User talk:Thompsma/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!) Hello, Thompsma, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us a bit about yourself

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! 22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Remarks added about importance scale
I added the following to your remarks about the importance rating.

I agree to this completely and even indiginous red list species are rated as low importance. I think some reliable knowledge on wikipedia about a species as the natterjack toad (in my case) is important, especialy since non specialists will rely on it for some idea about the animal when they hear about it, encounter it or have to deal with it concerning their profession.

Furthermore the species is still the most important unit in taxonomy. Discussions about genera superfamilies are more of a specialist matter then adequate species information. So I think especialy indigenous species are of high importance to wikipedia (in the english wikipedia the case is different maybe because it is used worldwide). Also pictures are important because of different stage in the development, sex differences etc..Viridiflavus (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the administrators will pick up our frustration however, most of the times remarks on discussion pages encounter complete silence.Viridiflavus (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Viridiflavus (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe cooperate on some articles
I think our interests are somewhat alike, maybe we can do some work on species articles together. (Editing each others contributions, adding info and references etc., English is not my native language so mistakes and bad style are bound to happen when I try to make a contribution to the english wiki. Viridiflavus (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am ashamed to say there is not even an article nor a dutch word for conservation biology. I recently watched a discovery documentary offering a literal translation of the term, but in dutch it would something like freezing or canning of food. In fact "Natuurbeschermingsbiologie" as I would like to call it, isn't a field here in it's own right. Maybe because of it's hybrid nature between ecology and policy making. The article you wrote is very thorough and the number of references is dazzling.

I should know something about conservation genetics, but I am sometimes in doubt of its importance especialy in amphibians or reptiles as I think these kind of animals have always dealt with extensive inbreeding (as an example the silvery salamander with 100% inbreeding). In deer populations there seems to be a pronounced deletirious effect of inbreeding probably because of the high mobility of deer in natural circumstances.

There are of course references of population of reptiles showing some more deformities in reptile populations. I think the only way to establish the detrimental effect of inbreeding in populations is a decline in the number of offspring born and surviving resulting in decline and ultimately extinction of subpopulations.

Anyhow there is enough to follow on this, maybe you can tell me what you think of my opinion/considerations about conservation genetics. If you have some references to these matters I would greatly appreciate it.Viridiflavus (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Article ratings
Hi Thompsa: You asked (in your peer review for long-toed salamander) why the article was ranked as a "B" rather than something higher. There's an easy answer to that; it hasn't gone through a GA or FA article candidacy! You can submit the article at any time for GA or FA rating—but be aware that, if it doesn't conform with Wikipedia standards (which may be different than the print standards you've had to meet before), it'll likely fail until it does. If you have any questions about how to submit the article, see WP:GAC or WP:FAC. Articles can't be rated higher than B without going through one of these processes. MeegsC | Talk 14:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NOR
Hi Thompsa; I saw your note just now in the article talk page history. WP:NOR is mainly useful for dealing with people who are pushing their pet theory, e.g., cranks, along with WP:FRINGE. Also, it is helpful in disputes when one participant claims to have special knowledge of the topic. Finally, it is useful to editors reviewing the work of others to insure that content is attributable to a source with some editorial oversight, at least that is the hope. The threshold can be fairly low. Often a web site that is associated with a university academic department will suffice. In any event, you appear to have resolved your question. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Introduction to evolution
Hi there, thanks for the correction. I've replied to your comment on the talkpage. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience. This article has had a torrid history - FA Attempt Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution and Nomination for Deletions Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) simultaneously! The intensity of the debate killed the enthusiasm of several (me included Random Replicator - in those days). It is so easy to misread - between the lines.


 * Keeping the terminology simple for me is not a challenge - simply because my depth of knowledge is not so complete. Frankly, I've been left behind on some of the dialog concerning the nuances of evolution that have transpired in the recent post. I can only plead the case that an encyclopedia is for those seeking general information on something they likely know nothing about. I'm optimistic, with your suggestions, that something that is acceptable for those with an invested interest will be obtained. Best of luck in that quest. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Long-toed Salamander
Hi, went to start a GA review, but you haven't put the template on the talk page. If you could do that, will get the review under way. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Link extinct birds
Here is a nice link from the dutch natural history museum in Leiden. It is about (nearly?) all species of extinct birds.

http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/naturalis/detail.php?lang=uk&id=56 Viridiflavus (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Crittercaching
Hi I want to draw your attention to something. I am working with a data acquisition tool called cybertracker now. I think I am getting the hang of it and have developped such a tool that is also providing field guide information. I thought you might be interested in it as well. I started a blog called http://crittercaching.blogspot.com with some pictures screenshots and explanations. If you are interested I can send a stripped down version of what I made thus far. I also have another idea to incorporate with it, that I am working on right now.

Thus far there has not been much activity on the English wikipedia from me yet. I want to do something about the European fish and amphibians because for now there is still much room for improvement. Viridiflavus (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi it has been a while. At the moment I was giving the sunbathing of frogs some thought because our local frogs, the green frogs (Pelophylax spec, the tree frog Hyla arborea and the common frog Rana temporaria do sunbathe often and I suspect even the larvae of these frog like to sunbathe. Rana temporaria is feeding at night mostly, but I often find it in daytime at some sunny spots in between the vegetation. Same goes for the tree frog. The green frogs are more active at daytime but undisturbed they will be found sunbathing also. Do you know if there is any literature concerning sunbathing behavior in frogs. It strikes me that it is not common for the thick skinned toads nor for newts to sunbathe. I think the sunbathing behavior has some significance and I would like to know a little more about it and it would be valuable to wikipedia also. I am also thinking of doing some measurements in the field to establish the preferred microclimate and incident radiation for reptiles and amphibians here.Viridiflavus (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution
Hi. I was looking through the article's history and talk page to glean evidence of a dogmatic stance or POV pushing as Silence alleges. I can see no examples of revert of content other than the obvious vandalism. The only passionate disagreement was over a picture - in which case common ground was achieved. The only editor that has made any attempt to directly edit the article for improvement since reaching FA over a year ago has been you. I'm curious, did you feel you were closed out from input or that your views and input were unwelcome? I recall a brief period of interest on your part and a general request by one or two editors (myself included) to please considered readability and clarity relevant to the audience; however, I hope that I at least did not come across with a sense of ownership. I truly have no concerns over accusation that the article sucks; but it is most distressing to be portrayed as a POV pusher who has hijacked the article to their own end. If you feel that the allegations are descriptive of the environment on the page; my apologies for creating such a tone. If you feel that the discussion page was a place of open and honest dialog by a group of editors who have a common goal and that allegation has no basis; then as the only editor to contribute to the article since Fa - could you please state so on your FA de-listing.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for jumping around between talk pages. It was not your wording that I was concerned with; but rather another critic "Silence". My request was ... as the only contributing editor since FA ... did you concur with his feelings that the article had a sense of ownership. If so then I was concerned and wished to apologize... if not I was hoping you might respond in kind to Silence's allegation. It is all mute ... I guess. The term "taken over by different factions" has bee clarified or at least toned down;  as you will see in that thread.  I am pleased that you in fact - felt invited and that Silence use of terms was more harsh than his intent. Thank you--JimmyButler (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The question about which is more important of selection and drift depends on what the answering person thinks is important. It is fully possible to consider genetic changes that are not expressed unimportant. With this presupposition, selection becomes much more important than drift. Drift is then seen as a small Brownian motion that disturbs the march of organisms to new forms. On the other hand, if each nucletide position on the DNA molecule is deemed equally important, then drift is much more important than selection. My personal view is that we should describe the processes as understandably as possible and let the readers decide how interesting and how important these phenomena are to them. --Ettrig (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ecology
Hi Thompsa! Thanks for your note. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, I've been away from the computer. I can't say when I might give comprehensive feedback on the lead, what with duties in the "real world", but I will try as soon as possible. I do think your project it very laudable, and your enthusiasm in tackling this subject is wonderful.

