Talk:Spandrel (biology)

(random heading)

(inserted for readability ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 07:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Could we have more biological examples, and less less about architecture? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More biological examples would be a good thing, but the article is about some kind of abstract structurals, so less about architecture wouldn't be good. Some citations are needed. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 07:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Differentiate between present usage and original formulation

Spandrel is a term used in evolutionary biology describing a phenotypic characteristic that is considered to have developed during evolution as a side-effect of an adaptation.

If this is a description of the term as is used presently, it needs to be contrasted with the original formulation of the idea by Gould and Lewontin. They would not have accepted 'side-effect of an adaptation' as a necessary condition of being a spandrel (although they don't actually use any such term, aside from referring to the particular architectural structure by that name). In fact, they propose a variety of processes by which non-adaptive traits might arise. On that note, the article really needs to be expanded with reference to these propositions. --Pugettia (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Get back to the biological term exaptation

"Spandrel" is a poetic but confusing term. Exaptation is much more precise (and the term actually coined by Gould and Lewontin). Exaptation has the further benefit of the semantic link with adaptation, and of course cannot be confused with an architectural feature. Exaptation was the word we used at Berkeley when talking about Gould's paper among the grad students, as well, and I think most folks in the field would prefer it. If it didn't disrupt a ton of links from other articles, I'd be tempted to replace almost every instance of "spandrel" with "exaptation."

Xanthoptica (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am leaning toward agreeing with you, so long as it remains easy for a person searching for 'spandrel' to find the page. Many authors have run with the term 'spandrel' in talking about non-adaptive traits (e.g. Pigliucci and Kaplan's (2007) Making Sense of Evolution). --Pugettia (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that "Spandrel" and "Exaptation" are two related but different concepts, where exaptation is an item reused for a new purpose and spandrel something that is inherent in the "bauplan" and probably the physical reality, but "takes function" only when the organism develops so far. So while a spandrel is "preeminent" in the "bauplan", the exaptation fulfills the spandrel, and therefore the words "spandrel" and "exaptation" tend to cooccurr, which makes many a man believe they mean the same thing. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 07:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From reading this article, I have no idea what a spandrel is, and I suspect the author doesn't know either

Give actual examples. As it stands this article is a waste.69.122.158.213 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)captcrisis

Agreed. This article offers no examples of spandrels in biology nor any explanation of the mechanisms by which spandrels occur in the first place. Instead, it goes into great lengths about the origin and use of the term "spandrel" in biology and its associated controversy. Perhaps this article should be retermed "History of the Use of 'Spandrel' in Biology". :P

–– amanisdude (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, my thanks to the author(s) for the current version of the article, at the time I would agree that it is a difficult read and that a few examples for us non-specialists would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.165.235 (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with captcrisis

this is an extraordinarily difficult read. Quite possibly the most linguistically dense page I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I had been hoping for a "simple English" link, but no dice. 68.225.24.2 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that - this article is a "difficult read" because it deals with a poorly thought out concept and that too few contributors have called the emperor on his (now not so) new clothes. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I should be more explicit. Architectural structures, clearly, have commissioners and designers – natural evolutionary/biological structures are another matter. Prunesqualor billets_doux 02:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Language as a spandrel

Language as a spandrel not belong on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.147.90.2 (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What Actually Is Spandrel Biology?

This article goes into detail about the naming of Spandrel, who named it, and the criticism of the thinking. This article must go into more detail on what Spandrel Biology actually is rather than going into its criticisms. This article is more about the criticisms rather than the actual topic. I would go into more detail on the Spandrel and instead of what it is being compared to what actually Spandrel Biology is. Also the language used in this article makes it very difficult to read and comprehend even as a college student. The language should be more general and use terms everyone can understand. This article could also use some examples of Spandrel Biology in the real world making it easier to comprehend and understand.

(Bruno.107 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC))

Corner Brace!

