Talk:Anthropocene extinction event

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 July 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Merge

This belongs in Holocene extinction event. Don't have the willpower to fight about it at the moment. -Atmoz (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Atmoz. Although this should not be refered as "THE Anthropocene extinction event". This elevates it beyond all academic discussion. It should be "A predicted Anthropocene extinction event" if certain conditions come to pass, as is written in the first source. Many would also call this a predicted holocene exinction event. A separate article on this is not justified. Polargeo (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's established in the literature. It's the holocene extinction event which needs the work - it's describing 2 events: Quaternary extinction event and Anthropocene extinction event. Virtually the only reference to holocene extinction event in the literature uses wikipedia as a source! (the book 'Mass extinctions'). If anyone feels strongly they should merge tag it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew. I don't have a problem with information on potential mass extinction events to do with global warming. However, this article seems to exist to define this new term beyond its current use. The fact that you have started this article off with a fairly desperate attempt to define the term shows this. Can you not improve wikipedia by adding this information in the relevant places rather than trying to redefine terms by creating new articles according to your own individual understanding. Polargeo (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Vsmith (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Both articles are short and overlap. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

The Nomenclature section is a big synthesis. Zalasiewicz is about the possible end of the Quaternary due to the current level of extinctions, but doesn't actually call it any of the 'bolded words in the intro. Also, of the 3 statements attributed to Zalasiewicz, I fail to find evidence in the paper to back up their claims. Elewa actually references Wikipedia, so... yeah. The last one is a Nature News item that is about Ruddiman's early anthropocene.[1] None of the sources actually talk about the nomenclature of an anthropocene extinction event. -Atmoz (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better?Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? -Atmoz (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy synthesis

Now Anarchangel this has gone too far. You are trying to define 'Anthropocene extinction event' as being any extinction that may have anything to do with humans. Now we see the problem which I have stated all along in that we define the term here by synthesis rather than from sources. The definition of Anthropocene should be argued in the Anthropocene article, whether that definition be from extinctions or otherwise. Extinctions should be discussed in more detail under the correct geological time period which is Holocene. You have taken the definition of new scientific terms on wikipedia to another level. Polargeo (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must use WP:RS definitions of anthropocene.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The short of it: I made the mistake of getting my information from Wikipedia. The scientific consensus does appear to be, for the moment, that late Pleistocene extinctions are too difficult (so far) to pin down to being caused completely by humans or completely caused by post-glaciation warming. Oblivious to the stupid waste of time that the Nature/Nurture argument caused in the behavioural sciences, geologists are embroiled in yet another debate over which caused the extinctions, when the obvious answer is, 'both, and maybe something we haven't thought of yet'. However, this doesn't change the fact that humans had an effect the extinction rate if not the extinction in whole or in half. One of the other articles said so, it may be correct in context, and it is certainly correct in fact, but as you say, it isn't verifiable or scientific consensus. I think it is a dirty shame, because the Pleistocene activity makes the article much less about global warming, and I know for a fact that Polargeo thinks all the article supporters are making "an attempt to promote the neologistic phrase 'Anthropocene extinction event' for environmentalist propaganda reasons" because he said so in the AfD (linked above and below). I will take the earliest opportunity to rectify my mistakes, and this will happen much faster if the incredibly bad behaviour of other editors (I haven't even caught up to it all yet, but there's article deletion and content deletion without discussion, so far) will at least slow down. Anarchangel (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if you want to add information on the extinctiion risk from global warming whay don't you try Extinction_risk_from_global_warming for starters instead of duplicating here. Polargeo (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because global warming is not the only human behaviour that can cause extinction, it has not been proven to cause extinctions yet, and other human behaviours have.

However, I took a look at some other articles and I have changed my mind about the above. There are so many hypotheses about the Pleistocene, someone could come in off the street and make one up and it wouldn't have significantly less support than the others. I will of course be sticking to reliable sources, but the point is that all the information I added so far is valid, once sourced. Anarchangel (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

This article should become a redirect to Holocene extinction event and any information should be placed in the most appropriate one of either Anthropocene or Holocene extinction event. Holocene extinction event should also be renamed to just 'Holocene extinction/s'. Polargeo (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We just got out of an AfD, with no consensus to delete. That does not equal consensus to blank the page nor redirect. Your edits before the blanking and redirect, alone, are precipitous. I'll be reverting any further attempts to make the page a redirect without at least a discussion, and most likely bringing an RFC if the discussion gets swamped by dittoheads. Anarchangel (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you bring this redirect-vs-keep issue to RfC, they'll ask why you guys didn't just compromise on a merge. "Anthropocene extinction event" seems to be a real term that is less used than "Holocene extinction event", the former completely falls within the range of the latter, and the parent article isn't that big. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to go from here