One comment I might make right off the bat is that your lead really emphasizes some relatively esoteric, if vital, aspects of theoretical ecology, like holism, emergent phemenomena, gaia hypothesis etc. I feel, in part from personal/professional convictions (my PhD is in "Quantitative Ecology and Resource Management"), that it is important to emphasize that it is also a very applied field with very real consequences. As I had written in the older lead: "Much of natural resource management, such as forestry, fisheries, wildlife management and habitat conservation is directly related to ecological sciences and many problems in agriculture, urban development and public health are informed by ecological considerations." Also, I think it could benefit from at least touching on the broad range of methods (from molecular to field studies to remote sensing to modeling) and interacting subfields that comprise the actual contemporary practice of ecological sciences. As it is written, I think the lead gives a reader a kind of vague impression of a complex "galactic" field of inquiry without giving quite enough of a concrete feel for what the practical meaning of the word is or its practice really entails.

But perhaps such things are better discussed in the Ecology talk page, so more input from more contributors can be solicited?

Best, Eliezg (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability
Hi Mark. Just thought that given your interest in conservation biology, you might be interested in contributing to the article on sustainability. Regards. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles needs you!
Ahoy there! We're conducting our annual purge of the participants list for WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, in an effort to make sure our members stay current with events at the WikiProject. If you would like to renew your participation with the WikiProject, simply drop by the participants list and re-add your name to the list in alphabetical order using the following format:. Also feel free to add your specialties or points of interest. If you don't have the time or don't feel like rejoining, then ignore this request; you can rejoin at any time you'd like. Cheers,  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am intrigued by finding two user boxes signaling membership in the same project. --Ettrig (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ecology Intro
First off, I find it quite pretentious for you to assume that something you worked on would not be subject to change and/or improvement.

2) Giving me reasons why you were to busy to revert any edits I made to the article is also a bit weird.

3) I don't believe that I would have removed non-redundant, cited, and relevant material from an article, but you can point me to what you think I removed on the history logs.

4) I don't know why you're telling me when you're going to work on the article, it doesn't affect me in any way, I and any other user is free to be bold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold_in_editing_articles), if you don't like it, you are free to make changes as you see fit. However, if we end up arguing over whether a particular sentence is important/stylish/whatever, we (or anyone) should discuss it on talk page or here.

Remember that no-one 'owns' any article, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_articles), so if you feel bad about the loss of your work (btw, amount of work put into a section is not criterion for inclusion), I'm not sure what to tell you.

I'm being a bit brash, but I have an excuse! Application stress!! Nice to know that you are interested in improving the article, I'm looking forward to working on improving it with you.Apothecia (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope you won't think I am out of line here Thompsma, but Apothicia really seems to be trying to work with you here, and as an objective reader you both sound equally "snippy" with each other. Anyway, like Apothicia I appreciate your work on the article and the good citations, I also would like to note that I appreciate Apothica's editing and comments (in the edit history) about the state of the article - Wikipedia is a super-awesome group process that way. Please note that no one removed the information you placed in the article, they just moved it down into sections below a one sentence lead. I have continued the collaboration on improving the lead of this article at least so that it will more clear and useful to the type of user likely to look "ecology" up in an encyclopdia. On a technical note you can easily restore information other users have removed by looking at the "history" tab which shows the entire edit log of the article, for instance your last edit on that article was dated October 2 and can be found here. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not being out of line at all. Feelings get lost in the words - so it is unfortunate that we sound "snippy". I am happy that Apothicia and others have come to help out on the Ecology page - it is really, really great to see. I noticed afterward that the information wasn't removed and was only placed lower down - it was more of a sign of frustration thinking that it would take a while to retrace what had been done, but I worked on it today and it was simple to find everything. I will do my part on the page over the Christmas break to tidy up the remainder of the article. I'm staying at a friends cabin - just me, my computer, x-country skis and a log fireplace for a while. I enjoy writing - so I hope that I can help out. Ecology is such an important branch of science, so it would be great to see this article getting built.Thompsma (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a fun break, enjoy writing. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Earthdirt (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservation Biology's characterization of the Holocene extinction
Hi. I wanted to bring your attention to a recent comment I made on the Conservation Biology Talk page. It's not addressed solely to you, but you are the main editor I'm interested in discussing this with, given your lead role in the edits on that article to date.

Besides alerting you to that comment in case you're not actively following edits to that page, I wanted to mention something else. In the past I've sometimes found myself in contentious discussions (or at least, what for me felt like contentious discussions) with editors with whom I actually agree in terms of their underlying views about the subject of the article in question, but where I feel like they are missing the larger spirit of the WP:NPOV policy as it relates to presenting controversial subjects in a neutral manner. Several people (including me) have now raised similar concerns about some of the language in edits you've made to that article. I think it's possible that you are going to keep hearing similar concerns raised until or unless you dig a little deeper into the underlying spirit of WP:NPOV.

There's an important distinction to be made between editing as an advocate of a particular point of view, and being scrupulously neutral in presenting that point of view on Wikipedia. It comes up over and over again, especially in articles on contentious subjects (not that this article is particularly contentious, but I can only imagine that if/when concerns about the Holocene extinction gain a larger footprint in public debate over societal responses to global warming, the same voices currently working to advance the short-term interests of the fossil fuel industry by manufacturing illusory "scientific controversies" over climate change will seek to muddy the waters with contentious misstatements about mass extinction as well).

Anyway, with all that being said, I don't want either of us to get dragged into some kind of energy-sapping disagreement. The last time I did that (in discussion of Strengths and weaknesses of evolution; see, for example, this item, and subsequent discussion leading up to this item) the result was suboptimal in many ways. So I want to give you the following "Get Out of NPOV Challenges Free" card. I anticipate discussing this issue some more with you on the Conservation Biology Talk page, but if at any point in that discussion you feel like I'm being obnoxious or detracting from more-useful editing work you could be doing, just tell me so (a simple "let's drop it" should be sufficient), and I'll comply immediately.

Thanks. -- John Callender (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Long-toed Salamander
Hi Mark, you may remember me as the reviewer for the salamander article some time ago. I was wondering if you had any interest in making this a featured article? I think it already meets the criteria in terms of research quality, comprehensiveness, and good prose. If you're interested, here's what I propose:
 * I would go through the article and make it WP:MOS compliant. This mostly involves a lot of nitpicky details that most find inane or boring, but I find to be a pleasant intellectual diversion, somewhat like one of those text-based adventure games from the 80's.
 * I would put all references into the proper citation templates, and add or update doi's, isbns, etc. as necessary
 * I'd add alt text to all images as now required at FAC
 * I'll do another copyedit for prose (but, as I said, I think it's pretty good already)
 * After this, you would check for and add any recent research published in the last couple years
 * You would also check for accuracy of info & general copyedit
 * Then finally a co-nomination at FAC

