Talk:Biodiversity

Wiki Education assignment: ANTH473 INLG480 Living Languages

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2022 and 31 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gcandice1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gcandice1 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheDeven11, Talha.aftab99, QMoe, Zawraksa, Rosaa00, Realpandapang (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rosaa00 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Conservation biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sward2 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sward2 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Undue Weight, Overpopulation

Discussion section LoomCreek (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

what do you mean with this?

Ah, I see now you wrote in the edit summary: Undue Weight in Human Overpopulation. Section falsely portrays confidence in Malthusianism & overpopulation theories in relation to biodiversity. Such scientific consensus does not exist, and is highly disputed. Mentioning Paul R. Elrich as scientist is technically true but misleading. They're biologist who wrote the population bomb, but not an expert on populations effect on the environment. Please refer to talk section before removing disclaimer so this can be resolved

I suggest you just go ahead and remove some of that stuff? EMsmile (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just removed this as it deviates too much from the core topic of biodiversity (it could be on any other Wikipedia article that deals with planetary boundaries, human impact on the environment etc.) According to a 2020 study by the World Wildlife Fund, the global human population already exceeds planet's biocapacity – it would take the equivalent of 1.56 Earths of biocapacity to meet our current demands. The 2014 report further points that if everyone on the planet had the Footprint of the average resident of Qatar, we would need 4.8 Earths and if we lived the lifestyle of a typical resident of the US, we would need 3.9 Earths.

EMsmile (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

References

@EMsmile The larger issue that remains is the lack of critical views within the section. As said, the idea of population size being the main/key factor in biodiversity is contentious. With many critics arguing overexploitation is the cause not population growth. It gives an incomplete understanding. I'll do my best to give a run down of events as I had attempted edits before. LoomCreek (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I do plan further edits eventually. For the time being I've added the disclaimer as a stop gap to prevent potential misinformation. It's also been done for documentation purposes. I would like to avoid edit warring.

I attempted to make some small edits removing some misleading information. And sourcing a critic of overpopulation theory, which were reverted. (and then the critic cited, Anthropologist Jason Hickel, was re-added & misleadingly quoted)

Later on a greater edit was attempted but I'm going to assume good faith from that individual due to some incidental WP:OR on my part. LoomCreek (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not calling for a removal of the section or the papers that argue it as the cause. It's a common idea for many when approaching biodiversity loss (and general environmental damage) so it remains important to cover. However, there is significant opposition within the scientific community to the theory of overpopulation. And this should be appropriately represented.

This is even acknowledged by one the cited papers titled Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left in the section. Which faced a response with a perspective from the journal Biological Conservation by the scientific community titled Smaller human populations are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for biodiversity conservation. LoomCreek (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad you've started this discussion. We have had similar discussions on various climate change talk pages and at human overpopulation. I think we should briefly state the full picture (differing views, as per WP:DUE) but overall, shouldn't this be rather covered at biodiversity loss, not so much at biodiversity? I am just trying to avoid that we end up with similar sections that have to be maintained and updated at several places. By the way, the topic also came up at climate change mitigation and in the end we came up with this short and concise section: Climate change mitigation#Family size. EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile That's true. As it currently stands the overpopulation section has the potential to spread misinformation, which is my worry. So if it is to be included in Biodiversity I think a revision with the critiques is vitally necessary. If it's in biodiversity loss with the critiques that's fine. I just worry about the potential that the section might be recreated in the future causing the same issues, as its a controversial but known topic.

The climate section on family size seems like a fairly neutral balanced summary of the issue.

