User talk:Nikita-Kluge

Nikita-Kluge, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Nikita-Kluge! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Cladoendesis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cladoendesis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cladoendesis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Neoptera and Notoptera

I note that you appear to be citing yourself with respect to the Neoptera cladogram, in which case welcome to Wikipedia. May I at once caution that, like all scientists, you must be extremely careful to be studiously neutral in any matter, such as Neoptera, on which you have an outside interest (Wikipedia pedantically calls this a "conflict of interest" and inevitably has a whole policy, WP:COI, all about it). In this case, if you have a position on the group's phylogeny and other scientists have a different position, you are required to be studiously neutral on the matter, and must either explain both sides with equal emphasis, or must limit yourself to commenting and placing edit requests on the article's talk page.

There appears to be an issue with the status of the Notoptera as represented in the phylogenetic tree. I understand that the name Notoptera has been reused to mean {Grylloblattidae + Mantophasmatidae} by some scientists. It looks as if you disagree with that assignation, so I think it will be necessary for the for and against positions to be clarified in the article(s). With best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Every scienbtist can have his own opinion, and Wikipedia must reflex all scientific opinions. However, the name Notoptera was given by Crampton (1915) to the order which includes grulloblattids only and is characterized by a peculiar structute of the notum, which is fused with the vestiges of wings (= ptera). Mantophasmatidae have nothing like this. If somebody believes that Mantophasmatidae are related with Grylloblattidae, he is free to accept the taxon which unites them; this taxon bears the scientific name Xenonomia Terry & Whiting 2005. But nobody may rename this taxon with the wrong name "Notoptera", which belongs to another taxon. So the naming Grylloblattidae + Mantophasmatidae "Notoptera" is nothing more than an error, and this error should be corrected in Wikipedia. User: Nikita-Kluge

Thank you for the detailed reply. However, the Xenonomia aspect is only part of the story, which continues as follows:

Terry and Whiting in 2005 named the lineage of insects that includes the Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea, the "Xenonomia".

In 2006, Arillo and Engel described a new (fourth) species of rock crawler, noting that the name Notoptera had been resurrected and redefined following Engel and Grimaldi's 2004 recommendation to give a single order, "Notoptera Crampton (sensu novum)", that includes both the living and fossil representatives of the lineage.

Now, Engel, Grimaldi, and Arillo may of course be mistaken about the phylogeny, but I assume they are telling the truth about their giving of the name "Notoptera" to the clade, so I've added this material to the Notoptera article. Time did not stop in 2006, so perhaps the story needs to be extended with other materials, indeed perhaps yours, but as far as this goes, the tree ought to be labelled with the rock crawlers and mantophasmatids/gladiators. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You must understand, that time really did not stop in 2006 and does not stop at all for scientific ideas, and later ideas are more important than earlier ones. But situation with names is opposite: according to the international rules of nomenclature, all scientific names are used according to the principle of prioprity, accordig to which older names and older definitions of names meaning have priority upon later ones. It is also important to understand, that priority belongs not to the author, but to the publication: even the author who have was first to publised the name is not responsible to change this name in his subsequent publication. If you will find a grammatic error in my text (that is probable, because I am not familiar with English langiage), you have to correct it without asking my opinion. In the same way, if we find an incorrect scientific name, we must simply correct it. Nikita Kluge

Nikita, far from thinking that time stopped in 2006, I think that time is rolling rapidly on, and that morphologically-based phylogeny must (at the very least) be tempered by genomics; of course there are plenty of biologists who think that morphology is inherently unreliable as a guide to phylogeny. For the moment, we may need to rely on the morphology, - though we should, please, use the {{cite journal | last= | first= | title= | journal= | volume=| issue= | year= | issn= | doi= | pages= – }} template rather than just placing undocumented URLs (like http://www.insecta.bio.spbu.ru/z/sys-ins.htm) in the article.

