Talk:Asian giant hornet

Peer Review

Within the article, I made changes regarding some writing and grammar errors to not only fix these errors but to improve the clarity of what you were trying to say (at times, the sentences were wordy and confusing). In addition, due to some coding errors, a lot of the species names throughout the article were either not italicized or left in quotes. I went through and fixed all of these. The article discusses how “species under the genus lack distinctive characteristics, making it difficult for species to be grouped”, but this makes me wonder how then the species were divided. Why is your species categorized apart from other species in your genus? Perhaps clarify this thought in your article more. In addition, the taxonomy and phylogeny section on this article seems to deal with solely phylogeny. Consider either expanding on the taxonomy or change the heading to make it more relevant to the section content. How did your species get its name?

In addition, you mention that the reproductive anatomy between the queens and the workers is consistent but the workers do not reproduce. Is this because the workers are being reproductively suppressed? Are their ovaries not developed? How does this come about within a colony (i.e. perhaps a dominance hierarchy within the colony)? This could be expanded upon in your article.

Also, watch for repetition, you discuss the colors of the hornet’s forelegs, midlegs, and hindlegs both in the description section and in the anatomy section. Consider cutting one of these.

The sources used appear to be scholarly and accurate, but when citing these sources within the article, there appears to be a lot of repeat. For example, numbers 8 and 9 in your references list are the same source. You should combine these to be within one number in your reference list by making number 8 perhaps 9d.

Overall, the article covers a breadth of topics and was an informative, yet engaging read. The discussion about the interplay between these hornets and humans is well-explored. Diana He819 (talk) 8:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Frameless

Hello @Steven Walling: This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_giant_hornet&diff=1120208595&oldid=1118936895 is not correct. Please see MOS:CAPTION. – Invasive Spices (talk) 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Content in the lead must be in the body"

This is not true for mentioned synonyms, those usually belong in the introduction and only there. --Megalogastor (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Please slow down, especially on the edit warring, and get consensus for changes like this. There is a common names section here in part because different names have come up both in terms of ESA's new common name and the murder hornet moniker. The lead reflects that, but we don't go deleting sections because content is also covered in the lead. WP:LEAD is quite the opposite. Often times there will be a section dedicated to common names in cases like this where usage varies in terms of WP:COMMONNAME. KoA (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Have to agree with KoA on this; MANY articles in WP have separate text sections dealing with common names, other languages, etymology, and other related things that are also at least mentioned in the lead. Just because it appears in the lead doesn't mean it's automatically okay to delete similar material in the text; some degree of careful assessment is required, and for this article, there's ample reason to keep the lead short, and expand upon the names in the text. Dyanega (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Details about minor usage differences of synonyms is hardly relevant, especially if the section partially relies on original research rather than on linguistic literature. The current version is also in disagreement with the neutral point of view, since the term murder hornet is the only one that is not listed among the other synonyms at the beginning and artificially differntiated from these as a nickname or moniker, while it is simply another (and arguably the insect's most commonly used) name. --Megalogastor (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. According to WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"; that something has long been established in an article is not sufficient grounds to hinder the removal of questionable content. --Megalogastor (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not true for common names Why not, Megalogastor? Why this exception? Invasive Spices (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Because the subject of a WP article is usually not a word, but an object, and thus its name (or names) in the English language is barely relevant; furthermore, for most designations reliable linguistic sources are unavailable. --Megalogastor (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I suggest familiarizing yourself when organism article conventions. What you're suggesting is very much outside the norm and isn't apt to get consensus here, and that burden is on you in this case. KoA (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms#Lead section says: "Alternative names should be mentioned and reliably sourced in the text where applicable, with bold type in the lead if they are in wide use", which is exactly what I did. --Megalogastor (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You're well aware the issue with your edit was the removal of an entire section, not changes to the lead. I don't think there's anything to discuss further at this point. KoA (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The subject of the section in question is the name "murder hornet", thus it becomes redundant when that name is mentioned in the lead, and I specified further problems with the section above. On the other hand, you did not cite any convention that is in conflict with my edit. --Megalogastor (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You just yourself gave the exact policy that you violated: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms#Lead section says: "Alternative names should be mentioned and reliably sourced in the text where applicable, with bold type in the lead if they are in wide use". Instead of doing this, you deleted the text and reduced it to just the boldfaced names in the lead. That is not what this policy says to do. The policy says the names should be in the lead AND in the text, and the reliable sources should be in the text. If you feel that "murder hornet" should be boldfaced in the lead, then that's in keeping with the policy, but not deleting the section in the text that discusses the names. Dyanega (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The policy mentioned is about the lead section, so "in the text" quite obviously refers to the text of the lead, not any other part of the article. There is usually no need to discuss synonyms, because such detailed information on a tangent is most often simply irrelevant for an entry in an encyclopedia that is explicitely not a dictionary; in this case, it is especially problematic, as there are no appropriate sources cited, and as one of several names is arbitrarily singled out for discussion. Megalogastor (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. The sentence even explicitely says: "in the lead if they are in wide use, or elsewhere in the article ... if they are less used." Megalogastor (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Megalogastor, I think it's time to acknowledge you are not getting consensus for the edits you keep trying to introduce, often in contradiction of the very guidance you try to cite. If you want to make a change related to names, you need to get consensus here first at this point. KoA (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A few days ago, you wrote that the problem with my edit were that I removed a whole section; now you reverted my last edit, even though I did not remove any text. Megalogastor (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that was one of the problems, but you kind of all over the place and aren't paying attention to all the issues people have been bringing up here or what the guidance actually says, honestly to the point of WP:WIKILAWYERING (and very poorly at that) with taking guidance out of context.