I appreciate all the help. Over the next couple days I'll attempt to do some of the clean up. Hopefully condense the sections & make it clearer biodiversity loss exists. Alongside adding some of the critiques to overpopulation, at which point its removal or not can be decided at a later date. LoomCreek (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason I reverted to the original version was that most of the new material did not pertain to biodiversity loss, misrepresented Hickel as an opponent of the idea that population is a factor on environmental issues (per the quote I added that was subsequently removed), and lots of OP with primary sources sprinkled in, and a graph that has nothing to do with biodiversity. As far as the article giving misinformation, the material all comes from reliable sources and experts on the subject, including the IPBES report which does indeed include population as a driver of biodiversity loss (this interestingly enough is omitted in the response to Cafaro et al, 2022), along with overconsumption (see here). In this, the position argued by the landmark IPBES report, perhaps the best representation of the emerging consensus on biodiversity loss, is not far from where Ehrlich and his colleagues stand on the issue now, linking biodiversity loss to both population and consumption, and the latter go even further and call out "the rich" directly as the main villains in this, as evidenced here and here. Moreover, several significant review articles on the extinction crisis have pointed to population and consumption as significant factors, such as here and here. The latter refers to the issue of population growth as "expanding human biomass." I guess they perhaps don't want to be smeared as "Neo-Malthusians" so avoid using terms like "overpopulation", but I digress.

Based on sourcing in the section, and the additional sources discussed above, I dispute that the section is presenting “misinformation”. Per WP:DUE, I do not oppose including critiques of what is said in the section, but what was included did not do that. And including Hickel as an opponent of the ideas expressed in that section smacked of OR to me, as someone who reads Hickel's works, I have yet to see him dispute the idea that population has no impact on biodiversity. In fact, while stressing that it's the history of colonialism, rampant inequality and the overconsumption of the wealthy under global capitalism that are the main issues, he does stress that population is still a relevant topic when discussing ecological and environmental damage.

As for moving the section entirely to the article biodiversity loss, I would oppose this, as this material is in the appropriate section here, "threats" to biodiversity. That being said, I would not oppose making this a summary of the topic while moving the bulk of it there.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the retraction of my second edit, I said as much in the thread above. Which has since been corrected, I assume good faith for that edit.

However, the quote of Jason Hickel is highly misrepresentative of his views. While he may agree that population has some effect on environmental issues, he wrote an entire book on how overexploitation far supersedes that. The issue is not that he thinks it has no impact its that it misleads the reader on Hickel, used to prop an argument (that it is a main factor) which Hickel doesn't believe.

There are absolutely significant issues with the section, some of which I have since corrected. Including but not limited to: several dead links in an effort to support claims, the use of a preprint which provides no scientific rigor (while providing the illusion its a sci. paper) and has since been rejected (and also the link that was used, obfuscated this, as it was from the wayback machine), and the propping of persons in the section by providing a false impression of expertise. LoomCreek (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That was a direct quote from Hickel on the subject. What is lacking is proof of your assertion that he is an opponent of the idea that population size and/or growth is a factor in environmental issues and therefore is just some Malthusian myth without merit. If you can cite him making such a statement I'd like to see it.

Which sources are you referring to exactly? The sources I included in this section all come from reliable sources including mainstream news outlets and academic/scientific journals, and obvious experts (such as the contributors to the IPBES report).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It's in the edit history, with through explanation.

Also the response to Cafaro et al, 202 does mention the IPBES report and it's exploration of population effects.

"the IPBES (2022) report notes that a “race for profit” is fueling the collapse of biodiversity, highlighting that urgent cross-sectorial actions are needed to counter these losses, and these transcend issues of “how many people”. These challenges have been recognised, and work done to reconcile them, and they highlight that blaming “population” undermines our ability to deal with the real issues (Randers et al., 2019)."

That's like the entire dispute, which is that while population growth has some effects, its far superseded by other factors, to the point where its a completely unreliable general metric for minimizing environmental effects.

