User talk:Rosinbio

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Honeybee dance
We have an article about Karl von Frisch that you are welcome to expand with verifiable and neutral information. Gazpacho 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question
Good morning, Ruth. The article you recently created has been challenged as a possible copyright violation of a message which was posted in a discussion forum. I have reversed that copyright tag but it would help if you went to the article's talk page and explicitly confirmed that you are the author of both versions and that you re-release the content under the terms of the Gnu Free Distribution License. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * About your question at Wikipedia:Introduction, please go to Talk:The honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy and explain the copyright status of the text you used to create the article. --JWSchmidt 17:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please
Please do not repost deleted content. It is not allowed per policy. The vote here was completely legitimate. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am new to Wiki, and still learning the ropes, which are very confusing to a newbie. I am also a scientist whose special field of expertise is animal behavior, and who has been very atively involved in an analytical-theoretical aspects of this controversy, on the side of DL opponents, since 1970. I am not trying to tout my own horn, but,in my humble opinion there is hardly anyone anywhere in the world who knows, and understands as much about this controversy, as I do.

I want to vehemently protest the deletion of my article: The honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy. I composed that article, very deliberately and advisedly, exactly the way it should have been written, according to my informed judgement, to inform the general reader about this controversy, including readers who might have never consulted a scientific publication in their life. I very deliberately shed a considerable amount of information that had occupied the attention of both sides in the controversy for very many years, demanding a considerable expenditure of time and energy, on the part of both sides, but, which upon a vvery careful analysis, turned out to be useless, irrelevant "excess beggage". (The claim by James Gould, published in Nature (1974)and Science (1975)to have experimentally confirmed use of DL information under v. Frisch's conditions, and use of odor alone all along under Wenner's conditions, is just one such major example. The claim has been touted by him, and by various other staunch DL supporters, practically everywhere, for very many years. It is still being touted in the pro-DL radar-tracking study published in Nature (May 12, 2005). The claim turns out to be utterly groundless. And I shall skip the details, except to briefly note that Gould's interpretation of his data is based on his own assumption about how recruits use "odor alone all along" to still presumably obtain information about the approximate site of the foragers' food-source, and that assumption makes the interpretation totally irrelevant to the whole DL controversy.)

I very deliberately introduced the DL controversy by taking readers back to the time before the inception of the DL hypothesis, in order to show what gave us that hypothesis in the first place. And it might have been unthinkable to even start going in that direction before I discovered that v. Frisch himself originally correctly concluded that recruits use odor alone and no information about the location of any food, and years later discarded this correct conclusion, and replaced it witn his revolutionary, and as it eventually rurned out, utterly misguided DL hypothesis.

After first posting my article (on July 26) i saw a whole list of comments about it, mostly negative comments recommending that the article be deleted. Not a single one of these negative comments is justified, and I can very easily rebut each and everyone of them. I wanted to rebut those comments, but being new to Wiki, I did not know where, or how to do it. With the help of a young computer-instructor I believe I now know how to do it, but I have not been able to retrieve those comments.

I want everything rolled back to the time right after I first posted my article, with all the comments recommending deletion made available to me for rebuttals. The commentators should take another vote, after I am given the right to rebut the comments, not before.

I also saw a later revision by someone who practically butchered my article, distorting almost everything I said, and defeating my purpose. But, by the time I learned how to post a rebuttal, I couldn't find that revision anymore,; perhaps because my article had been deleted, but I was not even sure of that. --Ruth Rosin 16:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC) rosinbio


 * Submitting ny article The honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy (on July 26) has been my first experience of submitting anything to Wiki, and the experience has been utterly frustrating and disappointing.

My article was deleted, apparently based on a vote among commentators who are, for the most part, completely ignorant of the subject of my article, and, consequently made comments that are full of errors and distortions. Moreover, I am being informed that I am not allowed to re-post the article, in order to excercise my right to rebut those comments.

I have no idea what you are going to do if, instead of re-posting my article, I shall submit a new article on the same issue, under a new title, with a revision, (primarily in the form of additions). This is, however, what I intend to do within 1-2 days.

I now understand that anyone is free to edit any article submitted to Wiki, even if he is completely ignorant of the subject of the article, and does not know what he is talking about. Well, I never expected things to be that bad in Wiki.