On your decision to replace widely-used names with old or unfamiliar ones like Panictyoptera, I really can't agree. Wikipedia defines a large and growing number of insect clades as articles, so they appear as blue (functioning) links; you have added a mass of non-functioning redlinks. I'll consider reverting these en masse as inappropriate for an encyclopedia; it certainly looks as if you are trying to impose a particular point of view on the phylogeny, which is explicitly forbidden here. Indeed, I think we will have to move this discussion to a more public forum to hear other editors' opinions on the matter; the problem is now certainly not merely grammatical. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

How do you understand the aim of Wikipedia: to reflect the reality, or to give own decisions, what is correct and what is incorrect? In the second case you must delete all Wikipedia articles about religies, ideologies and politcs.

Is saw the page with "the cladogram according to Kluge" with beetles beloging to Neuropterida and other things, which nobody never regarded to be correct, so I desided to do something with it. Now I followed the link to so-called "Hemiptera" and found there an absurdic tree ascribed to "Hu Li and colleagues in 2015", where lice are sister with thrips, and both together are sister with aphids. However, Hu Li et al. (2015) wrote that "Thysanoptera is more closely related to Hemiptera than to Psocodea", and nobody never regarded to be correct the tree given on that Wikipedia page. I did not try other likns, to save my nervous system.

You have an ill idea that the international schientific named should be brought in accordace with the technical links of your branch of Wikipedia, but not vice verse. The problem of disagreement between links and content really exists, but it can be rationally dissolved. Since the pages of Wikipedia have been once linked with these or that words, and changing these words create difficulties, it is possible to retain these words on their places, but bring in order the contents of the pages. Biological classification is based on phylogeny, which in its turn is not finaly known, but represents many controversal hypotheses (only very silly people believe that the Creator, specially for us, coded the phylogeny in certain genes). In accordance with this, in Wikipedia every article about a biological taxon shoud contain different opinions about its systematic position, which should be linked with different other articles. The links can be done with help of any words (correct or incorrect), but texts of the articles shoud contain correct information about recent scientific ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.2.120 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikita, I have been patient and polite with you, given that you have been citing yourself and creating quite a bit of work in the process. Please do not say anything at all about me or any other editor personally, to comply with the policy "No Personal Attacks". As it happens, I do NOT REMOTELY think that scientific nomenclature should be modified for Wikipedia's benefit; we just don't put a mass of obsolete names into phylogenetic trees, that's all, even if they bring joy to taxonomists worldwide. It is absolutely fine for the "Taxonomy" section of an article to discuss alternative viewpoints, and thousands of articles do exactly this. The current article is becoming seriously unbalanced with papers by Kluge and it would be great if other opinions on the phylogeny were to be discussed there. But I've had enough of trying to explain things to you, so I'm seeking consensus with other editors, and won't be visiting this page any more. Goodbye. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So, please, if you find another opinion which you regard to be interesting, add it, but not by substituting parts of the existent one. If two or more trees or classifications based on different grounded opinions are mechanically fused together, the result becomes non-grounded at all.

"Nomenclatural Priority"

Hi. You made a statement in the discussion above that all names must follow priority, but speaking as a Commissioner of the ICZN, I must point out that is emphatically not true. Nomenclatural priority under the ICZN only applies to names at the rank of superfamily and below. Priority does not apply to any names above the rank of superfamily, or "unranked" (non-Linnean) names arbitrarily assigned to intermediate taxonomic positions (i.e., formed without designation of types). See Article 1.2.2 of the Code, and note that Article 23 is not among the listed exceptions. You cannot use the ICZN to justify the use of one name versus another under these circumstances - the names for higher-rank taxa and their definitions are subject to change, and must be arrived at via consensus, not one person's opinion, and not any arbitrary property such as "priority". I will also note that Wikipedia has very clear policies prohibiting editors from basing edits on their own unpublished research, including their own personal conclusions or interpretations of published work; you should become be familiar with the WP:NOR guidelines before continuing with your edits. Dyanega (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)