It's certainly possible those were edits from different users, however the point remains. If you have some genuine criticism based on the actual material of the Wikipedia article with scientific backing. Please introduce them here. However, I'm not responsible for fielding personal feelings or answering the same question again. LoomCreek (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet according to the science news article which discusses the IPBES report, it states "the report has ranked the causes of damage. Topping the list, changes in land use—principally agriculture—that have destroyed habitat. Second, hunting and other kinds of exploitation. These are followed by climate change, pollution, and invasive species, which are being spread by trade and other activities . . . Driving these threats are the growing human population, which has doubled since 1970 to 7.6 billion, and consumption. (Per capita of use of materials is up 15% over the past 5 decades.)". So like I said, this corroborates what numerous other scientific papers have said about the biodiversity crisis, that, to quote Stuart Pimm et al 2014: "The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption."[1]--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, this doesn't change any of the criticisms present. You're responding to a strawman. Nor does it change the IPBES report claim of it being a secondary or even tertiary concern. Consumption is problem yes, but that population is not the key link to that, its per captia income. That complexity needs to be present.

Given present circumstances,

Arbitration/ArbCom seems like it might become necessary. LoomCreek (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

21:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Dispute around inclusion of differing perspectives for overpopulation theory

I tend to agree with LoomCreek. I've seen from other examples that C.J. Griffin tends to add content about overpopulation to many articles (see my example on climate change mitigation, see talk page archive here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change_mitigation/Archive_4#Family_planning_section_cut_from_article). One could "harp on" about overpopulation as the root cause for ALL of the environmental problems that are plaguing the planet, all the water pollution, air pollution, habitat destruction and so forth. But more important is HOW the humans behave and thus the overconsumption and sustainability issue. Either way, there is no point arguing which is "the biggest" cause of biodiversity loss here. All the different factors go hand in hand: what we do to the planet and how many of us there are... Let's focus on actual solutions to this problem and explain the complexities. But again: this article should only have a summary about the biodiversity loss issue and the details should be at biodiversity loss - see also what I wrote about it below in the other section. EMsmile (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The 11 main direct threats to conservation are

I think the bullet point list that follows under "The 11 main direct threats to conservation are" is too detailed, especially those italic keywords in brackets. I would also convert those 11 threats to main text (currently they are level-2 sub-headings).EMsmile (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI I timed out before I could study this but at least I located the diff where the quoted text was added.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, NewsAndEventsGuy. Seems like a "dubious", fly-by addition to me. I would be tempted to remove the entire list. It just doesn't feel right/encyclopedic. What do you and others think? EMsmile (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Artice revised here with RS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand: The reference that you added just takes me to here: https://www.iucnredlist.org/en I don't see where the text is included in the website? Also a website is not a great source as it may change its content over time. Were you meant to link to a particular report that is available on the website? I just find that long bullet point list not very encyclopedic (should it perhaps be in a sub-article rather?). If it's a direct copy & paste from a report then don't we run into problems with copyright? EMsmile (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Where do we stand on this now? EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The section on "threats" is too long

I think we need to condense the section on "threats" a bit and make it clearer that there is a sub-article on biodiversity loss that covers exactly this. Otherwise we have the problem that we have to updated and maintain the same kind of content in two different articles. Threats is really all about biodiversity loss, isn't it? EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just added the template "section size" to this talk page above. You can see from that table that the section on threats has become far too long. It is currently the biggest section of this article. See here in the order of biggest section size:

• Threats 58,248
• Role and benefits of biodiversity 40,261
• Distribution 17,400
• General ecosystem services 15,717
• Number of species 14,499
• Evolution 11,431

Now I know we are all passionate about educating people about the threats and in particular about biodiversity loss. Nevertheless, this section has become too bloated. It needs to be condensed and summarised and then the reader gently but firmly pointed towards biodiversity loss for more detail. EMsmile (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've made a start at reworking this. But I still think that listing of "According to the IUCN the main direct threats to conservation fall in 11 categories" is not suitable (see my comment in another section of this talk page above). The overview listing of causes that is shown here and that is shown at biodiversity loss should perhaps be the same? EMsmile (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment, dispute around inclusion of differing perspectives for overpopulation theory

