This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pan (genus) 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Pan (genus) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Randy Kryn and Ribbet32: this article is on my watchlist, and I've been seeing you two back-and-forthing over the sentence "In his book The Third Chimpanzee (1991), Jared Diamond proposes that P. troglodytes and P. paniscus belong with H. sapiens in the genus Homo, rather than in Pan. He argues that other species have been reclassified by genus for less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees.". As I'm sure you're both aware, the discussion on whether or not to include that should be here on the talk page, not via edit warring. Now my inclination is that Ribbet32 may be correct on this one, in that including a view on how to classify chimpanzees that was not made by a professional evolutionary scientist or zoologist, could be giving WP:UNDUE weight to that viewpoint. The article should reflect the balance of reliable sources in regard to this, and if there are literally no professionals who have said that chimpanzees belong in the Homo genus, then it's really a fringe view and should be removed. If, on the other hand, there are experts in the field who've said this, then those are the ones we should be citing rather than Diamond who, for all his obvious intellect, is not a specialist in this field. I would obviously be happy to hear dissenting views from Randy on this, however. — Amakuru ( talk) 23:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Randy Kryn, Ribbet32, SmokeyJoe, and Amakuru: I only skimmed the article before, this time I read it through carefully. I apologize. So yes, de Wall does mention the hypothesis. The quote you referenced is all he says. He says nothing to support the hypothesis. The claim that humans are not correctly classified and should be in the same genus as Chimpanzees is not a trivial hypothesis. It directly contradicts what you will find in every reputable modern text book on genetics or anthropology. If there was a strong argument for this to be the case it would be written up in a referred journal not a pop science book. What I said about a consensus was not based on my interpretation of the NY Times review it was based on the fact that there are 4 editors in favor of removing it, (although I'm not completely sure if SmokyJoe was arguing it might be possible to include it in a separate section as a fringe theory but his later argument on genetics seems to argue against that) and only one in favor of leaving it as it was. I think Amakaru said it best in the comment that started this thread, Diamond's hypothesis: "was not made by a professional evolutionary scientist or zoologist, ... The article should reflect the balance of reliable sources in regard to this, and if there are literally no professionals who have said that chimpanzees belong in the Homo genus, then it's really a fringe view and should be removed. If, on the other hand, there are experts in the field who've said this, then those are the ones we should be citing rather than Diamond" So unless there are some actual experts who have written in support of this hypothesis I think we have a consensus and that consensus is that the part about Diamond's hypothesis should be removed. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 20:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Given that the only reference in support of Diamond's hypothesis that has been given is Diamond's book and that Diamond is not an expert on the topic and his hypothesis was in a pop science book not a peer reviewed journal I think that makes his view a "tiny minority" view that is appropriate for the "See also" section but nowhere else in the article. I'm going to revert to the version that Ribbet32 had and then add the article about Diamond's book to the See Also section. Before anyone adds Diamond's hypothesis back to the article itself they need to provide additional references by experts in the field in peer reviewed journals or conferences or provide some rational argument why a hypothesis only supported by a non-expert is not a "tiny minority" view. Of course Diamond has more credibility than Flat Earth people but in terms of the definition of tiny minority in that article his view is a tiny minority. If anything even more so than Flat Earth views because those views have many non-experts who support it. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 15:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.
