Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rana vs Lithobates

Resolved:

Successful

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

---

Summary statements of issues, not to exceed 200 words

Please note the request to restrict the argument opposing Ranapipiens to 200 words total, rather than 200 per each of the other participants, for fair balance. Otherwise, I should be allowed to present the Rana side in 600 words (or request additional participants for balance), so that both sides have equally opportunity to state the issues.Ranapipiens (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I oppose that request, I listed everyone who had major contributions to the discussion. If your view has so much to stand on it will not matter how much each of us say. Faendalimas ^talk 10:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two positions (Rana versus Lithobates), and each should be given equal time. Note that this is not the end of the discussion, this is simply the laying out the two sides of the argument. You (Faendalimas (talk · contribs)) listed three people on one side, and one on the other, for this discussion. Typically, in any formal argument (as in a court case), each SIDE is given equal time. Micromesistius (talk · contribs) and HCA (talk · contribs) were each making minor variants of the same argument, and then HCA (talk · contribs) recruited you to the argument from another talk page. The point here is to lay out the argument for each side. My position is indeed strong, but I should have equal space and time to make it. If my side is limited to 200 words below, then the opposing argument should be limited to 200 words. This is a basic principle of fairness.Ranapipiens (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is actually unbelievable, you have finally shocked me as an editor here of nearly 10 years. You have agreed to mediation then changed the whole mediation page, as set up by the mediators, for @Sunray:, to the way you want it done. Without even waiting for their opinion on this. To me this is unacceptable and in violation of this process. You have basically shown its your way or no way. I said you had all behaved well by not edit warring, but I am starting to think the only reason for that is the pages were so out of date that they agreed with your position. I am going to check edit history of all relevant pages. Faendalimas ^talk 13:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Balance and equal time in an argument are basic principles of fairness. If @Sunray: disagrees, then it is simple to explain why, and present the arguments accordingly. I was just following what I think is the intent of the request: To briefly and clearly define the two sides of the argument. I will, however, follow any instructions given to me in how to accomplish this task in a fair and balanced manner. Clearly, it is unfair for one side of the argument to have three times the space to lay out the issues. I think it is clear that I have done everything I can to be fair, patient, and responsive in this discussion.Ranapipiens (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

While I certainly agree with the principles of balance and fairness, my intention (perhaps unclear) in my initial request was a statement from each participant. So you have done that. Thank you. I will comment on your summaries and also comment further on process below. Sunray (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

200 words in favor of using Lithobates:

• Faendalimas (talk · contribs):I came to this upon request; these were not pages I edit or my specialty as a taxonomist. First Wikispecies is as out of date as WP on this, what support it shows is from using an old taxonomy. I am an admin there the pages have not been updated since 2009 and its taxonomy was set up when first created in 2006. I looked at this as a nomenclatural taxonomist, the changes of Frost et al 2006 are valid and have not been overturned. That binomial stability will be upset by this is irrelevant, the ICZN code looks after stability of names not combinations. That is I can move things to different genera as much as I want as long as I can justify it, so how long the name Rana has stood and what it represented in the past is irrelevant. The main group against this is all supporters of Dave Hillis it is a classic taxonomy battle, these occur. All the noise, very vocal, is from Dave Hillis and his allies. I have personally communicated with several amphibian specialists, including Darrel Frost. Upcoming titles of secondary lit such as Peterson's Guide will be using Lithobates. Everyone has declared their COI issues except Ranapipiens, I think he should. Faendalimas ^talk 10:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• HCA (talk · contribs): I came into this debate with an open mind and a moderate familiarity with the taxa (comparative physiologist working on the taxon, no COI), including the changes of Frost et al 2006. I read the papers Ranapipiens suggested, did some research of my own, and was unconvinced of his case. Upon contacting a world-renowned frog taxonomist (a collaborator and friend), he pointed out a rebuttal to RP’s strongest paper (Pauly 2009) which RP had avoided mentioning and has repeatedly refused to discuss, in spite of the fact that it contains a 3-page direct discussion of why his view is incorrect. I found primary literature conflicted and secondary literature was either COI or uselessly out-of-date. RP appears to be over-stating the prevalence, uniformity, and certainty of post-Frost literature, uses raw prevalence without acknowledging the “intertia” of the name of widely-used model species, and does not acknowledge sources or arguments contrary to their desired outcome. Micromesistius and myself requested feedback from users with more taxonomic experience, and Faendalimas joined the discussion. Currently, reading the same sources as RP and examining his arguments, I am more convinced by Lithobates. I started agnostic, but find the case for Rana to be insufficient.

