This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of botany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
History of botany has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is still under development. Please do not tag until it is flagged as "complete" on this page. Granitethighs 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I am delighted to find this article, but still would like to suggest some changes.
-- Ettrig ( talk) 06:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Hello, I will review this article. It might take some time due to the length of the article but it will get done. I will make comments of what needs improving below.
Done*Several different dab links, they need to be fixed. You can find them on [1]
Toolbox |
---|
Done The article currently says: Eighteenth century plant taxonomy bequeathed to the nineteenth century clear ideas of the family, genus and species. this is in contrast with my view and for example Family (biology) that says: What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist. Similarly for the question if a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. Not only does that article provide this excuse. It does not even try to define how closely related to species (genuses (genii)) need to be to be considered as belonging to the same family. In a way, the concept is very clear: bigger then the genuses it consists of (most of the time), smaller than the order (superfamily) it belongs to. As clear as this is, it is rather vacuous, not really something to highlight as an achievement. Maybe there is more to the rank concepts than I am aware of. In this case it should be described or at least referenced. -- Ettrig ( talk) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Done
Although meticulous, the classification of Linnaeus served merely as an identification manual; it was based on phenetics and did not regard evolutionary relationships among species. [1]
-- Ettrig ( talk) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: found and fixed one dab. [2] Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably behooves us to be careful about off-line sources. This area has been subject to boosterism by Jagged85 and others, and claims have been copied around Wikipedia. I fixed one problem with this article, but there may be more. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of botany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Cleaned up, and curated into sections rather than a long list. References cleaned up to link with bibliography using short footnotes, and all "see" references removed as redundant.-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason that a detail is used of School of Athens instead of the whole painting? Seems kind of pointless, especially when the image is already so large. (Read through some of the article though - its very well done) Aza24 ( talk) 05:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
History btado 27.97.153.184 ( talk) 16:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
cation is found in the Rigveda, a collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns from about 3700–3100 BP. Plants are divided into vṛska (trees), osadhi (herbs useful to humans) and virudha (creepers), with further subdivisions. The sacred Hindu text Atharvaveda divides plants into eight classes: visakha (spreading branches), manjari (leaves with long clusters clarification needed), sthambini (bushy plants), prastanavati (which expands); ekasṛnga (those with monopodial growth), pratanavati (creeping plants), amsumati (with many stalks), and kandini (plants with knotty joints). The Taittiriya Samhita classifies the plant kingdom into vṛksa, vana and druma (trees), visakha (shrubs with spreading branches), sasa (herbs), amsumali (spreading plant), vratati (climber), stambini (bushy plant), pratanavati (creeper), and alasala (spreading on the ground). Other examples of early Indian taxonomy include Manusmriti, the Law book of Hindus, which classifies plants into eight major categories. Elaborate taxonomies also occur in the Charaka Samhitā, Sushruta Samhita and Vaisesika The reference doesn't even mentions about it Reference is given below. https://archive.org/details/historyofbotanic0000mort/mode/1up Harikrishnayappa34 ( talk) 23:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Most of the text contained under the section Ancient India lacks verifiability. The texts that failed verification when checked with the already provided source is marked with failed verification span as shown below
An early example of ancient Indian plant classification is found in the Rigveda, a collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns from about 3700–3100 BP. Plants are divided into vṛska (trees), osadhi (herbs useful to humans) and virudha (creepers), with further subdivisions. The sacred Hindu text Atharvaveda divides plants into eight classes: visakha (spreading branches), manjari (leaves with long clusters clarification needed), sthambini (bushy plants), prastanavati (which expands); ekasṛnga (those with monopodial growth), pratanavati (creeping plants), amsumati (with many stalks), and kandini (plants with knotty joints). The Taittiriya Samhita classifies the plant kingdom into vṛksa, vana and druma (trees), visakha (shrubs with spreading branches), sasa (herbs), amsumali (spreading plant), vratati (climber), stambini (bushy plant), pratanavati (creeper), and alasala (spreading on the ground). Other examples of early Indian taxonomy include Manusmriti, the Law book of Hindus, which classifies plants into eight major categories. failed verification Elaborate taxonomies also occur in the Charaka Samhitā, Sushruta Samhita and Vaisesika failed verification. [1]
As it is evident, only the first and last line seems to be verifiable with the page 12 of the cited article. Checked the rest of the book also, the result is same.
Going through this article's edit history, several users seems to have figured this issue and improved the article with verifiable information contained with the already cited source material, also by removing these lines, but it ends in reverting back citing block evasion (I haven't gone through the details of each reversions). For whatever reason, it was a huge mistake not to cross check these lines if it matches the cited source before doing the reversion, and because of that mistake, these unverified lines have remained in this wikipedia article for so long that it may have influenced many common readers of Wikipedia. Verifiability is the core principle of Wikipedia, instances like this undermines this platforms credibility. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 22:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of botany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
History of botany has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is still under development. Please do not tag until it is flagged as "complete" on this page. Granitethighs 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I am delighted to find this article, but still would like to suggest some changes.