In architecture a spandrel is an ornamented corner brace. In other words, spandrels are structural elements of a building and came about not because "artists realized they could make designs and paint in these small areas adding to the overall design of the building", but because they helped the building withstand lateral stresses. 67.206.184.251 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Citations and NPOV on that "influential" paper

(copied from my talk page as it belongs here) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I trust that you [Chiswick Chap] realise that having a citation and being written in a neutral manner are two entirely separate things. Your edit summary which included the text "it certainly does not fall foul of WP:NPOV given the citation" implied that you do not. In case you cannot see the problem with your edit, try mentally replacing the word "influential" with "intelligent", "mediocre", or "unconvincing". In each case, you would be presenting an opinion as if it was fact, in a way which very obviously violates NPOV. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We can certainly present what a source says in Wikipedia's voice, when that source is very reliable, and when there are no contradictory sources of equal weight. Particularly when the term in question is "influential", which is notequivalent to "intelligent" or "mediocre". The latter two are value judgements; the former says that something had an influence on subsequent work, and as such is a verifiable hypothesis. Take a look at WP:YESPOV. Ideally we should have multiple sources here, but the statement itself is not really a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Vanamonde, I couldn't have said it better or more eloquently. There is no doubt whatever that the founding paper was highly influential, and I would like to be able to say so in the lead, since we rightly say so in the body, and the function of the lead is to summarize the body's argument. Whether it was wise or right for Gould and Lewontin to argue a structuralist (non-Darwinian) case is of course quite another matter, and entirely independent of how influential the paper was. We can however easily find WP:RS to show how influential it was. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

To Vanamonde: actually, we can really never present what a source says in Wikipedia's voice. We write in our own neutral words, and we provide reliable sources where readers can verify what has been written. "Influential" is obviously a subjective judgement: there is no way for an educated but non-specialist reader to verify such a claim and it is hopelessly vague anyway. If you tell me that a certain particle physics paper, say, was influential, how exactly would I verify that it was indeed influential? I could only verify that someone has made the claim. "Highly-cited" would be objective and verifiable. In any case, it is not clear why the influence or otherwise of Gould's paper should be mentioned in the lead of the article about spandrels. Is it one of the most significant aspects of the topic? 109.180.164.3 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If I may reply here: Yes, the paper founded the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

To ChiswickChap: so, you believe that if you add a citation to something, it becomes factual and neutral? 109.180.164.3 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If reliably cited it is a fact in Wikipedia's terms. If independent of the authors and of me, it's as neutral as it can be; but we can and will add more citations from other RS to show the degree of influence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Among sources stating that the paper was "influential" and "widely cited" are Buss 1998, Nielsen 2009, Barnes 2014 (The Embryo Project), Müller 2013, ... The paper has been cited over 4,000 times in peer-reviewed scientific papers. Google Scholar records "about 7,340 results". I'd have thought the evidence is more than sufficient for us to say "influential". Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Influential is subjective; highly-cited is objective. The evidence may be sufficient for you to describe the paper as highly-cited (depends how many citations other papers in the field typically get). It is certainly sufficient for you to note that the paper has been described as influential, as has been done in the first paragraph of the main article. It is not sufficient for you to describe the paper as influential in the voice of the encyclopaedia, and it never will be. What is it you hope to gain by doing so anyway? Why do you want to promote this paper? Yes, it described the concept, but the article is about the concept itself, not about the scholarly description of it.

And you are very much mistaken about sourcing and neutrality. Sourced information is verifiable, but that has absolutely no connection with whether it is neutral. That's a really serious misconception you have, and it is discussed in WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and other places. I suggest you read more carefully WP:NPOV and WP:V in particular. Some key sentences from the policies include:

• Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV).
• Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral
• The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality.
• ...neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.164.3 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Calm! You are creating a straw man, which I am not, and you are painting a picture by repeating NPOV numerous times, which is unhelpfully rhetorical. You have launched a wholly wrong personal attack, which is unacceptable.

Let us start at the beginning. Verifiability and neutrality are two entirely separate matters.