My motivation is a general interest in herpetology, a desire to see all species articles reach their full potential, and some Wikicup points. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sasata - these are some great points. I've been busy working on ecology for the past few months and trying hard to get that article up to featured status. I was thinking of taking a break from there and I think it would be good to come back to the long-toed salamander and run through your list of suggestions. Thanks for the nudge!Thompsma (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I'll start working on the cite templates this weekend. Sasata (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bog Turtle
Hello, I am currently working on this project and have been told by Sasata that you were a good person to ask this question. Could you possibly review/edit/critique my work on this page? Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the references!--Merry Beth (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Great work
Just to give you a hand shake and moral support for your very constructive hard work on Ecology. Please keep up the good work. AshLin (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful stuff
The DYK tool is handy and fast little script for word counts and for reviewing DYK nominations (obviously). You can copy the DYK tool script from the my scripts link on my userpage if you haven't got it already. Also, if you don't have it turned on, the "navigation popups" account gadget is a real time saver when editing, validating wikilinks, and reading articles. - you should enable it in your user preferences. The citeTool might also be useful to you. Also, Ecology is certainly near GA status thanks to your hard work, but it needs a thorough copy edit and stream lining before it should be rated that in my opinion. I will work on it as I am able but am rather busy currently, I sent some invites around but have not generated any interest. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Earthdirt - I tried to look at the DYK tool, but don't know how to use it. I haven't run a script in wikipedia. How do you use it?Thompsma (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All user scripts are run from the /monobook.js part of your user page (which you must create). The DYKcheck tool is a script created by User:Shubinator and lived in hist page (you can view the java there, somewhere). Just make the page and paste in = importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck toolscript It will make make a "DYK check" link appear in your toolbox. It's nifty. There are bunches of scripts out there, this is the only one I use.
 * I have a question for you also, how do you manage to efficiently edit pages like Ecology? With all those long citations it's very hard for me to follow the text in the edit mode. Do you have or know of a tool that highlights or removed those while you edit? Earthdirt (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it is going to sound crazy - but I type it all out line by line. I also find it a little hard in edit mode - but I got used to it and just use the ctrl-f to find the text I'm looking for and then read along. While I read in the edit mode I also check through the citations and re-visit in my mind what the paper had to say and sometimes I go back and re-read the papers in an adjacent tab that I leave open. If I knew how I would like to space everything out so that it could be seen clearly, but I don't know how this could be done. What do other people do?Thompsma (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A hunch for a small improvement: A or in the source will not be seen in the view mode, so a can be introduced after each citation. This makes it a bit easier to skip to the continuation of the core text. --Ettrig (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm very excited to see such a talented collaborator working with my students. The interaction with professionals within the field of science has been a source of pride for the Bog Turtle Group. Unfortunately, (with that exception) several articles hit a wall. However, I'm hoping the turtle will make FA. There are some very talented editors that have embraced the turtle movement; hopefully my students will hold their own and make us all proud. Since the other students fell short of the GA goal (the Pudu group left the class (sigh); I'm thinking of regrouping; perhaps having all my students focus on a single article at a time. Several wish to redeem themselves. Perhaps the Introduction to Evolution...... just kidding!!!! I'm considering a seashell ... just to make a point (see project talk page). I'll keep you posted in case you wish to join us.
 * I'm not sure what to do about the evolution. I guess it is not the rewrite that you had hoped for? Its certainly not the one I had expected. My knowledge is limited - but there seems to be the potential to generate misconceptions. I'm way to connected to that one to be an asset in a rewrite; nor do particularly want to take it any further. Working with the students has been very satisfying - I think (hope) you will enjoy the process. Cheers--JimmyButler (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to incorporate your text in the lead:


 * Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs.


 * One of the better understood forces behind evolution is Natural Selection. The principles behind Natural Selection are based on factual observations which include: 1) Organism tend to produce far more offspring than the environment can support. 2) There will be variations among the offspring as a consequence of either the introduction of new genes via mutations or the random reshuffling of existing genes during sexual reproduction. 3)The environment will determine which of the offspring possess a hereditary blueprint that builds bodies that are themselves reproductively successful.

Being limited in an introduction to the key idea, with an understanding that the sections to following expand upon the idea. I was trying to incorporate the random sex thing... so heavily challenged (among other things). Thoughts? When you have time.--JimmyButler (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy. This looks better and gives a correct interpretation of natural selection. You might find this paper helpful - it gives a very simple overview: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2400240 Thompsma (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly - I just realized that I can only link to the pdf through my UNI account. Gould was an exceptional writer and in this paper he gives a super easy to understand explanation of evolution by natural selection in context of the modern synthesis.Thompsma (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jimmy - My guess is that you were waiting for me to come back to this. I always re-think things and should wait to post. I took another look at what you wrote and there is still a mistake in it. It is a good start, but I have started a re-write:

Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs.

One of the better understood forces behind evolution is Natural Selection. The principles of Natural Selection are based on three factual observations, including: 1) Organism tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support. 2) Species are preserved because they always produce members of their own kind as they pass heritable traits onto their offspring. 3) Slight variations occur among offspring that develop in the same general area or environment where their parents lived. As organisms develop and grow within their environment, they are capable of a range and flexibility of response. For example, genetically identical sister plants grown in different fertile versus poor soil conditions may both produce seeds, but they will have a different appearance. The plant growing in poor soil conditions will be stunted in growth, but the general appearance of it belonging to the same species will remain. In this way the organism develops in response to its environment as it is subjected to the forces of natural selection. The natural process acts to preserve members of the same species, while also selecting for new varieties in each new generation.

This needs more work - but the important point is that in your part 3 The environment will determine - this is genetic determinism. I have to run.Thompsma (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The concern that I see (which prevailed throughout the article's history) is the need to address every nuance resulting in information overload. The concerns typically raised by critics, falls under "errors of omission". However, the introductory paragraph of an introductory article must be concise. I'm beginning to doubt that there is a way to summarize evolution in a lead. Any ideas on how to compress the above lead and still be accurate? Then address the details and provide examples in the appropriate section? As time allows, I will try to simply what you offer here, then you can decide if any significant points are lost in translation. I'm trying to keep up with the loggerhead and black mamba; hoping the students redeem themselves for the scotch bonnet mess! Thank you for the time you've invested on Wikipedia; the courtesy of you concise and well formulated responses to questions is very much appreciated. It serves as my example to the students on the importance of communicating your positions on a talk page in a manner that will earn respect for your ideas. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jimmy. I understand your frustration. I think the problems I am trying to highlight do not fall under "errors of omission", but are conceptual errors. The paragraph I put together is still a problem because it is not simple enough. Your paragraph is good - it just needs to fix the final part about environmental determinism. I thought about putting in the bit about plants in different soils - but this might not fit.

3)The environment will determine which of the offspring possess a hereditary blueprint that builds bodies that are themselves reproductively successful.


 * I grabbed some quotes from papers that look at this problem directly. The problem with the statement above is that is does not take phenotypic plasticity into account. Moreover, it is a classical problem that Darwin identified:

"But it is difficult to tell ... whether habitats generally change first and structure [morphology] afterwards; or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habitats; both probably often change almost simultaneously" (1859, p. 183).


 * Using the simple logic contained within the next batch of quotes I think we could piece together a new sentence that properly explains this property of natural selection.


 * First quote (http://www.bio.ucalgary.ca/contact/faculty/pdf/Harder_Johnson_09.pdf):

"As a process, adaptation is synonymous with natural selection, which occurs when fitness varies predictably with a genetically determined phenotypic trait, changing the trait distribution between consecutive generations."


 * Another (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2630972/):

"Natural selection is a potent evolutionary force that shapes phenotypic variation to match ecological conditions...However, the ecological forces that drive natural selection and ultimately shape adaptation are dynamic, and may change across years"


 * Another (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119392427/abstract):

"Spatial and temporal variation in environmental conditions imposes natural selection on adaptive traits...Organisms can respond adaptively to these changes by maintaining physiological function despite altered conditions, inducing phenotypes via phenotypic plasticity and/or evolving by natural selection."