Dispute around inclusion of differing perspectives for overpopulation theory see discussion thread above LoomCreek (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you still need to do this if you want to open an RfC: Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the {{rfc}} tag EMsmile (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes please ask a short question I really don’t want to read a long discussion thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it is no longer necessary. I’m content with the current version following EMsmile’s additions. I believe criticism of the issue is given due weight in an article on biodiversity.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

After looking at it, I'd be okay with that too, I'm fine with getting rid of the blockquote. The only change I feel is necessary is including the journal the claim is from, Biological Conservation as it exists as a reply to one of the papers. I've done that small revision. I say we give a like a week or two, and if this remains resolved I'll happily remove the disclaimer at the top. I just want to make sure its fully resolved before we do that. LoomCreek (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That's great. I just wonder if mentioning Biological Conservation (twice) is all that important. It's not a well known journal and our Wikipedia readers probably won't care which journal these statements were published in (they can see it by clicking on the ref anyhow)?

Secondly, I wonder how we can ensure that we don't have exactly the same content about this issue at biodiversity loss and at biodiversity. Ideally, the content about this at biodiversity should be a "summary" of the same topic at biodiversity loss but how can we achieve that? Do we agree that the main place for it is at biodiversity loss (with perhaps even more detail than we currently have) and that the topic should be in summary style at biodiversity (with possibly slightly less detail than we currently have)? EMsmile (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I stated as much in the above discussion: "I would not oppose making this a summary of the topic while moving the bulk of it there." I see the Andersen quote was moved there, which is fine. Regarding its significance which you bring up in your edit summary, I'd argue that her position as executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, and the fact that she was quoted in a major media outlet, makes it very significant and WP:DUE. However, I would not oppose trimming the quote and making it just a sentence or two and eliminating the quote box. EDIT: I boldy swapped the sections in Biodiversity and Biodiversity loss as the section in Biodiversity loss read more like a summary which belongs here as discussed. Feel free to revert if this is unsatisfactory. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin I was actually going to suggest that we switch them as well. Im perfectly content with that.

I will ask that you stop removing the reference to the journal (biological conservation) the criticism was published in as its clearly relevant to discussion as a reply to an article published in the same journal.

Not to mention your clear use of such references for the opposing opinion. It unfairly removes credibility, when it's allowed for only one side. I haven't stopped your mentions, please operate with goodwill.

also in future if you add further sources for overpopulation separate it from the criticism, it muddles it and is confusing to the reader. I kept your recent addition but moved it up away from the criticism. LoomCreek (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The suggestion to remove direct references to the journal in the text was mentioned by EMsmile in the post above mine. I moved the link to its wiki page to the citation itself. I did this for both articles for balance. And the most recent additions from me pertained more to overconsumption from the wealthy than overpopulation, which was mentioned in the passage included in the source.C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin I feel the context is relevant, especially the page on biodiversity loss. Given the mention of IPBES report and UN quote. As they provide a greater appearance of credibility then if it just said a 2022 report or (name) from a climate conference. LoomCreek (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a little different than your statement above, which seemingly accused me of bad faith when in fact I did it for *both* articles sourced to that journal per EMsmile’s suggestion. C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin I apologize for the assumption. You resorted to personal attacks when this discussion started so its been hard to assume good faith.

Your inclusion of a new source that differed in the same paragraph of the criticism was still inappropriate which you didn't address. And should have also been noted in the discussion given the dispute.

I still think it should remain. LoomCreek (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I’d like an example of the ad hominem you speak of, as I never engage in personal attacks. Secondly, the new material pertained more to overconsumption by the wealthy than population. I didn’t see it as being an issue putting it there. Regardless, I have no problem with the article as it exists now. C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin The claim that I was attempting to slander you/the point of view as derogatory, i.e. malthusian.

When I edited the disclaimer I was simply trying to find a relevant wikipedia article to link to. It was genuinely an effort in good faith. Eventually deciding to link to nothing given the associations, reverting it mere minutes later.

I'm also okay with the articles as they exist now. LoomCreek (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Further reading list removed

I've removed the further reading list as I don't think it adds any value for this kind of article. Important publications should rather be used for in-line citations (multiple times if they're very useful).