• Micromesistius (talk · contribs): (1) Use of Lithobates as a genus follows the Amphibians Species of the World 6.0 (ASW) and reflects the dominant use in recent literature. WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles elected to use ASW as the primary source of taxonomy in 2008. (2) Alternatives are to treat Lithobates (2a) as a subgenus but otherwise corresponding to the ASW definition (containing ~50 species), or (2b) as a subgenus corresponding the "Rana palmipes group" (Hillis & de Sá 1988, 4 species). Sources that are not following (1) are split over (2a) (e.g., Fouquette & Dubois 2014) and (2b) (e.g., AmphibiaWeb), the latter being the choice of User:Ranapipiens. (3) User:Ranapipiens continues to misrepresent evidence supporting his position.

200 words in favor of using Rana:

• Ranapipiens (talk · contribs):The long-standing genus name for true frogs is Rana. In 2006, Frost et al. proposed to change this name to Lithobates for a large portion of the species, without a compelling taxonomic reason. The clade called Lithobates by Frost et al. has little support (and no known morphological distinction), and many studies and authors have argued that it is not monophyletic. Furthermore, recognition of Lithobates created new taxonomic problems for the remaining species. A change to Lithobates would also change binomial names for most true frogs, which have a long history as model organisms, and thus disconnect them from their literature. Furthermore, Lithobates had been previously assigned to more distinctive group (as a subgenus) within Rana. The change to Lithobates was quickly rejected by systematists who work on these frogs following ICZN rules in published works. Recent systematic reviews of the group have supported the retention of the name Rana for these frogs, as have major online resources such as AmphibiaWeb and Wikispecies, and the newest textbook in herpetology. In contrast, a web site run by Frost continues to use Lithobates. In the non-taxonomic literature, both names are used, although two published studies both show overwhelming preference for Rana.