It seems to me that what you must do is oblige all members to swear allegiance to the Bold textHypocratic oathBold text, whose first rule is: Bold textDo no harm!Bold text This just might prevent arrogant ignoramuses from presuming to edit an article on an issue they know nothing about, and ,thus, avoid causing Bold text irreparable harm.Bold text --Ruth Rosin 04:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC) rosinbio


 * The comments at AfD suggest that the material, written in an encyclopedic (as opposed to an academic or newspaper) manner, should be included in bee learning and communication and/or honeybee. Please work there, and add a note to the appropriate talk files that you are able and willing to release the copyright on the message post, as the material has previously appeared.  (My apologies for the note on copyright.  You apparently did so previously.)  Please do not post a new article on the same subject, under any title, as the verifiable parts, by our encyclopedic standards, would be merged into bee learning and communication.  If you want to challenge the deletion on procedural grounds, the correct place is Deletion review, but it seems unlikely to be overturned.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OOPS. It does seem large enough for a separate article, but it needs to be written in an encyclopedic manner, rather than in an academic manner. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To Arthur Rubin,

My article has by now been deleted per procedure, which means that I personally have no idea why it was deleted. I intend to contest the deletion, and have, therefore, requested detailed information about the grounds for the deletion. I am not quite sure how to proceed, as i get completely lost within the very confusing guides and rules of Wiki. Since the article had already been deleted, there may be no point in responding to your comments. But, I decided to respond anyway.

You state that the article was written in an "academic", instead of an "encyclopedic" form, and that the material is more appropriate for inclusion in "Honeybee learning and communication".

The honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy started (with the publications by Wenner & his team) in 1967. This means that it has been going on for almost 40 years. It constituted from the start a major reflection of another, much more important, basic, general controversy over the very foundations of the whole science of behavior, between European Ethology (whose two co-founders, not by accident shared v. Frisch's 1973 Nobel Prize), and Schneirla's School in Behavior (that originated in the US, and should not be confused with Behaviorism). The general controversy over the very foundations of the whole field of behavior has been going on for over 70 years, since the mid-30's of last century, and as the DL controversy progressed, it has long become the most important reflection of that general controversy.

If I were to write an "encyclopedic" article on the DL controversy, the article would, therefore, fill a whole very heavy tome. If I live long enough, I may still write that tome, but I would not do it now, and certainly not for Wiki!

What I wanted to achieve in the article I submitted was something very different. I wanted to add a comment to the article Wiki already has on K. von Frisch, pointing out that the "discovery" of the honeybee DL, which earned him the Nobel Prize, and is considered his most spectacular contribution to science, is a discovery of something that never existed. Moreover, I very specifically wanted to show that in the simplest way possible, by starting with a clean slate, i.e. taking readers to the time that preceded the inception of v. Frisch's sensational DL hypothesis, and investigating, step by step, what led him to formulate such an incredibly revolutionary hypothesis. Such a careful analysis suffices to show that the inception of the sensational DL hypothesis, was an error; that the hypothesis was stillborn thanks to v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment (published in an extensive summary more than 20 years earlier), which led him to conclude that honeybee-recruits use odor alone, and no information about the location of any food, was fully justified, and his later conclusion that it was in error, and that recruits do use information (that scientists can obtain from foragers'-dances) about the location of food (and other resources)was itself a totally unjustified error.

Since the sensational DL hypothesis was obviously stillborn, it is almost impossible not to uncover extremely serious problems with almost every aspect of that hypothesis, if you only dig deep enough; which only DL opponents have been doing. The tougher the recalcitrance of DL supporters, the deeper we dig, and the deeper we dig the more devastating problems we unearth, to the point where it becomes very difficult to understand how anyone could ever have seriously accepted such a terrible hypothesis.

However, I wanted to deliberately avoid going into all that, and expose the DL hypothesis very simply as a stillborn hypothesis, which does not even deserve any further discussion. You do not need to provide a balanced discussion when you are dealing with a stillborn hypothesis (even though I did provide some further discussion).

In the well-known book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (to which I was introduced by wenner), the author, Thomas Kuhn, points out that what scientists usually do in the wake of a successful scientific revolution, is retrace the steps that science took, in order to discover where science went wrong to the point that required the revolution.

Wenner has claimed all along that his opposition to v. Frisch's sensational DL hypothesis constitutes a scientific revolution against the DL hypothesis that had become a revered ruling paradigm. For me, that revolution fully succeeded by the time I actively joined the "heretics" in 1970. And I finally did what scientists do in the wake of a successful revolution, i.e. go back to the origin, and re-trace the steps that led to the inception of the sensational DL hypothesis. What made this easier was the "discovery" of v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment, the results he obtained in that study, and the conclusions he drew from it; all of which he phased out after the inception of his sensational DL hypothesis.

I considered it important to post such an article to Wikipedia, because the opposition to the DL hypothesis has been suppressed in the published scientific media, to the point where staunch DL supporters practically invariably stress that most scientists believe that honeybees have a DL; and this may indeed still be the case, because most scientists, let alone members of the general public, do not even know that the DL controversy is still very much alive, and that the DL hypothesis was simply stillborn, and not worth bothering with in the first place.

I dealt with this issue in the style I am able to consider as fully appropriate for dealing with this specific issue, and I find any labeling of the style I used quite immaterial.

I very definitely do not want my article to be made part of an "encyclopedic" article on honeybee learning & communication, which can itself fill a whole separate, very heavy tome.

Ruth Rosin 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) rosinbio