Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 13

Categories: Biology education vs Bioscience education
Hello, I want to let you know that I've opened a discussion at CFD vis-a-vis merging these two Categories, which both cover the same subject matter -- and deciding which term should be used. You are invited to share your thoughts on this proposal HERE. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Simultaneous hermaphroditism an orphan
Hello I made this new article called Simultaneous hermaphroditism. Unfortunately this new article is kinda an orphan and I need help having other pages link to it.CycoMa (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I just added it to Sex sidebar. That should bump your numbers up. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also there are 16 possibilities here on Find Link. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirecting Raoultella towards Klebsiella
Hello. The former genus has been first erected in 2001 on the basis of two genes. In 2014 a phylogeny based on genomes reveals it is nested within Klebsiella and concludes: Robust genome-based phylogeny showed that a unified Klebsiella cluster contains Enterobacter aerogenes and Raoultella, suggesting the latter genus should be abandoned. In 2021 another publication proposes again to reunify the genus Raoultella with the genus Klebsiella based on similar results I have been trying to redirect Raoultella towards Klebsiella, but another user prevented me to do so. Can we have another opinion? Thanks, Totodu74 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC) ) and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Need some help with suspicious edits
I have noticed an anon making suspicious edits to articles on animals, mostly mammals. Mostly making a large number of edits to scientific classification info w/o adding, mentioning an RS nor leaving ES. Doesn't appear to want to communicate though has gotten a number of warning templates. A few are obvious errors, but it's not my area of expertise and deciphering sources is a chore. Is there someone who would be willing to help me vet some of these and maybe determine what to do? I don't think ANI would work unless there are a few admins with appropriate degrees. Thanks Adakiko (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you mean who I think you mean, I've been through all of his edits so far and reverted the obviously egregious ones. There remain others I am uncertain about, so I have assumed good faith and left them in. At least one actually was legitimate, factually speaking, and was reverted by someone else anyway because of his failure to cite an RS or leave an ES... Anaxial (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That be the one. Seems like a bad idea to let unsourced edits stay even if correct. Unless you want to cite all their edits... Does this editor pop up every now and then or is this the first time? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC).
 * With the edit I knew to be correct, I fixed it with a source (which was already in the article, ironically enough) - the others I'll leave for now, although others might wish to review them and be harsher than I was. So far as I am aware, this is their first time editing; it's certainly the first time they've used this IP address and it's difficult to prove much beyond that. Anaxial (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, support, and doing all that work! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... active again. Seems particularly determined to delete referenced info from reliable sources from the articles Odocoileus and Yucatan brown brocket. Assuming they aren't blocked for vandalism, I'll back off from those for the time being, on account of 3RR, but others may wish to look and see if I'm being overzealous in restoring the referenced information and deal with it if not? Anaxial (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:MRNA therapeutics
Should this draft be accepted as a stand-alone article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably not sadly. It's an ok draft, but would more logically be merged into RNA therapeutics#mRNA (from where 70% was copied over). The Heart Diseases application section and the Delivery systems sections could be merged over since they are both new content, and decently enough referenced. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 03:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Iron in biology
I recently created the article Iron in biology which for such an important biological concept has not had its own article until now. Does anyone want to help with fleshing it out?Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 09:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move of Abiogenesis
A requested move of Abiogenesis to Origin of life is under discussion. Project members are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

AfD for Female (gender)
Comments are requested at Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Crossroads -talk- 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "The result was draftify to Draft:Female (gender)."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

CZ Biohub Infobox Updates
Hello! I'm here on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a nonprofit that works with universities to investigate biology and develop new medical diagnostic processes, therapies, and cures. If you would like to read my full conflict of interest disclosure, you can do so by visiting my user page.