 * Another (http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/hendry/Carroll2007FuncEcol21,387.pdf)

"Bridging the gap, Turreson (1922, 1930) proposed the study of ‘genecology’ – adaptive properties of populations in relation to the environment, which include the concept of ‘ecotypes’."


 * Finally (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030364)

"The living clay of heritable variation is by no means infinitely malleable. There are hidden connections among traits based on genetics and development, such that selection for one trait drags others along. Gene frequencies change by drift and mutation in addition to selection. The list goes on and on, and mature research programs in evolutionary biology pay attention to all of these factors."


 * I will come back to this and I might just take a stab at the lead of the article and other sections. The problems that I am identifying are not restricted to you alone. These kinds of mistakes exist in the peer-reviewed literature (http://www.mckaylab.colostate.edu/reprints/Ghalambor_etal_2007.pdf):

"Evolution is by definition a change in allele frequencies and therefore sufficient heritable genetic variation must exist for evolution by natural selection to occur."


 * Unbelievable!! This reductionist view on evolution is incorrect on all levels - it completely ignores the evidence and what has been written about evolution for the past 100 years (see http://geosci.uchicago.edu/pdfs/jablonski/Jablonski2008AREES.pdf).Thompsma (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you are not a big fan of Dawkins and his "Selfish Gene" perspective!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I took a stab at the lead. I really appreciate Dawkins and have read all but his latest two books. He is not fundamentally incorrect - because he does talk about the extended phenotype. However, his popular writing does not accord with the peer-reviewed science on evolution. Multi-level selection theory now stands on a firm footing of experimental results - the Jablonski paper above reviews some of the paleontological studies showing species level selection. Dawkins is mistaken in talking about replicators as the focus of evolution, because things do not only replicate in isolation - they interact. It is the interaction among replicators where the facets of evolutionary forces regulate fitness and it is through the interaction that we come to understand what natural selection is. This was an important philosophical distinction that came from the philosophers of biology, like David Hull. I have great respect for Dawkins, but he has lost this battle because he hasn't published his opposing views in peer-reviewed literature and he does not have the experimental evidence to back up his claims. Moreover, I work as a geneticist and have thought long and hard about the gene and what it is. It is a metaphor for a unit that does not really exist in isolation. Genes interact and it is this coupling that yields the emergent trait that is subject to natural selection and differential survival.Thompsma (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dawkins seems more of a Philosopher than a scientist; although I like to throw his views out to the students; especially those that need a boost to self esteem. Nothing like the perception that you are nothing more than a machine - constructed to ensure gene survival. Dawkins is too busy making a fortune disproving God to actually do any real science. I posted a follow up on my talk and made a couple of minor changes for simplicity to your lead change. I did raise a question if you care to jump over and read it. Other than that one potential concern; it reads beautifully. I may jump into the fire and resubmit for FA; in part to demonstrate for the students the challenges they face on their own articles. Cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I just thought I'd say how nice it is to have a chance to discuss evolutionary biology on the evolution talkpage for a change! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I must admit I approach evolution from a completely molecular viewpoint, since my training is in microbiology, molecular biology and biochemistry. Consequently, the present article lacks solid examples of the processes you mention, since these won't be examples I'm familiar with. Hopefully if you add these it may go a good way towards addressing the issue of balance. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My wife has told me that she wants us to separate and I didn't do much apart from cry and think black thoughts yesterday. I'm afraid that if I bite your head off over the next few days it may be me talking out real-life frustrations and anxieties, so apologies in advance. This is why I'm struggling to focus entirely on the text, to keep my emotions from spilling over onto the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear this!! No problem. We are all human in here and I fully realize that I can often be abrasive and I do take things personally as well. I do take the things you post in here seriously and look at my grammar and such. I am a good writer, I'm just slow at it. Before I send a paper out for publication - I have to go over it a million times to get the grammar and meaning set up properly.Thompsma (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the lead is much improved since you started, so please don't get disheartened. A suggestion might be to tell us what you are trying to covey with each draft and exactly what you think is missing/wrong in the old one. your post about "I don't feel as though the existing version defines what an adaptation is and it also misses the point about resource limits stemming population growth." was very helpful and I think you're quite right about this. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 *  Blast, sorry to hear about that, Tim. Real life comes first, do what's best for yourself and I very much hope it works out. Thompsma, please don't take this personally and I'm speaking as a non-expert who has difficulty in following this subject in any depth, but WP:TL;DR is a useful pointer to communication. Short focussed comments work better here than long essays. Feel free to delete this comment of mine. All the best to both of you, dave souza, talk 20:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks both of your for your suggestions. I actually know that I'm wordy and long and need to work on this. I have it as a mental note. I've had a bit of difficulty the past few days as well - I dropped a hard drive that contained 3 years of data from an ecological project I've been conducting on amphibian populations. I'm hoping to get the data recovered - but it is going to cost at least $500 I've been told. Urg - it happened as I was backing the data up. My summer student didn't copy it to the computer as I had asked.Thompsma (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also sorry to hear that, hope the recovery goes well. . dave souza, talk 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead in evolution reads a lot better now - it still has a few rough edges, but all the elements are there. There's an article in the latest issue of nature saying Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters are back:

"Single-gene changes that confer a large adaptive value do happen: they are not rare, they are not doomed and, when competing with small-effect mutations, they tend to win. But small-effect mutations still matter — a lot. They provide essential fine-tuning and sometimes pave the way for explosive evolution to follow. As the molecular details unfold, theory badly needs to catch up."