Hello @ UtherSRG: I have noticed that you have reverted my addition of a disambiguation link. I have thoroughly analyzed your edit summary of the revert and did not understand it. Is there a specific policy on when to add those links, whether they are acceptable here, and could you direct me to it? Thank you! 2003 LN 6 04:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the bold panina in the taxonomy box to an article link. 2601:586:5300:F6E0:A93F:C745:C46F:611B ( talk) 13:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
(For my edification)
I notice that the display title of this article, « Pan (genus) », is partly in italic; and this is of course the correct typography for an article title partly consisting of a biological genus; but I can't see how it was set. When editing either the full page or its lead section, I don't see the wikicode for the page title; and when displaying the page information, the first item is the display title, with its first word in italic, but AFAICT it is not editable. Let's imagine that on some other similar page, a biological name making part of the title had been left non-italic: how could I correct that? Would I have to "move" the page to a page of the same title but with the italics correctly set? Would I have to request an administrator's assistance because my permissions (as autoconfirmed extendedconfirmed user) are just not enough? Or didn't I look in the right place? — Tonymec ( talk) 10:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pan (genus) 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Pan (genus) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Randy Kryn and Ribbet32: this article is on my watchlist, and I've been seeing you two back-and-forthing over the sentence "In his book The Third Chimpanzee (1991), Jared Diamond proposes that P. troglodytes and P. paniscus belong with H. sapiens in the genus Homo, rather than in Pan. He argues that other species have been reclassified by genus for less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees.". As I'm sure you're both aware, the discussion on whether or not to include that should be here on the talk page, not via edit warring. Now my inclination is that Ribbet32 may be correct on this one, in that including a view on how to classify chimpanzees that was not made by a professional evolutionary scientist or zoologist, could be giving WP:UNDUE weight to that viewpoint. The article should reflect the balance of reliable sources in regard to this, and if there are literally no professionals who have said that chimpanzees belong in the Homo genus, then it's really a fringe view and should be removed. If, on the other hand, there are experts in the field who've said this, then those are the ones we should be citing rather than Diamond who, for all his obvious intellect, is not a specialist in this field. I would obviously be happy to hear dissenting views from Randy on this, however. — Amakuru ( talk) 23:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Randy Kryn, Ribbet32, SmokeyJoe, and Amakuru: I only skimmed the article before, this time I read it through carefully. I apologize. So yes, de Wall does mention the hypothesis. The quote you referenced is all he says. He says nothing to support the hypothesis. The claim that humans are not correctly classified and should be in the same genus as Chimpanzees is not a trivial hypothesis. It directly contradicts what you will find in every reputable modern text book on genetics or anthropology. If there was a strong argument for this to be the case it would be written up in a referred journal not a pop science book. What I said about a consensus was not based on my interpretation of the NY Times review it was based on the fact that there are 4 editors in favor of removing it, (although I'm not completely sure if SmokyJoe was arguing it might be possible to include it in a separate section as a fringe theory but his later argument on genetics seems to argue against that) and only one in favor of leaving it as it was. I think Amakaru said it best in the comment that started this thread, Diamond's hypothesis: "was not made by a professional evolutionary scientist or zoologist, ... The article should reflect the balance of reliable sources in regard to this, and if there are literally no professionals who have said that chimpanzees belong in the Homo genus, then it's really a fringe view and should be removed. If, on the other hand, there are experts in the field who've said this, then those are the ones we should be citing rather than Diamond" So unless there are some actual experts who have written in support of this hypothesis I think we have a consensus and that consensus is that the part about Diamond's hypothesis should be removed. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 20:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Given that the only reference in support of Diamond's hypothesis that has been given is Diamond's book and that Diamond is not an expert on the topic and his hypothesis was in a pop science book not a peer reviewed journal I think that makes his view a "tiny minority" view that is appropriate for the "See also" section but nowhere else in the article. I'm going to revert to the version that Ribbet32 had and then add the article about Diamond's book to the See Also section. Before anyone adds Diamond's hypothesis back to the article itself they need to provide additional references by experts in the field in peer reviewed journals or conferences or provide some rational argument why a hypothesis only supported by a non-expert is not a "tiny minority" view. Of course Diamond has more credibility than Flat Earth people but in terms of the definition of tiny minority in that article his view is a tiny minority. If anything even more so than Flat Earth views because those views have many non-experts who support it. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 15:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.
Hello @ UtherSRG: I have noticed that you have reverted my addition of a disambiguation link. I have thoroughly analyzed your edit summary of the revert and did not understand it. Is there a specific policy on when to add those links, whether they are acceptable here, and could you direct me to it? Thank you! 2003 LN 6 04:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the bold panina in the taxonomy box to an article link. 2601:586:5300:F6E0:A93F:C745:C46F:611B ( talk) 13:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
(For my edification)
I notice that the display title of this article, « Pan (genus) », is partly in italic; and this is of course the correct typography for an article title partly consisting of a biological genus; but I can't see how it was set. When editing either the full page or its lead section, I don't see the wikicode for the page title; and when displaying the page information, the first item is the display title, with its first word in italic, but AFAICT it is not editable. Let's imagine that on some other similar page, a biological name making part of the title had been left non-italic: how could I correct that? Would I have to "move" the page to a page of the same title but with the italics correctly set? Would I have to request an administrator's assistance because my permissions (as autoconfirmed extendedconfirmed user) are just not enough? Or didn't I look in the right place? — Tonymec ( talk) 10:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)