I have a small ask for any curious editors at this WikiProject: would you mind reviewing an edit request I posted to CZ Biohub's Talk page? It's a pair of updates that add a logo and a purpose line to the page's infobox. Due to my COI, I can't edit the article directly and need independent editors to approve my suggestions. I would deeply appreciate any help I can get with this. Thanks! Patricia at GMMB (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Modern Meadow review
I posted some updates to the page about biotech company Modern Meadow here Talk:Modern Meadow - is a member of this project able to review them? The proposals address the concerns of the warning boxes posted on the article, but I have a COI and don’t want to violate Wikipedia rules by editing the page myself. Thanks in advance. Olympus4Me2 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed move of Injury
I've opened a discussion on Talk:Injury and any input would be appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC on boldfacing of scientific names in articles about organisms
Background: A discussion was held in June–July 2011 that ended with a declaration of a consensus that stated, in part, that in an article about an organism, if the scientific name of the organism is not the title of the article, the scientific name should be presented in boldface in the opening sentence –  i.e. that only italics should be used (ordinarily inside of parentheses). As far as I am aware, that consensus has not been formally overturned, and indeed many articles about organisms on Wikipedia do not use boldfacing for the scientific name of the organism. See, for example, the current versions of the Timber rattlesnake article and the Wild turkey article. Some articles do not even use boldface for the scientific name when it the title of the article –  e.g. see the current version of the Crotalus cerastes article. The general Wikipedia guideline about the boldfacing of topic names can be found at MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDSYN, which say that boldfacing should be used for the topic name that redirect to the article, which appears to differ from that July 2011 conclusion. This question was recently discussed further at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna), wherein several editors suggested that the scientific name, since it is always one of the significant alternative names by which an organism is known and is practically always the name of a redirect when it is not the title of the article, should be boldfaced when it is introduced.

The question: In an article about an organism, should the scientific name of the organism be presented in boldface (as well as italics) when it is introduced?

—&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Note This discussion only applies to animals, i.e. taxa covered by Naming conventions (fauna). Different conventions apply to plants, as per Naming conventions (flora). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: At first glance, the naming conventions pages are about article titles, whereas this RfC is about the styling of article, and especially about opening sentences. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the scientific name should always be presented in bold in an article about a taxon. It's the primary identifier for the taxon, constant across countries and languages. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural question: I see you've advertised this (very appropriately) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Would there be any objection if I also advertised it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms. Any other suggestions for pages to notify? This will have a big effect if implemented. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 12:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Widespread awareness seems desirable, including those specific suggestions. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, largely using the same language as the earlier advertisements. If people know of other places which should be notified, go ahead. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 21:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Missed the previous discussion, but I have to agree that both per MOS and common sense, yes it makes sense to always bold the scientific name. But we need to be aware that if we are striving for consistency, that's a huge amount of formatting busywork coming up, because that is not the way it has generally been done in my experience (incl. personal practice). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't it be done by a bot or with a script? FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Script/bot assistance seems feasible, but not complete automation. I don't think it is super important to get it done very quickly – only to reach an understanding of what is desired – although I'm happy to put in some of the effort, of course. I remember a widespread change of capitalization for bird and butterfly common names some years back, and it went into effect pretty quickly. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes per the reasonings above. The scientific name is a significant alternative name and often the only consistent name for organisms, and should be italic-bolded.-- Kev  min  § 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes (from the RfC submitter). In addition to the comments above, the lack of boldfacing (together with the parentheses and thin italics) makes the scientific name rather hard to notice. We should be emphasizing the importance of scientific names, not hiding them. Moreover, the lack of boldfacing creates a special-category exception to the overall Wikipedia style guidance, which is harmful to consistency in the project as a whole. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the use of a different style of emphasis to the common name makes the scientific name stand out better. If also in bold it gets lost in a list of common names, e.g. in one of the examples given above:
 * The timber rattlesnake, canebrake rattlesnake, or banded rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) is a species of venomous, ...
 * The timber rattlesnake, canebrake rattlesnake, or banded rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) is a species of venomous, ...
 * The sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes), also known as the horned rattlesnake and sidewinder rattlesnake, is ...
 * The sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes), also known as the horned rattlesnake and sidewinder rattlesnake, is ...
 * Of course, it should be in bold it it is a article title with no general common name.
 * If making a change in consensus style is to be made, perhaps we should also consider whether the scientific name should be in parentheses. Parenthetic terms are stripped from previews (the default, not the navigation popups gadget). If we are making a change to reflect the importance of the scientific name, perhaps this should also be considered so it shows up in previews. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For those two articles, I think my best current suggestion (with their current titles such as they are and assuming no change to the parenthesis convention) would be this:
 * The timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), also known as the canebrake rattlesnake or banded rattlesnake, is a species of ...