"Influential" here is proven by two things:

1) many reliable sources EXPLICITLY STATING that the paper is influential (actually using that word, as the source originally used already did: "Günter P. Wagner called the paper 'the most influential structuralist manifesto'." Gould and Lewontin indeed founded the concept of "spandrel" in biology with that paper, and it has become almost a subfield of study in its own right.

2) the large number of reliable sources which cite the original Gould and Lewontin paper. This is verifiable beyond any reasonable kind of doubt - the "multiple reliable sources" criterion is often taken to mean around three or four citations: we have thousands.

Neutrality here is achieved by noting that scientific opinion across many sources is unanimous in calling the paper influential, or by their action in citing it as the founder paper in the field, i.e. tacitly acknowledging its influence. If there were dissenting opinions in reliable sources to the effect that the paper had barely been noticed, we could mention those for balance - but I've never seen or heard of any. The quiet, fair, neutral point of view here is that whether Gould and Lewontin are right or wrong, they were extremely influential, as the sources (not me, not other editors) clearly, unambiguously, and explicitly state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@the IP address: I asked you once already to read WP:YESPOV. Please do so now. Your understanding of NPOV is quite incorrect. "Influential" is not a term that involves moral judgement. The influence here is recognized by many sources, and is not disputed by any. It would therefore be an NPOV violation not to say this in Wikipedia's voice. There are numerous examples of this elsewhere. If we qualified every adjective we used, the encyclopedia would be a mess. Vanamonde (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the notice at WT:BIOLOGY. I agree with Chiswick Chap and Vanamonde93. That the Gould paper is influential is uncontroversial, well-known and well-attested. There is no more need for our article to state "Sources A, B, and C describe the Gould paper as 'influential' " than for an article to state "Sources D, E, and F describe The Last Supper as 'famous' ".

In their second post above, the IP writes "we can really never present what a source says in Wikipedia's voice.". But WP:NPOV, which the IP keeps citing, explicitly says "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." That the Gould paper is influential is an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. The paper has been highly influential, which also does not mean that it has been universally agreed with but that it has sparked several important lines of research and that the concepts it puts forward have been taken up by many other researchers. It is hard to imagine today an evolutionary theorist unfamiliar with the concept.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not a factual assertion. There is no fact of influence. It is a judgement, like "famous" or "knowledgeable" or "flawed" or "incorrect". It may be appropriate to say that someone has expressed this judgement - this is what is already done, sensibly and usefully, in the first sentence of the article. It is not appropriate to express that judgement in the voice of the encyclopaedia.

Chiswick Chap, retract your absurd claim of personal attacks. There were no such things. Your attempt to disrupt a discussion in this way is an act of very bad faith.

Au contraire, in this discussion above you accused me with "Why do you want to promote this paper?". I have done no such thing, and it is a direct personal attack to accuse another editor of promotion. On the fact of the paper's influential nature, I have provided multiple reliable sources and the clear consensus of editors is that these are sufficient proof. On its being a judgement, you are right insofar as it is the universal judgement of thousands of involved scientists as documented in many peer-reviewed papers. On there being "no fact of influence", you are demonstrably wrong from the cited sources, and clearly against consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your absurd claim of a personal attack where none exists is itself a personal attack, and a demonstration of the very bad faith you're acting in. Your refusal to explain why you even want to use the word we're discussing is another demonstration of that. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, it seems that it is you who has not read what you are instructing me to read. I've been quoting from it: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact. Which can be seen from the fact that noone but you seemingly disagrees. Which means that disagreeing with it would be an opinion, a marginal one one that has no basis in reality or in sources and hence merits no weight in this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What you've written doesn't make sense. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

109.180.164.3, you've made it abundantly clear that you believe that calling the paper "influential" is an opinion. Everyone else disagrees with you. Can you please drop the stick and move onto something more constructive? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