We're really at the point you should not be editing the name content unless you demonstrate a coherent issue that actually gets consensus for a change on this talk page. Again, please use the talk page for proposed edits for a clear specific issue at this point. KoA (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I am declining the request for a third opinion as more than two editors are already involved in this discussion. If you cannot resolve your disputes here, please try another form of dispute resolution or a noticeboard, such as HD or DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll just tack on here Megalogastor, but multiple editors have tried to discuss with you now. Taking all of the previous advice in mind (two editors who deal a lot in insect topics aside from myself), you can definitely try to articulate clearly what the issue is on this talk page and propose edits, but you should not be trying to reinsert those edits or related ones at this point when it's clear you haven't been getting traction. There is also helpful advice in WP:1AM. You've been making changes to multiple pieces of content, so that's why I told you to slow down at the start of this talk section because of all the compounding misunderstandings others have pointed out about your comments makes it very difficult to sift out what legitimate concerns you may have based in WP:PAG.

There's already frameworks in place for how editors have dealt with terms like "murder hornet" here (i.e., keeping it in the body rather than the lead), so this isn't the time for unilateral wider sweeping changes. Like Dyanega advised you, something simple like adding the term murder hornet is technically an option that could be discussed, but there is background on that subject for why that never made it to the lead. Such a change is something that would need consensus though. KoA (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I already explained at length above what my concerns are, but shall try to clarify once more: Keeping a widespread synonym out of the lead by putting it into a seperate section and critically assessing its use, while the other synonyms are listed uncommented at the top of the article, is incompatible with a purely descriptive, neutral point of view, and looks like an attempt to exert influence on common parlance. Furthermore, discussing details of certain English denominations usually lends undue weight to a very minor aspect of the article’s subject, and makes the entry unnecessarily Anglocentric; both should generally be avoided. --Megalogastor (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Then your insistence on putting "murder hornet" into the lead is exactly the opposite of what you should do: the use of "murder hornet" originated in, and was promulgated by, US media outlets, and sticking it in the lead gives it undue weight; not only do the scientific and international communities not use that name, but the species doesn't even occur in the US. Why should a common name coined in the US (in 2020, as opposed to a name that has decades of precedence) be in the lead of an article about a species that doesn't even occur there? Personally, I'm not even happy about the inclusion of "northern giant hornet" in the lead (coined only in 2022), but that at least is an official common name, published by an organization that maintains an authoritative list of common names, much like the ornithological community does for common names of birds. I'd sooner be in favor of changing the heading of the section where "murder hornet" is mentioned to be titled "Common names in the United States", or something similar, that makes the connection to US media outlets clear. For reference, in the past month, Google finds only 4 news items referring to "murder hornets", saying that they've either never been in the area (regional news items from the states of Georgia and Pennsylvania in response to false reports of "sightings") or reports from Washington state saying that they've been wiped out. Two of the articles use the name "northern giant hornet" as the primary name, one uses "Asian giant hornet". That's nowhere near the level of media frenzy back in 2020, and - as you yourself say - pushing a secondary name into the lead only gives it undue weight. Does it bear mentioning? Certainly. The article presently cites the news article in which the name was first coined, in fact - the NYT article published May 2, 2020. I think earlier edits pointed out that the NYT article is where the name was coined, I'm not sure why that was deleted. That we know exactly who coined it is definitely part of the history, and it could easily be annotated as such. Dyanega (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with authoritative name lists is that they are normative, i.e. not neutral, while listing commonly used names, without any comment on which one is favorable according to some authority, is purely descriptive and thus as neutral as possible, and does certainly not lend undue weigth to any designation. Whether a species does originally occur in an English speaking country or not should have no impact on the legitimacy of any of its English names, nor is its origin or means of divulgence relevant to the issue. --Megalogastor (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Dyanega, moving northern giant hornet down into the body due to limited use is something I'd be fine with, especially in terms of our guidance on what names should be in the lead. ESA's renaming spree caused additional fervor (in addition to the hype about this species) back then, so I think the name just ended up in the lead as the new names did in other articles from drive-by edits rather than purposeful placement. My general rule with ESA has been similar to your description: 1. It warrants WP:DUE mention somewhere being an official organization that deals with naming. 2. Actual use of the new name still needs to be widely established and doesn't automatically justify inclusion in leads, being the article title, etc. I'm wary of people equating ESA's actions to meaning unilateral changes can be made in articles here that bypass how common names are normally dealt with here.