 * Crotalus cerastes, commonly known as the sidewinder, horned rattlesnake or sidewinder rattlesnake, is a ...
 * Placing the scientific name immediately after the first common name, for the timber rattlesnake, would help keep it from getting lost as an afterthought at the end of the list.
 * About the previewing issue – I'm surprised to hear that. One possible approach could be:
 * The timber rattlesnake, taxonomic name Crotalus horridus and also known as the canebrake rattlesnake or banded rattlesnake, is a species of ...
 * Maybe it is partly my browser or font settings, but I find non-bold italics (especially inside of parentheses) practically invisible when there is boldfaced text nearby.
 * —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My vote is to keep scientific names as is. Too many changes for such a small issue.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes Weak no : I understand the point; the scientific name is at least as important as the common name, so maybe it should be bold. However the full and abbreviated names are already bold in the infobox. To my eye, too much bold in the lead looks busy, but that's not a big problem. I'd prefer to minimize differences between how we style fauna and plants, etc., so I'd prefer any change to apply to all organisms. It would require a lot of work to change, but it could be done gradually and I'd be willing to help with the work. Overall I'm not convinced it would be worth the effort. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 21:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * although there is variation, in my experience the majority of flora articles that are at the English name do have the scientific name in bold, as at Trifoliate orange, for example. Those that do not embolden the scientific name usually have it in parentheses immediately following the English name. Since members of WP:PLANTS strongly prefer scientific names (as expressed at Naming conventions (flora)), most flora articles will have the scientific name in bold. So there is no consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed from "Weak no" to "Yes". I think we should avoid the "sea of bold" as much as possible by moving the lesser known alternative names down in the article. It's worth the effort because Wikipedia's general style is to embolden the important names in the lead and organisms should not be an exception. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 15:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Potential closure: Per the RfC process description, "Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, ... But editors should not wait for that ...". With 11 days remaining before the bot assumes the discussion is stale, I think the consensus is clear and this discussion is ready for closure. I invite someone to close this. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the 2011 decision was a lame "let's be different just because" topical exception-making to a site-wide guideline, and those never do anything but cause long-term trouble and confusion. We have a general guideline at MOS:BOLDSYN and there is no reason not to follow it here. The scientific name certainly qualifies as "a significant alternative name".  If there are so many common (vernacular) names that we get a "sea of bold" effect, then they should mostly be moved out of the lead into a section. That said, WP has been around long enough, is used heavily enough, and is (perhaps barely) consistent enough, that by now we have few readers who do not understand that a term boldfaced in the lead is an alternative name of the article subject, so if an article happens to have half a dozen of them, it is not going to confuse anyone, or not enough anyones for us to care.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes – No reason to make an exception to MOS:BOLDSYN. Graham (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems logical to me, that the guidelines for which there is already a previous consensus should be followed. Above all, because it is the form that is already known and USA in many articles, changing it can lead to confusions.AteneaZ3 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I've updated Manual of Style/Lead section, Manual of Style/Organisms and WikiProject Animals to reflect the outcome of this RfC. I'm not aware of any other pages where the previous practice of not bolding the scientific name is mentioned (I've checked WP:NCFAUNA and WP:TOL, but found no mention). WikiProject Animals mentioned the discussion from 2011 that established the previous practice; I've linked to this discussion there, but the link will need to be updated once this thread is archived. Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I found mentions of bolding and updated WP:FISH and WP:BIRDS as well. BIRDS has a link to this thread that will need to be updated on archiving. I've checked all the other WikiProjects for vertebrates and found other mentions of bolding practice (I think vernacular name titles are rare enough for non-vertebrate that I wouldn't expect project guidance on formatting). Plantdrew (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a consensus in biology that race is a social construct?
A tweet by Steven Pinker agreeing with Richard Dawkins agreeing with a list by Jerry Coyne of ideological perversions of science included the idea that race is a social construct. Race (human categorization) claims there is a consensus ("Modern science regards...") about this, which I find hard to square with disagreement by these eminent biologists. Whether race is a valid biological concept is of course a question for biologists, who could situate it in normal taxonomic practice. For example they would know observations like "more genetic variation within groups" was typical among subspecific taxa, whereas a cultural anthropologist or even a medic would likely not. I raised the question of how this consensus was established on the talk page, it seems to be merely asserted. Responses were evasive. So perhaps Wikiproject Biology can help. Bogestra Bob (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Jerry Coyne's list is "Ideological distortions of biology". One of his 10 items is:
 * "C.) The claim that “race” (I prefer “ethnicity”) is purely a social construct with no biological value and containing no biological information [is an ideological distortion of biology]. I don’t believe in “races” as they were classically conceived of by Carleton Coon and others, but humans are genetically different from place to place, and those differences contain information of value in tracing our ancestry and our movement around the globe from Africa."