 * Small effect, and I'd think from the E. coli experiment, zero effect or slightly deleterious mutations as well, since sometimes drift is the only way to move off a local fitness peak and reach a state where you can begin to move up to a higher peak (such as metabolising citrate). Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. The article differentiates small-effect mutations from those that have large adaptive value. The three-spine stickleback example is a pretty neat story in this regard.Thompsma (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean that "zero effect" mutations also matter a lot, since they can sometimes be required for the "large effect" mutations to be possible ie I think the citrate utilisation trait could only evolve in the one line of E. coli that had undergone the several neutral/slightly deleterious mutations needed for the citrate trait to be possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess that means we have to go back and do a re-write!! He he..I'm actually going to go back to ecology for a while - I may return to evolution and work on other sections. Feel free to come over to ecology - I wrote most of it and based on the battle I had in evolution, chances that sections in ecology are in need of some work.Thompsma (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of NAMOS BC (Northern Amphibian Monitoring Outpost Society)
I have nominated NAMOS BC (Northern Amphibian Monitoring Outpost Society), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/NAMOS BC (Northern Amphibian Monitoring Outpost Society). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smartse (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a great charity but it doesn't yet appear to be notable enough to be included on here yet. It looks like you're doing some great work elsewhere on here but making articles about things you are closely involved in is never a good idea (see WP:AUTO and WP:COI). Smartse (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding, if you agree that it should be deleted it might be easiest to place db-self on the page to save the hassle of the AfD. Smartse (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You might copy it into userspace and use some of the content to help create a more general article on Amphibian conservation, which would complement the existing Decline in amphibian populations article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ecology
Hi Mark, not a lot of action on this GAN, and the "GAN police" are starting to circle... Perhaps it would be a good idea to take this out of the GAN queue where it can be worked on more comfortably within the constraints of your time budget? GAN or not, I'd be more than happy to help you with whatever I can to get this to FAC. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution
Hi, you still out there????? I was contemplating pulling the trigger on an FA attempt on Introduction to Evolution. I was looking at the rewrite you did on the intro - thinking it does a good job of addressing the concern regarding over-emphasis on natural selection. It's also been very stable for a long time now - suggesting nothing is grossly wrong! Of course such an attempt might turn into highly opinionated hellish mess... but I think I've grown enough in the Wikipedia experience not to take it all personally (this time)! If you are still in the game - let me know your thoughts. Respectfully --JimmyButler (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello..I am still on here. I took a break for a while, but started messing about again. I've been tweaking ecology and thinkning of branching out into some of the sub-articles and stubs that have been created. I'll take another look at the intro to evolution article over the holidays and will see if I can help out. I think that the FA suggestion is a great idea.Thompsma (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead expends a great deal of space elaborating on the forces of natural selection as it compares to Random Genetic drift. Yet the article does little to address the latter in the main body. If the lead could be abbreviated to a few lines regarding these two forces, then the section on Sources of Variations expanded to include the information that you so well articulated in the lead (random chance events /re-assortment of chromosomes / genetic drift) it would fit the protocol for an introduction by being more balanced. Other than an exceptionally long lead - it seems to meet the guidelines for FA. I assume the citation formatting still follows protocol. Of course - people will come out in force to prove me wrong (the nature of such a controversial topic!). Since working with my students - I've learned to allow others the last word - a weakness I suffered in the first FA attempt!! Humility- -what a concept. Let me know when or if we should pull the trigger... Happy Holidays. -JimmyButler (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Evolution of Evolution
The flux of Wikipedia is a double-edged sword. On one respect, it can keep pace with changes in research. On the other, your hard work can gradually fade away in the constant editing. Very frustrating. I've found the solution to maintaining my enthusiasm is stay away from the high profile topics. You've adopted the absolute worst topic when it comes to volatility / stability - Evolution. A possible solution might be to create a new article as it relates to your concerns. I had a friend that wrote on Bees and toxic chemicals - apparently bees get drunk off the fermenting nectar - then the bee bouncers at the entrance of the hive block their entrance! Perhaps create a new article on the effects of epigenetics on evolutionary process or expand on the current epigentics article. Perhaps an article contrasting the opposing perspectives of Dawkins and Gould. I do know if you submerge yourself on the Evolution page - you will eventually lose faith in Wikipedia - which would be most unfortunate. Bog Turtles - fringe - maybe -  but the turtle came up on a TV crime show last night - very exciting!--JimmyButler (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks JimmyButler. Your suggestion to do an alternate article is probably the best way forward. It is frustrating because that article has been listed as a featured article and it has recieved press. However, I've studied evolution for many, many years and as I read through that article it seems dead - it hardly explains anything about evolution as I understand it or as I've even read it explained by Darwin. I've read every single thing that Darwin ever wrote and have made it almost the whole way through the works of Gould - a few hundred pages left to go on Structure of Evolutionary Theory and I also need to read Panda's Thumb. I'm busy working on ecology for now and hope to get it up to featured article status. I just need to tidy it up and cut some of the text. Talk soon.Thompsma (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested?
WikiProject Council/Proposals/Turtles: if you would like to join or just support us, you can sign your name. Thanks!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination
Hi Thompsma, just to let you know that to nominate an article for a GA review, you no longer have to edit the Good article nominations page. See "How to nominate an article" near the top of that page You need to add the template to the article talkpage. As you haven't done that yet, the GA bot may well has overwritten your edit to the GAN page, removing your nomination. Let me know if you get stuck. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Will fix this.Thompsma (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for the confusion is that the page is being re-nominated - it has already been reviewed, I just got delayed on the edits. The instructions are not at all clear on how to renominate. I read through the Thompsma (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me (see ). The key was including the page=2 parameter, which you did. That will make sure that a separate page is started from the original review. You're right that it's not clear in the instructions how to list a second nomination; perhaps that can be improved. -- Beloved Freak  20:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Regeneration
Thanks for your comments. Merry Christmas! andycjp (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review swap?
Hi, I noticed that Ecology is at WP:GAN. If I review your article, would you review White Stork, which was the December collaboration of WP:Wikiproject Birds? Thanks, — focus 18:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm heading out for a couple of weeks and will be mostly away from the internet, but the swap sounds like a great deal when I get back. Cheers.Thompsma (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on; I hope you won't mind if I don't start an extensive review of ecology until the weekend. I have a lot going on right now. — focus 23:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Focus, not a problem. I just started reading through White Stork today and the GA review page so I know what I am to do. It may not be until this weekend that I will get started as well.Thompsma (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm...Thompsma, you around? I'll ping an email. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolution
I deeply apreciate your efforts on evolution. Indeed this is a text that many people turn to. I find your discussion entries to be a gold-mine of good suggestions for changing the text. Please try to find a form of engagement that can last for the long term. Would it also be possible to pick out one or two priority problems at a time? That would make it easier for me, and maybe many others, to support your suggestions. --Ettrig (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I second Ettigs sentiments. You've offered some of the better suggestions in years. I apologize for any grief I've given you (some was met to be humorous)-though I've tried to be supportive too. I say you've planted a seed and I believe your concerns will "eventually" be addressed. I gave up on the article long ago (epigenetics my waterloo), but don't you be a quitter too (I should be ashamed). Keep up your great work in other articles and give Evolultion a break, then return refreshed. I would hate to see you driven off. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this.
 * I wonder if this text could be clarified: "Life evolves through descent with modification by means of reproduction, heritability, and variation of traits in populations of individuals, which embodies the core principles of evolution by means of natural selection. Traits are the elements that distinguish individuals from each other and include anatomical, biochemical and behavioural characteristics." I can't quite figure out what the word "which" refers to -- that is, what the verb "embodies" should agree with.
 * Life evolves through descent with modification by means of reproduction, heritability, and variation of traits in populations of individuals; that descent embodies the core principles of evolution by means of natural selection. Traits are the elements that distinguish individuals from each other and include anatomical, biochemical and behavioural characteristics.
 * -- or --
 * Life evolves through descent with modification by means of reproduction, heritability, and variation of traits in populations of individuals; those modifications embody the core principles of evolution by means of natural selection. Traits are the elements that distinguish individuals from each other and include anatomical, biochemical and behavioural characteristics.
 * -- or --
 * Life evolves through descent with modification by means of reproduction, heritability, and variation of traits in populations of individuals; those means exemplify the core principles of evolution by means of natural selection. Traits are the elements that distinguish individuals from each other and include anatomical, biochemical and behavioural characteristics.

Thanks again -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! I've been waffling on that one as well - changed the sentence over and over. It is a tough one. The three components: reproduction, heritability, and variation comes from Lewontin (1970) for the units of selection. John Maynard Smith gives: multiplication, heritability, and variation for the units of evolution. Gould (2002) defines natural selection by: superfecundity, heritability, and variation. Those three components are the bare-bones argument or syllogistic core definition of natural selection. Darwin used the terms by means of natural selection. This is where I came up with the idea, by means of reproduction, heritability, and variation and coupled this to decent with modification. I thought reproduction was the most general term that most people would understand - but personally prefer Gould's (2002) superfecundity because it relates better to the idea of Malthus' law of growth. I prefer your last option and will change the text to that in my sandbox. I retained the first lead sentence - because so many people writing this article preferred it over decent with modification in arguments I have had in the past. I changed it a bit and switched 'organism' to 'individual' - because you can have individual genes, organs, organisms, or species - it is more general.Thompsma (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the last three paragraphs of the proposed lead can be merged into one. I'm going take a stab at it - possibly tomorrow or some other time. If you or Ettrig feel like working on this - that would be great.Thompsma (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back
I am extremely pleased that you are back as editor in Wikipedia! --Ettrig (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ettrig...I will always be here off and on. I get busy with life, frustrated with wikipedia, and so the cycle goes on. The evolution article is suffering in my opinion. Way too much emphasis in some areas and not enough information in other places. It is the messiest featured article I have seen. It is also filled with erroneous information and fluffery that detracts from this important topic. It seems that you have read my proposal in the sandbox. Do you have any thoughts on it? It is a paragraph longer - but the hierarchical context is more difficult to summarize in so few words.Thompsma (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolution article
When you and I disagreed vehemently in the past (e.g., archive 56), very little progress has been made with respect to the Evolution article. I think if we both worked earnestly to try to improve the article, significant improvements can be made. As you know, I am firmly behind the content changes that you have made to the History section. It's a work in progress and I believe more refinements are needed. Hence my proposal to trim it. However, there is strong resistance brewing. I suspect many have yet to digest the changes that you made. Some editors may not even respond to the contents of your arguments but to the way you phrased them, which is a pity. In any event, I think this needs to be handled carefully, otherwise all your good work may come undone. danielkueh (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you kind feedback danielkueh. I realize that I'm long winded in my replies and should work to tone it down. It is a very difficult topic to work on.Thompsma (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should focus on tightening the current version. Let's not add any info for now but rather, work on refining the text, sentence structure, transitions, etc. We need to make it more compelling so that other editors will recognize its merits and not be distracted by calls to revert it. Plus, we have until August 20. danielkueh (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I notice a few problems in the debate.