Discontinue discussion until Sunray instructs otherwise. He is free to remove this collapse if he cares to do so. Discussion may continue on the article talk page, of course, if you care to do so. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Comment from ICZN Commissioner Hello, all. I was asked to take a look at this particular issue and comment if I felt it was necessary. Having read the discussion, I can say the following: (1) as long as everyone is in agreement as to the type species of Rana and Lithobates, then it all boils down to purely taxonomic judgment as to whether to accord the latter the rank of genus or not (and to a lesser extent what species other than the type species should be included, which does seem to vary a bit in the case of Lithobates) - that is outside the ICZN's jurisdiction, and changes in combination are very explicitly NOT what the ICZN means when it refers to "stability" (instability would be the wholesale replacement of one genus name, or species name, by a different one that has not previously been in widespread use). (2) Given this, the only comments I can offer are my perspective as a taxonomist, and also as a wikipedian (with over 10,000 edits mostly dealing with taxonomic articles) rather than as a Commissioner. In that capacity, I'll say that I prefer to adopt a conservative approach when faced with novel taxonomic schemes, especially in centralized resources like Wikipedia and Wikispecies. Basic WP editorial policy is that you should always present both majority and minority viewpoints AND identify which one is which - as such, to the extent that there is a demonstrable majority view to NOT accept Lithobates as a full genus, then WP should not adopt it as a genus, either (until and unless that majority swings in favor of its recognition). There should definitely be explicit text in any article which is affected by the controversy, but it does not need to re-hash the entire debate; a few links to primary literature along with a comment such as "Frost et al. proposed elevating the subgenus Lithobates to the rank of genus, but this has not yet been accepted as the majority view." Most of the cases like this I've dealt with are situations where the number of concerned taxonomists has been so small that novel classifications rarely face opposition; this particular case certainly is of much broader interest, and so it's much more necessary to exercise caution before adopting the novel scheme. To summarize, as a Commissioner, I remain neutral, as this does not seem to tread on ICZN concerns. As both a taxonomist and WP editor, I would opt to maintain WP and Wikispecies with Lithobates as a subgenus so long as there is no community consensus that Lithobates is preferred as a genus, and go for "full disclosure" on any of the articles where this issue would potentially make a difference. Dyanega (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC) I agree completely with the ICZN Commissioner. I think this is exactly the position that I have taken. The novel use of Lithobates as a genus clearly has NOT been accepted as a "majority view". I cited the several published papers that have evaluated this point, showing that Rana is still used far more widely as the appropriate genus than is Rana. Furthermore, taxonomists who actually work on the group nearly uniformly argue in favor of Rana rather than Lithobates for the genus. I retained all references to papers that use Lithobates on the relevant pages, so the minority view is also represented. I think the wording suggested by the Commissioner is entirely reasonable. I agree exactly with his comment that "As both a taxonomist and WP editor, I would opt to maintain WP and Wikispecies with Lithobates as a subgenus so long as there is no community consensus that Lithobates is preferred as a genus." Clearly there is no community consensus that Lithobates is preferred as a genus, given that many different research groups have independently argued for their preference for Rana.Ranapipiens (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC) He is referring to community concensus on Wikipedia which is what this mediation is about. Gaining a concensus of what to do on Wikipedia. Cheers Faendalimas talk 00:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Extra Comment New Information Ok thanks @Dyanega: for your comments, I agree with the ICZN position the names are available, what to do with them is a taxonomic issue. I also adamantly agree that the concept of Stability does not include combinations ie genus + species. A point I have tried to make also when this argument was used to resist any change. So the decision is whether these are genera, subgenera or simply all one big genus. It is also I agree important that whatever option here is taken it must acknowledge the other options put forth in the literature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a vehicle that attempts to establish an accepted nomenclature, we just report it. The ITIS report for the group is HERE. ITIS is largely built and updated, particularly for Herpetology by Roy McDaimard of the Smithsonian. A museum based herpetologist and Taxonomist. I have not asked him but I suspect he will agree with whatever Darrel Frost has to say. At present it has them all as genera. Brian Crother's most recent checklist pdf uses the same structure as Darrel Frost's website which is also the same as ITIS. This checklist has been accepted by American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists; Canadian Association of Herpetology; Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Network; Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation; Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles; and The Herpetologists’ League. This represents a massive percentage of not only North America's but the worlds herpetologists. His personal opinion to me also included that the genera recognition makes Biogeographical sense, rather than essentially world wide genus. During my own investigation of this, apart from reading all pertinent literature, I obtained input from Darrel Frost (AMNH editor of ASW), Michael Lannoo (US Chair IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group); Brian Crother (Southeastern Louisiana University) and Candace Hansen (Editor Froglog), all specialists with amphibians, all affected by these changes all currently using Lithobates and believe this issue is without debate. As I said at the outset I was not involved in this until invited by way of a request on the Reptile and Ampibian Project page by @Micromesistius:. I do not edit these pages. My overall view is that the dominance of usage is now with Lithobates and that this is how this should be portrayed on Wikipedia. With due acknowledgement of the opinions published by Hillis and others. @Ranapipiens: I acknowledge I have made an extra