-- Ettrig ( talk) 06:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Hello, I will review this article. It might take some time due to the length of the article but it will get done. I will make comments of what needs improving below.
Done*Several different dab links, they need to be fixed. You can find them on [1]
Toolbox |
---|
Done The article currently says: Eighteenth century plant taxonomy bequeathed to the nineteenth century clear ideas of the family, genus and species. this is in contrast with my view and for example Family (biology) that says: What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist. Similarly for the question if a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. Not only does that article provide this excuse. It does not even try to define how closely related to species (genuses (genii)) need to be to be considered as belonging to the same family. In a way, the concept is very clear: bigger then the genuses it consists of (most of the time), smaller than the order (superfamily) it belongs to. As clear as this is, it is rather vacuous, not really something to highlight as an achievement. Maybe there is more to the rank concepts than I am aware of. In this case it should be described or at least referenced. -- Ettrig ( talk) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Done
Although meticulous, the classification of Linnaeus served merely as an identification manual; it was based on phenetics and did not regard evolutionary relationships among species. [1]
-- Ettrig ( talk) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: found and fixed one dab. [2] Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably behooves us to be careful about off-line sources. This area has been subject to boosterism by Jagged85 and others, and claims have been copied around Wikipedia. I fixed one problem with this article, but there may be more. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of botany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Cleaned up, and curated into sections rather than a long list. References cleaned up to link with bibliography using short footnotes, and all "see" references removed as redundant.-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason that a detail is used of School of Athens instead of the whole painting? Seems kind of pointless, especially when the image is already so large. (Read through some of the article though - its very well done) Aza24 ( talk) 05:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
History btado 27.97.153.184 ( talk) 16:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
cation is found in the Rigveda, a collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns from about 3700–3100 BP. Plants are divided into vṛska (trees), osadhi (herbs useful to humans) and virudha (creepers), with further subdivisions. The sacred Hindu text Atharvaveda divides plants into eight classes: visakha (spreading branches), manjari (leaves with long clusters clarification needed), sthambini (bushy plants), prastanavati (which expands); ekasṛnga (those with monopodial growth), pratanavati (creeping plants), amsumati (with many stalks), and kandini (plants with knotty joints). The Taittiriya Samhita classifies the plant kingdom into vṛksa, vana and druma (trees), visakha (shrubs with spreading branches), sasa (herbs), amsumali (spreading plant), vratati (climber), stambini (bushy plant), pratanavati (creeper), and alasala (spreading on the ground). Other examples of early Indian taxonomy include Manusmriti, the Law book of Hindus, which classifies plants into eight major categories. Elaborate taxonomies also occur in the Charaka Samhitā, Sushruta Samhita and Vaisesika The reference doesn't even mentions about it Reference is given below. https://archive.org/details/historyofbotanic0000mort/mode/1up Harikrishnayappa34 ( talk) 23:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Most of the text contained under the section Ancient India lacks verifiability. The texts that failed verification when checked with the already provided source is marked with failed verification span as shown below
An early example of ancient Indian plant classification is found in the Rigveda, a collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns from about 3700–3100 BP. Plants are divided into vṛska (trees), osadhi (herbs useful to humans) and virudha (creepers), with further subdivisions. The sacred Hindu text Atharvaveda divides plants into eight classes: visakha (spreading branches), manjari (leaves with long clusters clarification needed), sthambini (bushy plants), prastanavati (which expands); ekasṛnga (those with monopodial growth), pratanavati (creeping plants), amsumati (with many stalks), and kandini (plants with knotty joints). The Taittiriya Samhita classifies the plant kingdom into vṛksa, vana and druma (trees), visakha (shrubs with spreading branches), sasa (herbs), amsumali (spreading plant), vratati (climber), stambini (bushy plant), pratanavati (creeper), and alasala (spreading on the ground). Other examples of early Indian taxonomy include Manusmriti, the Law book of Hindus, which classifies plants into eight major categories. failed verification Elaborate taxonomies also occur in the Charaka Samhitā, Sushruta Samhita and Vaisesika failed verification. [1]
As it is evident, only the first and last line seems to be verifiable with the page 12 of the cited article. Checked the rest of the book also, the result is same.
Going through this article's edit history, several users seems to have figured this issue and improved the article with verifiable information contained with the already cited source material, also by removing these lines, but it ends in reverting back citing block evasion (I haven't gone through the details of each reversions). For whatever reason, it was a huge mistake not to cross check these lines if it matches the cited source before doing the reversion, and because of that mistake, these unverified lines have remained in this wikipedia article for so long that it may have influenced many common readers of Wikipedia. Verifiability is the core principle of Wikipedia, instances like this undermines this platforms credibility. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 22:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)