• Levin, Simon A. (2013). Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. ACADEMIC PressINC. ISBN 978-0-12-384719-5.
• Lévêque, Christian; Mounolou, Jean-Claude (16 January 2004). Biodiversity. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-84957-6.
• Margulis, Lynn; Schwartz, Karlene V.; Dolan, Michael (1999). Diversity of Life: The Illustrated Guide to the Five Kingdoms. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7637-0862-7.
• Markov, A. V.; Korotayev, A. V. (2007). "Phanerozoic marine biodiversity follows a hyperbolic trend". Palaeoworld. 16 (4): 311–318. doi:10.1016/j.palwor.2007.01.002.
• Moustakas, A.; Karakassis, I. (2008). "A geographic analysis of the published aquatic biodiversity research in relation to the ecological footprint of the country where the work was done". Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. 23 (6): 737–748. doi:10.1007/s00477-008-0254-2. S2CID 121649697.
• Novacek, Michael J. (2001). The Biodiversity Crisis: Losing what Counts. New Press. ISBN 978-1-56584-570-1.
• D+C-Interview with Achim Steiner, UNEP: "Our generation's responsibility"
• Mora, C.; Tittensor, D. P.; Adl, S.; Simpson, A. G. B.; Worm, B. (2011). Mace, Georgina M (ed.). "How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?". PLOS Biology. 9 (8): e1001127. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127. PMC 3160336. PMID 21886479.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Pereira, H. M.; Navarro, L. M.; Martins, I. S. S. (2012). "Global Biodiversity Change: The Bad, the Good, and the Unknown". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 37: 25–50. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-042911-093511. S2CID 154898897.
• Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF (2017). "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice". BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125.
• Sonter, Laura J.; Dade, Marie C.; et al. (2020). "Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity". Nature Communications. 11 (4174): 4174. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.4174S. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17928-5. PMC 7463236. PMID 32873789.
• Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life. Liveright. ISBN 978-1-63149-082-8.

EMsmile (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Too many refs for one statement

I think this sentence here is suffering from WP:OVERCITE: "Numerous scientists and the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services assert that human population growth and overconsumption are the primary factors in this decline.." Can we remove some of the refs? Also, if we follow my suggestion about replacing this with an excerpt then this sentence would go but we can bring it back by ensuring this is briefly included in the lead at biodiversity loss if we think it's a crucial point. EMsmile (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing source 4 and 5 and keeping the rest. Would this be sufficient? I will go ahead and do this now. I would argue that it is a crucial point as myriad peer-reviewed papers on biodiversity loss discuss population/consumption as significant factors. I would prefer to keep it here rather than shoehorning it into the lead of the other article, but would not oppose it so long as it remains in the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, C.J. Griffin. Ideally, we would find one high quality source that states exactly that ("Numerous scientists have said that"...) rather than creating a numerous list of citations... But I guess it's OK for now. If it's a crucial point for limiting biodiversity loss, then why should it not be included in the lead of biodiversity loss? I don't quite understand your concern about shoehorning it to there? EMsmile (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the material is disputed by some editors, I think that a few high quality sources are preferable to just one. The Stokstad source is the strongest, and I believe it alone satisfies the statement "Numerous scientists have said that..." you referenced above as myriad scientists contributed to the IPBES report. While it is a crucial point, I can see problems developing with the lead of Biodiversity loss if the material is included there, possibly resulting in edit conflicts and bloat from other editors pushing counterpoints. But if it is to be moved, I would suggest trimming the material to look like this: "Numerous scientists have said that human population growth and overconsumption are the primary factors in this decline. However, other scientists have criticized the assertation that population growth is a key factor for biodiversity loss." This I believe is succinct enough for the lead while giving due weight to the opposing view.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi C.J. Griffin sorry for the long silence (I was on holidays). I've now done some work to make the section on "biodiversity loss" more concise and I've also copied content about the causes across to the lead of biodiversity loss. Please check. I am undecided if it's OK to have the exact same paragraph about overpopulation in the lead of biodiversity loss as well as here, or if it's better to use the excerpt function and transcribing the lead, or part of the lead of biodiversity loss to here. What do you and others think about this? EMsmile (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