response here, in part due to information only recently come to hand by way of emails to me from several scientists, I would accept you have right of reply. Cheers Faendalimas talk 23:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC) The various online lists that you cite are each tied to a single source: Frost's ASW list. In contrast, independent sources, such as AmphibiaWeb, GenBank, Wikispecies, the latest nomenclatural reviews of North American amphibians (Fouquette and Dubois, 2014) and the latest Herpetology textbook (Pough et al, 2015) all use Rana as the genus. Furthermore, your statement that "all the noise, very vocal, is from Dave Hillis and his allies" is demonstrably false, unless you mean "all other taxonomists who agree with Hillis" when you refer to his "allies". I have cited numerous examples before, but I'll briefly recap a few. The only new species description of a North American ranid in recent years named the species as a species of Rana, not Lithobates. This paper, by Feinberg et al. (2014), has eight co-authors, none of whom seem to be associated with Hillis in any way. The most recent nomenclatural review of North American amphibians was published by Fouquette and Dubois (2014), who argued in favor of Rana as the preferred genus. Neither Fouquette nor Dubois seems to have any association with Hillis. And the latest textbook in Herpetology (Pough et al., 2015) explicitly discusses the use of Rana versus Lithobates, and argues in favor of Rana as the genus. Again, Hillis has nothing to do with that book. Not only is there NOT a consensus to use Lithobates as a genus, there is a strong trend in the recent published taxonomic literature to prefer Rana. There are two published analyses about this point: Hillis (2007) examined usage up to 2007, and Fouquette and Dubois (2014) examined if from 2007 to 2014. Both sets of independent authors agreed that Rana was used far more widely in the literature as a genus compared to Lithobates. I am unaware of any published analyses that find otherwise. Therefore, I agree with the ICZN Commissioner's recommendations above: "As both a taxonomist and WP editor, I would opt to maintain WP and Wikispecies with Lithobates as a subgenus so long as there is no community consensus that Lithobates is preferred as a genus." Clearly there is no community consensus that Lithobates is preferred as a genus, whether he was referring to taxonomic community at large, or the Wikipedia community. Feinberg JA, Newman CE, Watkins-Colwell GJ, Schlesinger MD, Zarate B, Curry BR, Shaffer HB, Burger J. 2014 Cryptic diversity in Metropolis: Confirmation of a new leopard frog species (Anura: Ranidae) from New York City and surrounding Atlantic Coast regions. PLoS One DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108213 Fouquette, M. J., and Dubois A. 2014. A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada, 7th Ed. Volume 1—Amphibians. Xlibris Publ. ISBN 9781493170340. Hillis, D. M. 2007. Constraints in naming parts of the Tree of Life. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42:331-338. Pough, F.H., Andrews, R.M., Crump, M.L., Savitzky, A.H., Well, K.D., and Brandley. M.C. 2015. Herpetology, 4th edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 591 pp. Ranapipiens (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC) You cannot use GenBank as a nomenclatural source, thats not how it works. As for Wikispecies it is out of date back to 2006 I as an admin there have frozen Ranidae updating until this discussion was resolved (on admin noticeboard at Wikispecies, at 13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)) out of respect for the process here and not to influence it. I froze it for your benefit, so as to not be unfair to you, so please stop using it as a reference. This is the third time I have requested Wikispecies not to be used as a reference. Faendalimas talk 01:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC) My apologies, I did not understand that you did not want me to refer to Wikispecies, or that you had frozen it. I mentioned it largely because it was mentioned by the ICZN Commissioner. But I will cease to mention it. The GenBank taxonomy (as supported by the National Center for Biotechnology Information's taxonomy server) is widely used in molecular biology, and I consider it to be as relevant (or as irrelevant) as the other online taxonomy lists. My preference, as I have argued on previous talk pages, is to follow the published primary literature in taxonomy.Ranapipiens (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC) That's ok, the ICZN Commissioner and I know each other. He knows I am an admin there. Those Wikispecies pages were set up when Wikispecies was first built, they predate Frost et al in their taxonomy. So are not relevant to the discussion, one way or another. I use GenBank alot, my colleges and I have sequences up there. It is for storing sequences not nomenclature. I could explain it if people want but it would take alot of space and is not overly relevant to this discussion. It really is meaningless to this discussion. Cheers Faendalimas talk 01:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC) So where are we on this I would appreciate knowing where things stand on this @Sunray:. It would seem to me that @Ranapipiens: has no intention of reaching or agreeing to a consensus opinion with other editors and what arguments he has on this are straw-man at best, his style has demonstrated we are all to do this his way. @HCA and Micromesistius: despite presenting a differing view are in the position of being ignored largely because the pages here are so out of date they happen to largely agree with what Ranapipens wants which is to live in a nomenclature thats about 15 years out of date. This kind of makes this unfair on them. As I have said I do not edit these pages, but in fairness I have been holding back any editing on Wikispecies, which I need to move forward on. I provided references here, talked to this with many researchers in this field and have tried to find a way forward. Based on the information I have I cannot agree with leaving the nomenclature so antiquated either. Cheers Faendalimas talk 20:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) I have followed all requests and instructions given to me. I simply agreed completely with the ICZN Commissioner (whom I did not ask to comment on this). The suggested change by Frost et al. was in 2006 (nine years ago), and the reaction against it was immediate. All the most recent systematic reviews of Rana have rejected the use of Lithobates as a genus. The most recent herpetology textbook rejects Lithobates as a genus. The most recent published nomenclatural checklist of North American amphibians rejects Lithobates as a genus. Two published studies show that Rana is used far more widely in the literature