Not sure on changing the section to US only though since it should be open for description of all common names in the future (ESA is also Canada too). As for the media connections on how they came up with murder hornet, I think it'd be worth trying to dig up again to just make it even more clear it was a moniker and isn't a particularly encyclopedic name. KoA (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Any attempt to dig up media connections and present the results in the article would violate Wikipedia:No original research, and trying to make clear that murder hornet is not a particularly encyclopedic name could hardly be done in compliance with WP:NPOV. As said, listing the synonyms without any comment is fully sufficient and as good as it gets, and I do not think there is even enough relevant information to justify a separate section. It would be easiest to put those three names at the end of the lead, which should be rewritten anyway, as it suffers from recentism. Megalogastor (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Megalogastor, you've been repeatedly told you've been misapplying content policies and actually violating the very things you cite. The article had to be placed under protection because of that. Now is not the time to double down on that. KoA (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The WP:NOR policy is well familiar to me, and does not apply to situations where one is providing a citation to a primary source. Yes, secondary sources are generally preferred, but certainly not mandatory. Wikipedia is full of articles that, by the interpretation of the NOR criteria you seem to be suggesting, would be almost entirely "original research", such as Largest and heaviest animals or List of oldest trees. There is no single published source that lists and ranks the sizes of the world's tunicate species, for example, but it is not a violation of WP:NOR for editors to contribute citations of reliable individual primary sources, and then to list and rank them in Wikipedia. Most of the listed etymologies for older scientific names in Wikipedia cite only a primary source (usually a Latin or Greek lexicon - see. e.g., Columba (bird)), rather than providing evidence that the author of a name explicitly gave an etymology (a practice almost unheard-of until the 20th century), yet those citations are not a violation of WP:NOR policy, as they are easily confirmed. That May 2, 2020 is the first use of "murder hornet" in reference to the Asian giant hornet is also easily confirmed, even in the absence of a secondary source. The edit history of this very article actually demonstrates this: [1]. You can also see that at that point in time, the common name "yak-killer hornet", which was sourced, still appeared in the lead, and it has since been removed, with no visible justification for its removal. I think there are idiosyncrasies in the editing of this article that are responsible for the problems you perceive, and which could be brought into line by - for example - moving ALL of the common names, especially those in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese (all countries where the species is native), and placing them back into the "common names" section, rather than deleting the section entirely. That is, if you don't like this section because it focuses on the US common names, then make it a proper section giving all the common names equal weight, including the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese names, that do NOT appear in the lead. A fair parallel example is the article for Paraponera clavata, which lists only one common name in the lead ("bullet ant") but gives a very long list of names in the section on "etymology" (which isn't, strictly speaking, about etymology). The point is, again, that if you perceive the problem to be that the section on common names looks biased, it's because the other common names have successively been either removed from the article (e.g., "yak-killer hornet") or moved into the "Geographic distribution" section, where they are not really appropriate, and the most sensible solution is not to try to shove all of it into the lead, but to expand upon it in a single section in the text. Dyanega (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Abiotic barriers

A recently reverted, uncited edit by an IP number Thankfully, The Rockies and Great Plains could provide ecological barriers that could hinder their spread eastward. is correct. I added a source which supports this but I don’t remember when. Within the last few years. I will add this properly when I have time. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the source is Alaniz. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)