My biggest problem with the passage now is that there is undue weight being given to one perspective article which was written as a critical response to one of the four sources provided in the first sentence. I wasn't too picky about this before, but now that it has been placed in the lead of Biodiversity loss, I think it needs to be addressed. I think this sentence should be removed (In a scientific perspective published in Biological Conservation the scientists claim the main driver is the loss of habitat caused by "the growth of commodities for export, particularly soybean and oil-palm, primarily for livestock feed or biofuel consumption in higher income economies") and the quote added to the citation, as is the case in the first sentence where there are quotes included in the citations. If any source should be quoted in the text it should be the Science review of the IPBES report, as that mammoth report is now considered by many conservation biologists to have shifted scientific consensus on the issue. C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That's good. I've made some further small tweaks here and in the lead of biodiversity loss. How do you feel about my question regarding using an excerpt or not? I am undecided. Perhaps it's OK like it is now and we don't go down the route of using an excerpt. EMsmile (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fine as is. Honestly I think excerpts are used too often. We don't need material repeated verbatim IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

But as it stands now, the material is repeated in exactly the same way here and at biodiversity loss. Which means in future we'd be modifying it in two places. With the excerpt we would only modify it in one place in future and it gets mirrored in the other location. I do wonder if this entire section called "biodiversity loss" should just be replaced with the lead of biodiversity loss through an excerpt. Just pondering about pros and cons here. We can also leave it as it is for now and come back to it later. EMsmile (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, looking over the passage again, it is exactly the same per recent edits. However, that they may evolve over time in different directions or with different material is okay. If we simply remove the cited material that is present now only to replace it with an excerpt from Biodiversity loss, reliably sourced material would be lost, including entire paragraphs like the second one for example. This is another reason I strongly oppose using excerpts in articles. The section here should not look exactly the same as the lead of that article. It's boring, repetitive and lazy IMHO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Potential for shortening this article

I think the article is a bit on the long side now (54 kB). I think there is room for condensing which would also help to bring out the key points to the reader more clearly. For example, the section on "protected areas" can be shortened (there are sub-articles for the details). I have added the template "section sizes" to the top of the talk page. It helps to see which sections are large. However, it doesn't seem to update properly, as the section on biodiversity loss is still shown as large (22 kB) even though I recently culled it down. Strange. Does anyone know why that is? EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed text block on Forest biological biodiversity

I've removed this text block (2 paragraphs) from the definitions section. In my opinion it doesn't fit there and I think it doesn't fit anywhere else in the article either. Perhaps fits more in a forestry article? The first para is unsourced (probably taken from FAO; probably same ref as given in the second para) and the second para is just one very long quote. It was all added in December 2020 by someone working for FAO in this edit.

"Forest biological biodiversity - Forest biological diversity is a broad term that refers to all life forms found within forested areas and the ecological roles they perform. As such, forest biological diversity encompasses not just trees, but the multitude of plants, animals and microorganisms that inhabit forest areas and their associated genetic diversity. Forest biological diversity can be considered at different levels, including ecosystem, landscape, species, population and genetic. Complex interactions can occur within and between these levels. In biologically diverse forests, this complexity allows organisms to adapt to continually changing environmental conditions and to maintain ecosystem functions.