 * This is quite a limited statement biologically. He agrees (with the social construct people and others) that the Carleton Coon idea of race is wrong, i.e. there is no hierarchy from ape to African to White Man at the top (there is a clear consensus in biology that that was racist nonsense), but he disagrees insofar as genomics shows genetic differences in different parts of the world (and through history). Biologists in general (if I may be so bold) broadly agree that "race" is a mistaken concept, but they also agree with Coyne/Dawkins (tweet)/Pinker (his tweet) that it's possible to trace gene differences. All three of them are well aware that saying so means treading a narrow path through an ideological minefield. Hope this helps, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How did you establish that biologists in general think that? Bogestra Bob (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A lifetime of reading. If you want immediate evidence, you have the three sources cited here already; if you want another, David Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here is a WP:RS, and of course it has been attacked for the reasons I've given. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're saying Dawkins and Coyne think race is a "mistaken concept"? That's a bit of a stretch. Dawkins: "Social construct"? Forget it. Race is biologically real." Reich does indeed say race is a social construct, although it's unclear what he means by this. Greg Mayer quoted by Coyne:
 * "I also like Reich’s article, but if he hopes to be able to talk about genetic differentiation, he’s going to have to stop accepting the “race is a social construction” fallacy..."
 * I don't think consensus describes this. Bogestra Bob (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you know everything already, then don't ask for help. Reich's book makes it clear that there are many genetic differences between populations, something that Coyne, Dawkins, and Pinker all agree with, and that Coonian "races" do not exist, something that the three of them also support. If within that they differ in shades of meaning, that's up to them. I can tell you one thing, which is that many (most?) biologists won't touch this subject with a barge pole, for the exact same reason that I'm not going to any further. I'm out of here, don't ping me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just different definitions. The people saying race is a social construct mean to say that any clearly defined boundary between groups of people (one-drop rule, Ariernachweis, brown race, Caucasian race and so on) is just a random decision someone made, based on their own set of ideas, and could have made differently, and they mean that any differences between such "races" are smaller than the differences within those "races".
 * The people saying race is not a social construct mean to say that populations with little mixing in the past have slightly different genomes: if your ancestors lived in Central Africa for many generations, you are likely to look similar to other people whose ancestors lived there and different from people whose ancestors lived in China for many generations.
 * Both statements are true: race is a social construct and not a social construct, depending on what people mean by it. Both groups of biologists are completely in agreement with each other as soon as the statements are broken up into more detailed statements instead of being compressed into the phrase "social construct". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Coyne: "Multilocus groupings of humans, for example, show that they can be divided into various fairly distinct genetic clusters, ranging from 4-7, and which correspond roughly to areas where humans were genetically isolated" Bogestra Bob (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That does not contradict anything I said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You said the boundaries between races were a "random decision" and that no biologist disagreed with this. Bogestra Bob (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And now ponder the difference between "can be divided into" and "are divided into" as well as the difference between "fairly distinct" and "distinct" and the difference between "correspond roughly" and the sharp line the people who invented the one-drop rule drew. My actual point flew right by your head. I think it would be fruitless if I commented any further. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I need to ponder anything. Coyne is an eminent biologist. You are a Wikipedia editor. Coyne thinks race is not a social construct. What you think is irrelevant. Nevertheless Coyne is applying a typical subspecific model, which often have hybrid zones. This is how race has been conceptualized since Blumenbach. "Sharp lines" is the kind of strawman requirement we find among non biologist sources. A biologist would be embarrassed to write such a thing. This has nothing at all to do with the one drop rule, which is another system. I can agree with your last sentence. Bogestra Bob (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree Biologists in general consider it a social construct. I don't think we'll get a proper survey of biologists views though it might be interesting, and the literature isn't going to be much help either. I'm surprised they stuck their necks out! NadVolum (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting but I don't think flat assertions carry any weight. Bogestra Bob (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes That is the general scientific consensus, yes. While there is an acknowledgement that there are genetic compositional differences between groupings of humans, the differences are much more complicated and numerous than the handful of groupings that society has given names to. For the field of pharmacogenomics, for example, there are over a hundred, if not far more, genetic groupings that make up meaningful biological distinctions on a pharmacological level. But those groupings have little relation to the societal ones and the relations between them often are completely contrary to how society commonly groups human populations via the term race. Silver  seren C 06:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We could check whether your claims are correct by typing "race" or "ancestry" into PubMed to see whether the field typically uses the broad categories or your "over a hundred genetic groupings" which frankly I've never heard of. Bogestra Bob (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus in the fields of anthropology, human genetics, and taxonomy as applicable to hominoids is that the divisions commonly treated as "races" are fundamentally of social origin, and less informative to misleading in non-social contexts. This is clearly reflected in current literature, and consequently our articles. