examples. It's important to differentiate between significant examples, and examples with no particular significance. Clicking the templates explains what I mean. For example this source specifically talks about the influence of insects on music. This source is a review that doesn't say anything about the bugs in Ladybug or their significance. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've replaced all the literature examples with a more literary selection dating back to Aeschylus and Shakespeare. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your improvements are very good. The ref-example notice is not only for those examples, though. There are many examples in the article that reference themselves or a source that doesn't discuss the significance of "insects in [something]". Among them: Sinéad Lohan example, Béla Bartók example, David Bowie example, Dave Matthews Band example, and so on and so forth. I apologize for not improving the article, but I think the notice should stay until there are fewer self-sourcing examples in the article. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bartok is surely adequately cited. I've hidden the others you mention. If there are further instances you object to, please tag those individually so we don't have to play a guessing game. I'm removing the blanket tag accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to play a guessing game. I think the AllMusic source is a little questionable, somewhere between a source with editorial oversight and a self-published source, but since I don't know enough about the topic I'll refrain from tagging or removing it. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm away from my desk now but will see if I can smooth a few corners now and then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Entomology Digest
Cultural Entomology Digest (CE Digest) was compiled, designed, produced and distributed by Dexter Sear of IO Vision. The article states Dr. Charles Hogue as the author but the 4 issues commenced production in 1994, 2 years after Dr. Hogue's passing in 1992. For complete history, the e-zine was available on Dexter's website insects.org but in later years was purchased by Orkin and now very unfortunately, all the content has been dissolved so that none of the URL links function. This was all very valuable information to the subject so I hope to explore resurrecting this in some accessible form in the future. Please consider correcting this fact in the article. Dexter Sear (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, and for your caution in bringing it here. It appears you have a conflict of interest in the matter so it will be better if other editors consider what use may be made of it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your guidance. If I can resurrect the CE Digest content, I'll fix the broken links. Dexter Sear (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources
This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)