In the annex to Decision II/9 (CBD, n.d.a), the Conference of the Parties to the CBD recognized that: "Forest biological diversity results from evolutionary processes over thousands and even millions of years which, in themselves, are driven by ecological forces such as climate, fire, competition and disturbance. Furthermore, the diversity of forest ecosystems (in both physical and biological features) results in high levels of adaptation, a feature of forest ecosystems which is an integral component of their biological diversity. Within specific forest ecosystems, the maintenance of ecological processes is dependent upon the maintenance of their biological diversity."" EMsmile (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead needs further work

I think the lead needs further work to become a better summary of the article, roughly following the same order and weight of topics. Currently the lead talks too much about the situation during geologic timespans, not enough about the current situation. This needs to be reworked. Does anyone have time to give it a go? EMsmile (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal to touch up the lead. Currently, I feel that it is somewhat unfocused and vague, especially when compared with the detail-rich remainder of the article. One sentence in particular that I find a little problematic in the lead is the last one that claims there are benefits as well as drawbacks to biodiversity... While the article goes into great depth about the beneficial ecosystem services associated with biodiversity, the part of the last sentence of the lead about the drawbacks either should be removed or supported with evidence. Lilladlili (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I've made some changes to the last paragraph of the lead now. I have deleted that sentence that you had identified about "drawbacks" of biodiversity. Further work on the lead is needed. EMsmile (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 August 2023 and 8 September 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abanarsee (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Abanarsee (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Shortened section on biodiversity loss

I've just removed the sub-headings in the section on biodiversity loss because if we had some sub-headings then we would also need "all" relevant sub-headings plus content but this kind of content is available at the sub-article biodiversity loss. I would actually be inclined to replace this content with an excerpt from the lead of biodiversity loss (after building up that lead and ensuring it's really good). Thoughts? This way we have to in future only update and maintain one article about biodiversity loss, not two. EMsmile (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've shortened and updated the "biodiversity loss" section a bit more. Also, I have moved it up so that it appears directly below the section on "number of species" which is more logical. I wonder though if it would perhaps be better to use an excerpt from biodiversity loss rather so that we don't have to update the figures on species lost in two articles instead of one. Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits to the text in the lead

Dear Drbogdan Thanks for clarifying that this is your own writing. I now see that the your text from 2015 in this article had been copied by Loai Aljerf in 2017. https://medcraveonline.com/BIJ/biodiversity-is-key-for-more-variety-for-better-society.html#:~:text=The%20total%20amount%20of%20related,(trillion%20tons%20of%20carbon)

The text in question which you would like retained still lacks proper referencing. Can you provide proper references?

I can see the need for 3 references as follows unless all 3 statements come from the same source.

Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86% have not yet been described. REFERENCE

The total amount of related DNA base pairs on Earth is estimated at 5.0 x 1037 and weighs 50 billion tonnes. In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as four trillion tons of carbon. REFERENCE

In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of 355 genes from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all organisms living on Earth. REFERENCE

The second paragraph is in my opinion “off topic” and would be better placed in another WP article dealing with fossils. The text is as follows: The age of Earth is about 4.54 billion years. The earliest undisputed evidence of life dates at least from 3.7 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean era after a geological crust started to solidify following the earlier molten Hadean eon. There are microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia. Other early physical evidence of a biogenic substance is graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old meta-sedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland. More recently, in 2015, "remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth...then it could be common in the universe." (REF 11)

Ref 11 that comes at the end here is as follows: https://web.archive.org/web/20151023200248/http://apnews.excite.com/article/20151019/us-sci--earliest_life-a400435d0d.html This refers to fossil rocks and I believe is off-topic for the biodiversity article.

Best wishes ASRASR (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• @ASRASR: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and questions - should be *entirely* answered below - all of this was taken from the history of one of my created articles - "Earliest known life forms" - esp the 22:35, 22 April 2018 version (and much earlier - although the article history seems limited for some reason) - iac - should now be ok - please comment if otherwise of coirse - as before, attribution for adding to the "Biodiversity" article is based on "WP:ATT" and/or "WP:CWW" - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

REFERENCE 1 => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earliest_known_life_forms&oldid=837795301

[ EDIT => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earliest_known_life_forms&action=edit&oldid=837795301 ]

Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86% have not yet been described. REFERENCE

[SOURCE]

Some estimates on the number of Earth's current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described. However, a May 2016 scientific report estimates that 1 trillion species are currently on Earth, with only one-thousandth of one percent described.