1. The inference I am gaining from those who refer to the History of evolutionary thought are making the false inference that it by de facto becomes a reliable source. I reject that inference. Perhaps some day, but wikipedia isn't there yet. There is much important history missing in History of evolutionary thought, so do we write another article - Even more history of evolutionary thought? In 'mutating' sections of an article - we bring other research to light and exhibit pangenesis in action (metaphorically speaking - in many ways, language evolves pangenically). Pangenesis was poorly written and gave a very negative/dismissive view on the idea. As we trim the new added parts they can migrate with their citations to sub-articles. This can only serve to help the global wikipedian venture.
 * I agree. But many editors like things to be neat and consistent. For now, see if there is any inconsistency in terms of content and accuracy (WP:accuracy). I suspect, after the trimming, there will be little to none. But do double check. If there is an error on either side, it is not a bad idea to do a "quick correction." danielkueh (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

2. There is fear among some of the editors to refer to intelligent design. It is a historical fact that Paley was an influential figure. Reading, citing, or understanding his work does not mean that you endorse intelligent design. Darwin's thesis was in a large part a direct counter argument to Paley's thesis - Gould (2002) notes how he wrote the Origin as such.
 * This is more of a red herring of theirs. We should not be distracted by it. I struck it out in the proposed trimmed version only because I see potential for confusion if someone reads that sentence too quickly and thinks I.D. was developed during the same time as Paley. It may have its roots then, but that is a different story. danielkueh (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

3. People are confusing heritability with Waston-Crick base pairing. They are not the same thing. Genetics is the science of heritability. Genes are not pieces of DNA - they are information coded within the epigenomic complex - there is a lot of molecular things bridging the gap between genotype to phenotype; spliceosome for example. If you think of heritability in Watson-Crick base pairing terms alone - you will misinterpret Darwin's pangenesis. This misinterpretation leads to the kind of negative reporting that I see throughout the article. Just because Darwin's pangenetic gemmules didn't exactly pan out, his idea was very complex and we are still learning about heritability and how it works. I raise this point, because there is a tendency in the writing to write negatively or dismissively of the 'failed' parts of history. History doesn't work that way, neither does evolution. It is integrative and it is symbiogenetic. Bacteria can pick up old pieces of DNA or genomes and adapt them for functional purposes, we can do the same with literature. The same problem applies to Lamarck as it applies to Darwin's theories - people write dismissively of Lamarck as though we shouldn't go and look at his work, because he was proven wrong. We all know that is not how science or history works.
 * As someone who studies developmental neurobiology, you have no idea how sympathetic I am to this point (heritability, genes, etc). My advice would be to stress that this is an WP:NPOV issue and that Darwin's pangenesis should be presented in a matter of fact sort of way and that we should not present it in unnecessarily negative light. At least no more than the peer-reviewed sources.

4. There are mistakes in the peer-reviewed literature itself. Hence, updates are going to be necessary in some cases. Historical papers are significant and we can't always pick the 'most-cited' papers like a bunch of Red Queens. On this approach - I look at the recent literature and match it with the historical. Most literature (Gould 2002 included) will say that Darwin relied on blending theory. Liu et al. says this is not so - they refer to Darwin's Prepotency and say this is Mendelian inheritance. Indeed this is true, Darwin does say that some characters are prepotent and can be inherited: "when two breeds are crossed their characters usually become intimately fused together; but some characters refuse to blend, and are transmitted in an unmodified state either from both parents or from one." Darwin, Charles (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray. ISBN 1-4191-8660-4. Retrieved 2011-08-11. p. 92 - Realizing that this statement runs contrary to what Gould (2002) has said, that Liu et al are relative new-comers on the block, it seemed prudent to cite Darwin. However, Liu et al. also say:

"Many people thought that Darwin did not read Mendel’s paper, thus he did not know Mendelian inheritance. This is not the case."


 * That is questionable. We don't know for sure if Darwin read Mendel's paper. Mendel may have sent his paper to Darwin - most likely he did. Darwin does not make any note of it in his journals. Some of Mendels work was mentioned in passing to Darwin and was contained in some books of his personal library - but he did not leave any notes in the margins indicating that he read the work. Liu et al are making this inference - that Darwin read Mendel's work - by reading Darwin's pangenesis and realizing that Darwin didn't just refer to blending of characters. Hence, Darwin did not dismiss Mendel's laws of independent segregation - either indirectly through his own development of the idea, or directly by reading Mendel's laws and incorporating them into his pangenesis theory.
 * I agree, I believe I read somewhere that Darwin had a copy of Mendel's paper and that he did not read due to it being math heavy. Either way, the current sentence in the current text is fine as it does not speculate anymore than it needs to. danielkueh (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