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So they are informative to some degree, in biological contexts? Which is why looking at the genetics literature we can see these categories being used to the present to compare genetic variants between groups. The first result is looking at genetic smoking susceptibility between Europeans and Africans. Look at all of the authors in just that first paper, from yesterday. I guess they don't all think race is just a social construct which only indexes social differences, seeing as they're looking for causal genetic differences. This one paper carries more weight than the couple of opinion pieces the "Modern science regards race as a social construct" in the article is currently based on. Bogestra Bob (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Now this. Don't they even read Scientific American or Wikipedia? Somebody needs to tell them race is just a social construct while they're trying to help black women with breast cancer. Bogestra Bob (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * August 1 2022
 * "We report a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of coronary artery disease (CAD) incorporating nearly a quarter of a million cases, in which existing studies are integrated with data from cohorts of white, Black and Hispanic individuals from the Million Veteran Program. We document near equivalent heritability of CAD across multiple ancestral groups, identify 95 novel loci, including nine on the X chromosome, detect eight loci of genome-wide significance in Black and Hispanic individuals, and demonstrate that two common haplotypes at the 9p21 locus are responsible for risk stratification in all populations except those of African origin, in which these haplotypes are virtually absent." Bogestra Bob (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that Wikipedia cannot reference the above studies because there is a consensus they are using fringe concepts? Bogestra Bob (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , Is there a specific point you are trying to make here? Please ping with reply. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems rather obvious. The race article says "Modern science regards race as a social construct", but looking at modern science we see the concept very much in use by large numbers of the best geneticists. So it appears the article is cited to garbage sources and should be rewritten. In addition it was my pleasure to inform Wikipedia editors who referenced "the literature" apparently without looking at the literature. Bogestra Bob (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with Chiswick Chap, who already said most of what I would. See also WP:R&E (especially the section "Genes don't work the way the average person thinks they do"). In short, Bogestra Bob (whom I would bet money is an American, because only Americans are this obsessed with racialism) seems to be confusing "races" with gene pools or more specifically with haplogroups, and not distinguishing between biologists who observe that different populations of humans, defined by haplogroups typically, have some genetic differences that may express phenotypically (which is broadly true), versus [fringe, at least on this point] people who still buy into racialist ideas from the Victorian era. Population ≠ "race".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say, you are writing nonsense. "Populations defined by haplogroup"? What? Look at the breast cancer paper I referenced, they use black and African ancestry interchangeably. "Ideas from the Victorian era" (appeal to novelty), we group living things by ancestry, not haplogroup. Sure that sounds modern and cool and The Science, but it's just nonsense you made up. It is not what they are doing. Bogestra Bob (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you are just not understanding the material you are skimming without sufficent background to absorb it. I mean this in response to what you wrote immediately above, and a little further above to (who asked to be pinged but was not). You're being a WP:Randy in Boise. E.g., the fact that the study you quoted from above socially selected "Black and Hispanic individuals" then detected "novel loci ... of genome-wide significance" in "populations except those of African origin" says nothing about and has nothing to do with "the Black race" being a biological categorization. You are reversing cause and effect here, a classic and very basic logic fallacy. If the study had instead socially selected "people who wear squishy shoes and people who like green", the result of the study would be the same: the test subjects who happened to be of largely African background would mostly lack the loci in question, because "these haplotypes are virtually absent" in "those of African origin". Having chosen (presumably for funding reasons) to do testing on social categories of Black and Hispanic subjects did not  the results of the testing; haplogroups did, and would continue to do so no matter what the social categories were of the selected participants. Being of African origin is a geographically distinct biological categorization for certain purposes (namely those pertaining to genotypes confined until modern history to Africa). This does not mean that the social construct "the Black race" means anything outside people's prejudices and perceptions. In reality, Africa has hundreds of ethnic groups, and there is more genetic diversity between them than there is between the Basques and the native Andeans. PS: I'm also going to point you toward WP:NOT.  WP is not a forum for endless debate-for-sport, which is clearly what you are attempting here.  The respondents appear to be unanimously against your position on this, and with the topic being under discretionary sanctions, you should give it a rest. You appear to have created your account only a few days ago for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble in a contentious subject.  I predict a topic ban if this continues.