REFERENCE 2 => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earliest_known_life_forms&oldid=837795301

[ EDIT => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earliest_known_life_forms&action=edit&oldid=837795301 ]

The total amount of related DNA base pairs on Earth is estimated at 5.0 x 1037 and weighs 50 billion tonnes. In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as four trillion tons of carbon. REFERENCE

[SOURCE]

The total number of DNA base pairs on Earth is estimated at 5.0 x 10³⁷ with a weight of 50 billion tonnes. In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as 4 trillion tons of carbon.

REFERENCE 3 => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earliest_known_life_forms&oldid=837795301

[ EDIT => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earliest_known_life_forms&action=edit&oldid=837795301 ]

In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of 355 genes from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all organisms living on Earth. REFERENCE

[SOURCE]

In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of 355 genes from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all organisms living on Earth.

REFERENCE 11 => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earliest_known_life_forms&oldid=837795301

[ EDIT => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earliest_known_life_forms&action=edit&oldid=837795301 ]

The second paragraph is in my opinion “off topic” and would be better placed in another WP article dealing with fossils. The text is as follows: The age of Earth is about 4.54 billion years. The earliest undisputed evidence of life dates at least from 3.7 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean era after a geological crust started to solidify following the earlier molten Hadean eon. There are microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia. Other early physical evidence of a biogenic substance is graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old meta-sedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland. More recently, in 2015, "remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth...then it could be common in the universe." (REF 11)

[SOURCE]

The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years; the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago.

There is evidence that life began much earlier.

In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting "an almost instantaneous emergence of life" (in a geological time-scale sense), after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.

Studies suggest that life on Earth may have come from biological matter carried by space dust or meteorites.

"Remains of life" have been found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia.

Evidence of biogenic graphite, and possibly stromatolites, was discovered in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks in southwestern Greenland.

In May 2017, evidence of life on land may have been found in 3.48 billion-year-old geyserite which is often found around hot springs and geysers, and other related mineral deposits, uncovered in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia. This complements the November 2013 publication that microbial mat fossils had been found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone in Western Australia.

In November 2017, a study by the University of Edinburgh suggested that life on Earth may have originated from biological particles carried by streams of space dust.

A December 2017 report stated that 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks once contained microorganisms, the earliest direct evidence of life on Earth.

In January 2018, a study found that 4.5 billion-year-old meteorites found on Earth contained liquid water along with prebiotic complex organic substances that may be ingredients for life.

According to biologist Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth … then it could be common in the universe."

References
References

I agree completely with User:ASRASR that this content did not belong in the lead. I have moved it to the main text for now. It might not even belong there either (or at least not in that much detail) and might suit a pre-historic article better (history of live??). Very important: the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, as per WP:LEAD, so it should not contain content that is not also in the main body. A telltale sign is always when a paragraph uses references that appear only in the lead but not in the main body. - Instead, I have added a bit more content about biodiversity loss to the lead, using content from the main body. EMsmile (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

NOTE: - seems some of the edits added earlier to the "Biodiversity" article (based on "WP:ATT" and/or "WP:CWW") were taken, besides from my "Earliest known life forms" article and associated article history, but also from the "Biosphere" article - specifically, at the following "Biosphere" history links (see links copied below):

• Particularly relevant to the current "Biodiversity" article may be my edit (User:Drbogdan; 21:45, 10 January 2014) in the "Biosphere" article at => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biosphere&diff=prev&oldid=590166861 - my other edits in the "Biosphere" article Edit History may be relevant as well.

"Biosphere" EDIT HISTORY - 20 February 2024 to 7 October 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biosphere&action=history&offset=&limit=500

"Biosphere" EDIT HISTORY - 1 Octobrer 2015 to 26 August 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biosphere&action=history&offset=20151007192313%7C684619207&limit=500

Hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natura Texan, ~SnowyOwl17~ (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)