5. Darwin taught us about history and how to research it. History isn't a typology - where you go to a historian (a secondary source) and use their work as the essence of the history described. For the typlogist - the history as it is told (in the secondary sources) is real and the varied opinion the illusion. History is a lineage - you have to trace its pathways to its origins and divisions along the trackways of time. The history as it is told is the abstraction while the variation is real - thoughts do evolve.Thompsma (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mark (I hope you don't mind me calling you that), as we work to improve the current text, the one thing you need to do more than anything else is to make sure that the present text meets all the main guidelines such as WP:fringe, WP:NPOV, WP:source, WP:NOR, and WP:accuracy. Your logic is spot on. But like I said, most of editors are not as well versed as you are on some of nuances of this subject and are unlikely to respond to them. Many are not trained biologists. As a result, they tend to respond to rules, neatness, and consensus. This is not unique to this article but in every other article on Wikipedia.
 * The logic of your arguments are fine, but be sure to buttress them consistently with the WP guidelines. In the meantime, it is not a bad idea to list all the errors that are present in the previous version and show how they violate WP:NPOV, WP:fringe, WP:source, WP:NOR, and WP:accuracy. That way we can present the contrast between the two versions more clearly.
 * Finally, I hope you are starting to understand why I equated "oversimplifications" with "lies." Till then. danielkueh (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little behind on several things and will be taking a step back from editing on Wikipedia for a while. If I can be of any assistance (e.g., proof read text, comment, etc), please give a shout out on my talk page. I will get an e-mail when a message is left there. I believe your recent efforts have paid off significantly. Many of the editors are seeing the merits of your work and reasoning. There will always be disputes over minor details, but I consider those trivial compared to the larger picture of making this a better, accurate, and more authoritative article. danielkueh (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Argumentation style
As you know, I very much appreciate the content you contribute to Wikipedia. But your style of argument is clearly not in line with Wikipedia culture. Please try to remember that what books you have read, what you do at work, and whether you consider yourself an expert on a subject has no weight whatsoever as an argument in a Wikipedia discussion. Your contributions to discussions would be much shorter and much more valuable if you cut these things out. Neither should you tell other contributors that they are unworthy of contributing. --Ettrig (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The evolution article has been stalled for too long. I came in there several years ago with good intentions. There are arguments going on in there that need to be put to rest. My argument style is not argumentative - let me explain. If you are referring to my correspondence with Slrubenstein - I suggest you go through the history and take a look at how hard he has fought to maintain a single reference to a book that he likes and the information that he has posted on it is false. I hold no malice toward Slrubenstein - if he posts information that can be verified, I will welcome the assistance. However, I am not in the mood to continue arguing on a point that goes back for over a year when several of us have access to the same information that he does and it cannot be corroborated. I have used extensive resources and my personal time trying to correct an error that was being maintained on that page for illogical reasons. The reasons are beyond illogical, it is due to an ego. I am willing to accept when I am wrong. Other editors, for example, pointed out that Paley's natural theology could not have been required at Cambridge from the dates that I had listed, because it predated its publication by a few years. I did a bit more research and found two things: 1) the dates didn't match, Paley had written other works that were 'required', 2) I found an article that suggested that Paley's reading's were far from 'required' reading. Recognizing the error - I posted the information and agreed to change the text. That is called collaboration and following up on the lines of information. When the issue of statistical species was first brought up to Slrubenstein I encountered obstinate resistance - even in light of information that clearly showed this to be a contrived story. I left and did not assist for a long time. Now that I've returned I think it is the right thing to do. If Slrubenstein wants to collaborate in good faith - he will see that I hold no grudge. My discussions are long - because I had to counter superobstinateness. Thanks for your appreciation for my contributions. It is a firestorm right now, but I believe that we can improve that article. There are a lot of people who are obviously interested in that topic, but if it is going to be a respectable article we need to have an effective way of deleting obvious misinformation and we also need a way to disrupt some sections once in a while - even if the article is featured. A little disturbance, like fire in ecology, can rejuvenate things. Writing is like this. Sometimes you need to tear things apart and reassemble to find a better way. The evolution article has been held largely static - little change here, a little change there -simply on the grounds that it was once reviewed to featured status. Sometimes a big change is necessary, updates are needed, and all those little changes has allowed a lot of dirt to creep in. That is my opinion on the matter. If you read my posts - I have stated my concerns over Slrubenstein's misleading posts in an objective and factual way by pointing to the literature.Thompsma (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote what books you have read, what you do at work, and whether you consider yourself an expert on a subject have no weight. This kind of information is not "comme il faut" in Wikipedia. Your answer is about something else. I am not criticizing your arguments in general. My honest opinion is that you do an emormous amount of very good work on Wikipedia. I had read your discussion with Slrubenstein. I was frustrated to see how much time you spent on clarifying this minor item, time that could have yielded so much more value if spent on other things. I told you at an early point that I agree with you about the subject matter. But I still want to exhort you that in discussions you should not inform us that you have worked as a geneticist for 7 years or that you have read all the published works of Charles Darwin, etc. Your are doing this often and you do it in a way as if to give weight to your argument. THIS kind of argument (WP:CRED) is frowned upon in Wikipedia. But see also WP:EXR. --Ettrig (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ettrig - I am afraid I don't understand? Where did you write: what books you have read, what you do at work, and whether you consider yourself an expert on a subject have no weight? I did spend a lot of time clarifying that single point - but in case you hadn't noticed, Slrubenstein had posted that piece of misinformation in several places in that article. There are a lot of people in this world who look at that article and I don't think it is right that this important topic should have featured status with that kind of misinformation in it. It wasn't just a single point - Slrubenstein had extended that tale to other parts of the article. I will take your input in mind about WP:CRED and WP:EXR.Thompsma (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3:rd sentence in this thread, except for a minor grammatical correction. I have followed this discussion. Remember, I did the article history search for you. I also said that I agree with you on this item. I also warned you that Slrubenstein is very good at pushing for his views according to the Wikipedia culture. I tried this myself once, but found I couldn't do it with a reasonable effort. I am very happy about the current discussion about the history paragraph, and think it results in considerable improvements. But still, I would like you to stop using one kind of arguments, those based on WP:CRED. --Ettrig (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You've already made yourself clear on WP:CRED - no need to keep pushing the point. It is getting uncomfortable now.Thompsma (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read through the recent discussion on Talk:Evolution, and I agree with Ettrig. You are, to be blunt, being a jerk. If you were less combative in your initial approaches, and more acknowledging of the fact that people are genuinely interested in contributing, instead of so eager to merely prove that they are wrong, you might find that people are more receptive to your criticism. Slrubenstein has been an editor here for a long time, and he can definitely be reasoned with. You just have to not antagonize him. The same goes for everyone - antagonism is always misplaced. Less of it, please. You are a great contributor; just be a little more civil. More will get done, and faster, if you stop coming to the argument with a wolverine tied to your hand. Graft | talk 22:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the negative feedback, but you are misreading my posts. I've never called anyone a jerk just as you did me, so I would appreciate that you take your name calling elsewhere because it is very immature. There is a difference between being a jerk and being blunt. I have never made any personal insult to any person - I've always given clear and justified feedback. None of my comments have ever been personal - I'm here to improve the material. The evolution article is a serious problem - it poses to be something that it is not (FA status and about evolution) and that does not sit well with me. Slrubenstein in particular has made many contributions that are questionable, he has wasted a lot of my time as I volunteer my efforts in here, and I have yet to see a post by Slrubenstein that can be backed up by the reference material. I think anyone would be a little perturbed by a time waster. That is not a personal attack on Slrubenstein - it is an observation and you will note that some editors have agreed with my posts. If Slrubenstein posts material that can be backed up - then I will support that action and will thank Slrubenstein for the contribution. I've been publishing papers for quite a number of years and never like what the reviewers have to say about my work. The comments are blunt, impersonal, and they can hurt. With experience and maturity, however, I have come to appreciate the critical and blunt feedback - it sharpens my skills and my writing. We need people in this world who can call it as it is without inhibitions. The evolution article is presenting a myth about evolution that cannot be supported by peer-reviewed or published material by experts in the field. If people don't like that assessment - they are free to do as they please as am I. It is my belief that people are not welcome to launch personal attacks on others as you have just done toward me. Hence, I have responded to your post - but don't expect anything further out of me. I ask that you reconsider your position and will only respond if you reflect further on this matter and offer an apology.Thompsma (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also follow up that if you look at the history of that debate with Slrubenstein you will see that it goes back a long time. Hence, for several years Slrubenstein entered text into that article from a favourite book. I suspected at first that the information was being misrepresented and indeed it was. The editors in that article have concluded that Slrubenstein was in error. Now Slrubenstein had fought long and hard to have that citation kept in the article and used every tactic to keep it in even at the expense of launching personal attacks on me. I ended up ordering and have since read Menands book. I think that is quite accommodating - I have never had anyone go at such great length to try to understand my point of view. Now here we are with a consensus on that page that Slrubenstein was indeed incorrect and that Menands statements were being misrepresented. I have yet to see a recognition of this by Slrubenstein. If that were me, I would own up to my mistake and I would be offering an apology. I would say - geez, I really was in error and thank you for correcting the mistake. Instead, what I see is a pattern from Slrubenstein of petty personal attacks. Slrubenstein is not interested in the facts - anything I now post Slrubenstein is clearly in opposition to it. Slrubenstein has made this personal, whereas I have not. I am a scientist and I endeavour to take an objective stance on the ideas that are presented in here - I hold no personal attachment to any of the ideas I write in here. My concern is if the information is factual or not. If Slrubenstein is capable of putting factual material in here - I would certainly commend that work. However, if you analyse Slrubenstein's text - you can clearly see that Slrubenstein has made this personal and is less interested in the content of what I am saying and more interested in rejecting my posts simply because Slrubenstein does not like me. I think that is petty, immature, and it is reasonable to state that Slrubenstein has been a time waster. We argued a point for over a year so that Slrubenstein could have a single reference placed into the article and the information that Slrubenstein was referencing wasn't even reliable. Slrubenstein wasted a lot of time for a lot of people in that article on that point. Yet Slrubenstein continues to move along and make similar mistakes without recognition of past error. I have made mistakes and you will see that I am adjusting my approach as I move along here. I think Slrubenstein should do the same and I hope that you will also recognize your mistake and apologise for calling me a jerk when, in reality, I have been fighting on the side of truth.Thompsma (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I apologise for calling you a jerk - I didn't intend to insult you, merely to illustrate how jarring I found your approach to be. But, my point is, you get your back up very quickly and easily, and become defensive, or even offensive, in your discussions. You begin each conversation with a confrontation. I don't exactly know well enough to say, but my impression is that you were correct and Slrubenstein was incorrect in this instance. But, to be clear, you are not "fighting on the side of truth", you are editing a Wikipedia article. This is not a battle, and there is no truth being established here. It is far, far, FAR more important that you learn to get along with other editors than that you be correct in your argument. E.g., in this case, instead of attacking Slrubenstein, suggesting he was wrong, and making him the bad-guy in your argument, you might have decided instead that you would approach him with what you thought was a problem. Like, "Hey, Slrubenstein, I read that passage in Menand, and I had a slightly different take on it. What do you think?" is probably way more effective than starting off by spitting in his eye. Little is served by igniting firestorms on the talk page, e.g. making categorical statements that the whole page is garbage, needs drastic revision, etc. This is emotionally exhausting.
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and there are some ways of collaborating that are better than others. "Fighting on the side of truth" is not a good way. We're all here to work together. Graft | talk 00:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a metaphor. Please read my posts and you will see that I regularly work to get people to come together and work collaboratively. You have completely misunderstood me. I am here precisely because I fully understand the power of a collective mind base. I see people as valuable resources. On that issue I was fighting on the side of truth - in the sense that truth is an important and valued virtue. I did not attack Slrubenstein, you must have read that into the message. Please provide a specific quote where I 'attacked' and we can take a look at it and see where and if I went wrong. Thanks for your apology.Thompsma (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gathered two things from the dialog above. 1) A Scientific Proclaimation gains its credibility through peer review. Clearly such actions are taking place on the Evolution page. 2) It is rare that scientist form cabals to force their idealogical views. In fact, rather than forming a common position; it is far more frequent for conflict to emerge as they discredit each others creditials and perspectives - a good thing since it keeps us honest. With no insult intended, I will share this dialog with my Biology students as an example of why peer reviewed information is more reliable than Oprah. Also, it will serve as an example of the challenges of navigating the personalities and real emotions that are behind the user names. I have great respect for all in this discussion and I am confident the concerns raised above will be resolved and that Wikipedia will continue to be an excellent source of information. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks JimmyButler for your input. "With no insult intended, I will share this dialog with my Biology students as an example of why peer reviewed information is more reliable than Oprah." - or wikipedia for that matter!! Someday, perhaps, wikipedia will be reliable - this is my hope. I also hold no ill will toward Slrubenstein - I think Slrubenstein is not a reliable editor based on the evidence to date and hope that Slrubenstein will improve. The evolution page contains citations, it loosely covers information that however around the topic of evolution, but as a whole it misses the thesis and presents an alternative picture that does not reflect what is in the peer-reviewed literature or history of that science. I would hope that an article with FA status would be like a peer-reviewed article, which is why I have fought to have that article re-assessed. However, the collection of editors in there are opposed to this - so I have to accept this and move on even though I am sorely disappointed with that outcome. Wikipedia would be a better resource if the FA status served the function of flagging reliable articles. The evolution article is not what it pretends to be. It is an unreliable account and description of evolution and I find it disconcerting that students will likely turn to this page and think it a fairly good approximation of the science.Thompsma (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I am not going to participate more in the evolution definition debate, but I think I've made my points as well as I can, and I am quite confident that by leaving it up to you nothing very bad can be the result. Thank you!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to exchange the sentence you were concerned with for something clearer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you need a distraction
I've read the discussions at Talk:evolution with some interest, although I can't contribute anything myself there. If you are so inclined, maybe you can help with the evolutionary aspects at punishment. There's a section on the talk page there, which is from a corrections textbook, so not ideal source for such biology-oriented details, but someone like yourself could surely do better. Thanks, Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability
If you really believe:
 * The two definitions of fact are exactly the kinds of definitions that Fitzhugh (2007) says should be avoided, because they present "the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty."