And no doubt you could all convince yourselves that the sky is purple, and if I were the only one to disagree you could feel very superior. So given a paper in a field in which you don't specialise, how do you know if it is influential or not? If "influential" is factual, there must be objective criteria for establishing it. I would be very interested to know what they are, so that I can determine whether my own scientific papers are influential. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If several independent reliably published sources written by experts refer to your papers as "influential" then they are influential.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear... no; if several independent reliably published sources written by experts refer to my papers as "influential" then they are described as influential by experts. The appearance of an opinion in a reliable source does not confer the status of unimpeachable truth on it. It seems to me that believing that it does is your mistake. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Something being stated in wikipedia's voice supported by citations does not make it an "unimpeachable truth" it makes it a generally held view. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest to all that there's no point engaging with this IP further (WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT, WP:SHUN). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd certainly be delighted by that. And we shall need no further interactions, as long as you don't try to inappropriately promote a scientific paper in the voice of the encyclopaedia. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus here that it is entirely appropriate to use wikipedia's voice to describe Gould's paper as influential.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor consensus determines whether the principle is met by a given article. Here there is a clear consensus that it is. Please stop wasting your own and our time edit warring over this and potentially getting your IP blocked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV cannot be superseded by editor consensus. You need to stop promoting this paper, which is not the topic of the article. And the user who made it must retract and apologise for their disgraceful accusation of vandalism. There is no possibility of collaboration if such an attack is made.144.82.8.23 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor consensus determines whether NPOV is maintained. You are editwarring. If you continue you will simply be blocked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is promoting the paper, nor the work within it, nor its authors. We note simply that multiple reliable secondary sources in the peer-reviewed literature and more widely state that it is "influential", and furhter that some 4,000 reliable sources have cited it. That entitles us, with the achieved consensus, to state simply and clearly the truth external to Wikipedia, which is that the paper is influential, and to cite that fact. Going contrary to this after prolonged discussion is disruptive editing. Using multiple IP addresses to make it look as if there are multiple editors with your opinion is sockpuppetry. Please drop this stick now before you are permanently blocked -- you are a knowledgeable person and you would be very welcome to come and edit constructively here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The article notes correctly that it is described as influential, in the first paragraph of the main text. The text in the lead is incorrect. You failed to withdraw and apologise for your disgusting accusation of vandalism, once again demonstrating that you are acting in bad faith here. 144.82.8.23 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please maintain civility here. You are however simply wrong about this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing refusal to withdraw disgusting personal attack duly noted. I suppose you think it's funny to be uncivil like that. 144.82.8.23 (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not think any part of this matter is amusing. I am happy to accept that your intentions are simply to prove a point, and am sorry that you are upset. However, you have broken the WP:3RR rule with your four reversions today, you are being uncivil with your use of adjectives, and your continued repetition of the same argument, against a clear consensus and indeed widespread scientific opinion, is now proving disruptive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No good and conscientious editor would ever have made the disgusting false accusation you were happy to throw out this morning. You evidently do find it thoroughly amusing to behave like that as you have refused repeatedly to apologise for your actions. At least you have finally acknowledged that it's an opinion that you want to force into the article with your bad faith editing. 144.82.8.23 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Your tone and language are unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, the opinion is not that of Wikipedia editors, but of the authors cited in the article, and of the thousands of other biologists and philosophers of biology who have written peer-reviewed papers citing the original paper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you had any genuine concern about tone and​ language, you would not have made the disgusting false claim that you have so conspicuously refused to apologise for. You are editing in bad faith; that is abundantly clear. 144.82.8.23 (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I just realised this IP is a well-known troublemaker with a distinctive pattern of editing. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. There's no point wasting time on futile attempts to reason with them. The 144.82.8.23 address is now blocked, but when they reappear, we can just revert and report to WP:ANI per the instructions atop the long term abuse report. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, I did not realize that. I was quite certain that they had previous Wikipedia experience, but I did not expect this. I've blocked the IP for edit-warring in any case. I will not place a lengthy block immediately, because I'm not certain the IP is stable; but blocks will escalate quickly if any editing resumes. Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Examples

Suggest adding "Male nipples". S C Cheese (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)