 * Oh dear, you write this, frankly, horseshit, then tell me it's not a forum and I'm looking at a ban. Should I not respond? You are simply wrong that the race categories in use in modern scholarship are defined by "haplogroup". In fact that very paper says they're "virtually" absent. Do you really think they would define a category by a variant (in this case a haplotype not a haplogroup) then assess the frequency of the same variants in that group? It's you that has it backwards, and you that's using the place as a forum. Modern science uses race categories, defined by ancestry not haplogroup, ancestry groups of course being standard biological categorization, despite you asserting otherwise. It's right there in front of you. But you seem to place more weight in your ridiculous Wikipedia essay, than the literature. So why do top geneticists use race categories rather than "people who like green and squishy shoes"? No need to explain the (pathetically obvious) reason, we only need to know they do, for the purposes of this discussion. BTW, you're factually incorrect there is more genetic diversity between ethnic groups in Africa than Europeans and Native Americans, see e.g. Gurdasani 2014. Your factoid has absolutely no relevance to anything, overall diversity in junk DNA is irrelevant to the distribution in any specific functional gene (which tend to fracture along major race lines see e.g. Coop 2009), but just for your information. Bogestra Bob (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bob, you seem to know it all already. Do you agree with Darwin that there are races of cabbages? . . .dave souza, talk 11:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Useful reading:, . . . dave souza, talk 11:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Intelligence in plants ( Intelligence ) is pseudoscience or mislabeling and should be removed.
Our article Intelligence has a section on intelligence in plants - Intelligence.

This is pseudoscience or mislabeling and should be removed.

- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:3D7F:4056:46AB:658D (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What's pseudoscience about it? The section is literally about discussing the topic as actually debated in regards to what counts as intelligence for sentient organisms. Silver  seren C 00:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

CZ Biohub Organization draft
Hello! I'm here on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a nonprofit that partners with universities to advance biology and medical science research. My full COI disclosure can be read at my user page. You might notice that I posted a note above, asking for some help with the Biohub page's infobox. That edit request has since been closed, so if any helpful editors came from this WikiProject, know that I appreciate it.

I recently put forward a new edit request on the Biohub Talk page, which proposes an Organization section that combines some parts of the page's existing History section with information about the Biohub's structure, how it operates, and the types of research projects it pursues. That request is available for review here and if you would like to review the full text of the Organization draft, which I uploaded to my user page, you can do so using this link. Would anyone at this WikiProject be interested in reviewing my request and/or draft? Any help or feedback would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! Patricia at GMMB (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Alfred Russel Wallace
I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Alfred Russel Wallace
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Alfred Russel Wallace/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Male expendability
There is currently an active request for comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Male_expendability#Request_for_comment:_State_ideas_about_biology_in_Wikipedia's_voice? Male expendability]. Feel free to add your voices. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Vaquita extinct?
I just saw that the Vaquita article has been edited to say it is now extinct. I have not been able to find sourcing for this. Thriley (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Disanbiguation of links to Interaction
Could you help to disambiguate some of the links to Interaction? This list shows the 200+ articles with links to the disambiguation page. It would help readers to link to a more specific article. Some are chemistry related (particularly those redirected from Chemical interaction) and others biology, physics or other sciences. Any help with sorting these out would be appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 12:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Carbon source
This article looks like it could benefit from some attention by this project 76.14.122.5 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)