(and I do not question your earnestness), you might be interested in the current RfC at the Verifiability talk page. Perhaps you know that the policy includes a slogan that the threshold for inclusion in WP is "Verifiability, not truth ..." There is a propoal (currently with a majority vote) to remove "not truth" from the introduction of the policy and move it further down, and in the RfC and other discussions on the talk page, many people argue that "not truth" should be removed entirely, and that "truth" be made the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Several people have argued that science proves truths, and that by not making truth the inclusion criteria, we fill WP with fringe pseudoscience and lose credibility among acaemics.

You can read the results of the RfC for yourself. The general discusion is quite sprawling, but sections on "Jimbo's argument" and "Why we need 'not truth'" have also attracted a lot of discussion on truth/not truth. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info Slrubenstein. Sounds like there are some people who are clearly misinformed about the philosophy of science. Truth is certainly something that scientists hold as a virtue that generates reliable information that we can act on and it is related to certainty. We can act on certainty, but we cannot claim it immutable more probable otherwise it would turn into untestable dogma. I could set my alarm to go off in 1 minute and claim certainty that it will go off in 1 minute. However, the battery might die or a nuclear bomb might go off. The later are less probable, but impart on the certainty principle. Final certainty is unattainable in science - it is a false idol. Popper (1968) captured this aptly:

"With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of these defenses of obscurantism which bar the way of scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth."Thompsma (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. THE question is, will scientists and othe academics restpect WP?  I know you care about this aqnd your work at Evolution and other articles shows your attempt to handle this one article at a time.  But the V policy is a content policy that applies to all articles so it is important that it is written in a way that gives good guidance to bpeople working on academic articles, and also more generally raises the academic standards of the encyclopedia.  Which is why I think your voice could add a lot to the discussions there Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statistics
Given your recent contribution on the talk page of statistics, you may want to make use of the talk page of WikiProject Statistics to raise interest in particular statistical topics, since article's talk pages should really be about the specific article. You may even want to join in at the project. Melcombe (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on fate of Evolutionary Biology article
Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI board
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You are a knowledgeable and hard working editor and I have appreciated the work you have done on other articles. Some people are very blunt but also are hard workers here. It takes a thick skin to work on some sections of Wikipedia and a reset button is needed to get past emotional outbursts. Alatari (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ecology2
Template:Ecology2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Coupled human-environment system
Hello, would you be able to resolve the NPOV issue(s)? The article is short, so I can do it, but your expertise would be appreciated. - RoyBoy 18:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)