The AfD for this article was inconclusive, and its content remains problematic. Until a way forward is decided, the contents should not be removed, per the AfD. I wonder if there is

Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to rewrite this as a tenable non-stub article, or failing that
Consensus here to incorporate the material in some form in another article, and redirect this title there

Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contents were added in the last 1 day by Anarchangel. They are not the contents that pervaded through the two weeks of AfD which have been removed anyway. We are left with contents that even the article creator does not agree with. Polargeo (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the contents are also a red herring to his questions. The more of someone's question you answer, the fewer times they have to ask it. It isn't going to just go away. I have addressed the problem with my edits above. Anarchangel (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that it looks as if you had your proposal (to delete), did not manage to convince the other editors, and now seem to be going ahead and effectively enacting your preferred solution anyway. But I have no horse in this race, and if no-one else objects there's no problem. Hopefully the other interested editors will pitch in and we will have a satisfactory outcome. Skomorokh 14:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Et voila. The article diminished greatly in a series of edits up to Skomorokh's 2nd edit. He wasn't querying editing, he was querying hacking the article into a stub. Anarchangel (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat all editors commenting in AfD disagreed with Anarchangel. He added stuff in the last 24 hours and didn't understand the term. We are left with information that is plain wrong. This has nothing to do whatsoever with deletion of the article please trust me. Polargeo (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about libel (the first sentence) about something people wrote is it is so easily proven wrong. The whole of the AfD is my evidence. The statement about not understanding the term is partially correct, see above. The information is correct, it just isn't verifiable as pertaining to the subject. More about that also above.

I don't really care what motivated your edits, (the 'diminished greatly' diff shown above), and it is none of my business; it was butchery, and I have restored even my excesses and mistakes rather than leave it in that state. Anarchangel (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm not arguing with you, just trying to ensure the article respects the outcome of the AfD. Skomorokh 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete material, in a succession of edits that ended 29 minutes after the AfD was closed. No consensus to redirect 33 minutes after the AfD by Atmoz Very bad behaviour indeed. Anarchangel (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After relisting of AfD there were 8 merge !votes and one new keep !vote and that was Anarchangel. There was nothing in the article to merge as nearly all that was here was added in the last day of the AfD by Anarchangle who clearly didn't understand what the article meant. Anarchangel had interpreted it in his own way as 'any human influenced extinction' and so had dumped a load of unreferenced or synthesised rubbish here. I recommend not editing articles unless you understand them. Polargeo (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article plan in brief

I guess this is as good a time as any to lay out my plans for the article. All the Pleiocene theories: warming, overkill, anthropogene fires, 2nd predator, with a caveat that none of them are an established theory yet. Treading a lot more carefully with the modern section; global warming and individual extinctions due to hunting and deforestation have to be carefully summarized according to weight. It's going to be a valuable article, bringing together the hypothesised human influences from the two ages as recent studies have delineated them. Anarchangel (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then create a new article entitled 'Human influences on extinction' or some such variation. A very nobel cause indeed. But not 'Anthropocene extinction event' which is an incorrect name for the article that you propose. Polargeo (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newcomer here, but it looks like it would have to be "human/hominin influences on extinction" if one goes back to the Pleistocene (I'm assuming this is what is meant, "st" is missing). That certainly would be before the "anthropocene", and there were several varieties of hominin in the Pleistocene so even "human" would be ambiguously incorrect. If you want to make such an article, I'll try to help; I think it is a noble cause, though "Nobel"-worthy, perhaps not. Awickert (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry my spelling is terrible. Polargeo (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exiled text

Comments copied from Anarchangel's talk page.

“

from (A)'s talk page, it is inappropriate in either location, but rather here than there.

Polargeo, you are no longer welcome to leave text on my user talk page. Any text left by you on my user talk page will be copied to here. Either you are seriously GAME-ing, or you have way too thin a skin for this. I am sorry if I offended you with my comment about you editing your comments, but it wasn't the worst thing you did and you had already done things to mar my impression of your good faith. I hope you get over it. Anarchangel (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what was the worst thing I did? yours P. (text added after transfer!!)

