User talk:Cenewman0

Thank you very much for your recent edits of the Rana sphenocephala page! Your edits were excellent and correct. Unfortunately, these pages have a real problem, as another user has a strong bias against the recent systematic literature on these frogs. He edits and removes almost any changes to the pages that cite the recent literature, and even removes changes that correct the numerous errors in these pages. The pages are a terrible mess as a result. I saw that HCA reverted your excellent edits back to an outdated version. WP is SUPPOSED to present a balanced view of the literature and current viewpoints, of course. As your edits correctly noted, all the recent systematic literature of these frogs, including the most recent revision of the group, uses Rana rather than Lithobates for this species, although one online list written by Frost (who is the person who proposed using Lithobates as a genus in the first place) still retains Lithobates as a genus. (Of course other online sources that are not directly controlled by Frost follow the literature, and use Rana.) The literature for this species, including the recent literature, is overwhelmingly under Rana sphenocephala. There was a huge disagreement between HCA and me over these pages over the past year, and we took it to the WP Arbitration Committee. The final agreement was that ALL current views on the taxonomy of these frogs would be represented, and the relevant papers cited. Despite this agreement, in March HCA changed all the Rana pages to reflect only his (and Frost's) viewpoint, and deleted the alternative, which most systematists (including me) use as the current taxonomy (Frost's 2006 change has not been supported by any systematic review since 2007, and the use of Rana has been argued in many systematic papers). The use of Lithobates causes many problems of paraphyly, and of course the monophyly of Rana (in its larger sense for all the Holarctic true frogs) is very well established. So, what I'd recommend is to follow the Arbitration agreement, and present both views, with the appropriate citations to back them up. Then users can realize that there is a disagreement, look at the relevant literature, and judge for themselves. Given that the relevant papers provide overwhelming support for Rana over Lithobates, and that there ha been no reasonable justification for Lithobates (and it actually CREATES problems of paraphyly), I think most users who bother to look at the facts and literature will understand why they should use Rana. But whether they do or not, that is the way that WP is supposed to work: a balanced presentation of alternative viewpoints. I understand that the presentation, at this point, is highly unbalanced and biased against the prevailing view to use Rana, but at least that view needs to be discussed, and supported with the appropriate citations. Thank you again for your excellent effort to help bring this page up to date, and I'm very sorry for the way you were treated (with your edits immediately reverted to an outdated page without explanation). I hope that it does not keep you from making additional contributions!Ranapipiens (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)