Disgusted

I believed you had a set of values. You attacked me in the AfD rather than just my argument and when I tried not to respond to this attack by quickly editing out my own addition (within 3 minutes) you go and signpost this. You do not seem to be the same level headed fair and rational editor I have encountered previously. Polargeo (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My set of values is my own concern. I adhere to, and will address comments on, only one set of values at WP, and that is WP rules (and that's quite enough to deal with). Editing comments in AfD is inappropriate, saying so does not contravene WP:EQ, and deleting has a very easy and effective replacement: <s> ~~text to be struck~~ </s> . Anarchangel (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a recomendation only. Read the WP guidelines you like to use so much. It is not a rule. It is designed to avoid a situation where people may have already seen and responded to the comment. However, I did a quick edit 3 mins after my first, essentially straight away. Just removing a small annoyance I had with your comment about me and a repetition of stuff I'd already said. Your ridicuouls highlight and accusation that I may have changed my comments all over the place completely contravenes WP guidelines of assuming good faith. I would never wipe out or change a comment of my own if there was any chance another editor had seen or responded to it. Your mudslinging is abhorent. This was an immediate scaling down of some unnecessary bulk in my reply to you. You may be attempting to apply etiquette but you fail the WP test in that you do not apply the intent and spirit of the rules (in this case a recommendation not a rule at all) that is wikilawyering. Polargeo (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should also be a wikipedia page entitled WP:AfD_hawks_who_come_into_an_AfD_debate_without_understanding_the_artilce. You completely failled to understand what 'Anthropocene extinction event' means so I will tell you. It is a hypothesised event which probably hasn't happened but may have already started! It is or will be due in some way to industrialization. It is not clear that the sources agree and there is one source that says there may be an 'Anthropocene mass extinction'. Now I do not have a problem with including science on this on wikipedia but as the limited sources do not agree and none are peer reviewed we are not in a position to have a separate article on it. So whatever your AfD arguments, please go back to them and leave the proper editing and improvement of wikipedia to those of us who know what we are doing. Polargeo (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone

The AfD debate count (including myself and discounting one of AJLs 2 keeps) was

Keeps 4
Deletes 4
Merge 10

After the relisting when the debate was more clear to all there were 8 merge !votes and only 1 new keep !vote and that was yours. I suggest our edits quite clearly follow consensus, as closely as we are ever going to get it for this as AJL will always back his POV articles. It is quite clear to me that you are editing in bad faith. Polargeo (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have now come to the conclusion that this is about climate change and/or global warming why don't you add this info to Extinction_risk_from_global_warming. This is a far more scientifically accurate title than the rather vague poorly defined Anthropocene extinction event. Polargeo (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

Already answered above. Anarchangel (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Closer's statement
The result was no consensus to delete. It's not clear whether there's consensus for a merge, but that's a conversation that can continue at the article talk page. Skomorokh 14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC) - added by Anarchangel (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Anarchangel we all know what the AfD closer's statement was, we can read, but thankyou for repeating it. I'm not impressed by your posting of my comments here but I won't delete them because I have no problem with them. I have found your arguments mildly annoying but that is all. Maybe you should take a short break. Polargeo (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the copied text above into a show/hide template because it's largely personal, but didn't remove it completely because it is somewhat related to improving this article. Article talk pages are solely for discussing improvements to associated articles, not other contributors. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Explodicle, that was wise, I wish I had thought of it. Anarchangel (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder

AfD no consensus means do not delete (for now). !votes turned out as 10 Merge, 4 Delete and 4 keep. After relisting, when more arguments had been put forward of the new votes 8 merge vs. 1 keep. I read this as the strongest support for any outcome that we are likely to get on this article so the two editors arguing strongly for keep are really in the minority. This can go up the chain if you like but let us not waste our time. Let us make the articles as good as they can be. Polargeo (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to a merge but Polargeo has been stirring on this for far too long to claim any kind of neutrality needed for making this decision.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but whether or not Polargeo is involved is irrelevant with regards to the !votes. There is/was a clear consensus for delete/merge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing through. Thought I would mention: 3 Deletes, not 4. There is a difference, however slight, between the result and implementation. P is not entirely capable of determining the former, and not the best choice for the latter. Anarchangel (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting myself as proposer to give 4 editors wishing delete. Also it was Atmoz who did the merge. I simply reverted AJL and your attempts to change this. I would never have thought myself in a neutral enough position to do the merge and I am surprised you felt you were in a neutral enough position to undo it. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're going to find any neutral editors. We should just let anyone who is interested perform the merge and deal with disagreements at Talk:Holocene extinction event. If it's not neutral at first, no big deal... we can fix that iteratively. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]