compared to Lithobates (including one that was restricted to the years since the suggested change). The commissioner of the ICZN recommends the conservative approach of retaining the traditional genus (Rana) until consensus for change is achieved. I have cited the published literature in support of every point I made, and provided every type of published reference requested of me. I have stuck to the facts and the published record, while others have simply attacked me personally. I don't appreciate the way I've been treated and the accusations that have been made of me. I think it is clear that the published record supports all the points I have made. If there are disagreements of fact, then we should discuss those, but please stop making this a personal attack on me.Ranapipiens (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I was not asking your opinion, you have made yours clear, you do not cooperate, do not believe in the process of consensus on wikipedia. I was asking our mediator where we were at. I have spent a week at this trying to reason with you, discussing facts. As you seem to keep asking us to do. I have not accused you of anything all week, I have asked you for information and you have not provided it, such as declaring your COI. Because from some of what you say I am not convinced you have a NPOV. If you cannot cooperate, see reason, try at all for consensus, wikipedia consensus, what do you expect people to do? You say you do not appreciate the way you have been treated, but there is no talking to you, we have tried some people have tried for months. That gets frustrating. Everyone I ask about amphibian nomenclature, says your wrong. You list papers that you think are supporting you, when you don't even understand why they wrote them the way they did. You have repeated your same little list of reasons that you are right and everyone else is wrong, despite the fact that everyone of your points has been refuted on many occasions by others. But that does not seem to mean anything to you. The 7-8 major international societies that have signed off on the checklist by Crother 2012 represent 90% of the worlds professional herpetologists, those people are using that checklist, as is the IUCN as is CITES, which means there are legal ramifications for not following that checklist. However, that seems to mean nothing to you. The ICZN commissioner was referring to wikipedia consensus, in other words agreement between the editors of the Ranidae pages on Wikipedia. So are you ready to come to the table and find consensus with the other editors here? Or do you insist on continuing to insult them, they are both specialists who work on amphibians. They declared that, you have refused to. Faendalimas talk 03:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I do not think the record supports what you say here. First, I have indeed declared (on my talk page) that have expertise in amphibian systematics. The other three people you included here have each made it clear that they are not amphibian taxonomists and do not work on the systematics of this group. One editor (HCA) says "I'm a postdoc in biomechanics, specializing in animal locomotion and currently working on sidewinding. My prior work has focused on arboreal snake locomotion and power amplification in frog jumping." The other editor (Micromesistius) says: "I have professional interest in fish, and naturalist interest in much else, including fishes and trees." He adds that he has published physiological papers on Rana in the past, in which he used Rana rather than Lithobates as the genus. You (Faendalimas) have repeatedly noted that this is not your taxonomic group, and that you do not edit these pages. So yes, I do have the most direct interest and taxonomic expertise on amphibians among this group of participants, but I have stated that I do not view having expertise in a subject as a COI. I clearly HAVE maintained neutrality by leaving all references to papers that use Lithobates rather than Rana in place on the WP pages, so that minority view is well represented. The society checklist that you mentioned is not a peer-reviewed publication, and it was created as a list of recommended standard COMMON names for amphibians and reptiles for the societies. It expressly has no standing as any kind of official list of scientific names, and none of the societies require authors to use the scientific names in this list in their publications (and many do not). The chair of the frog names committee for this list is Darrell Frost, who is also the person who proposed using Lithobates as a genus in 2006. The other lists you mentioned simply use Frost's ASW online checklist for their nomenclature. In contrast, independent lists (such as AmphibiaWeb, the NCBI taxonomy, and Fouquette and Dubois' recent nomenclatural checklist of NA amphibians), recent taxonomic papers on the group, and the most recent herpetology textbook (in other words, virtually every major source that is independent of Frost) all use Rana and reject the use of Lithobates, as do the majority of authors in the general literature (as supported by two different published reviews of the question). Yes, I would like to see us reach a consensus, and I have participated in this discussion in good faith to try to do so. But I think it is clear that there already exists a growing consensus in the published literature on retaining Rana as the appropriate genus. I want to base the pages on the facts and the published literature, rather than changing to a minority viewpoint that is very poorly justified (which would also change the species names for a large number of widely studied species and model organisms, thereby disconnecting them from their literature). I don't know why you say there is no talking to me; in fact, each time I've been asked to supply a published reference to support a statement I've made, I've done so. Someone (not me) asked the ICZN Commissioner to comment on this debate, and I agreed with everything the commissioner said. His recommendation was completely reasonable, and completely consistent with the work I've done on the relevant WP pages. The relevant Rana pages were inconsistent (both within and between pages), and I worked hard to fix those problems. They still contain the relevant references to the alternative nomenclature, as suggested by the ICZN Commissioner in his comments. I have never insulted any of the other editors in our discussions, and have stuck to presenting the facts and citing the published record, even in the face of constant harassment. I just ask that others do the same.Ranapipiens (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I should note, for clarity, that I wished to publish using Lithobates, but was over-ruled by my adviser at the time. And the last chapter of my doctoral thesis uses Lithobates, both in the in-prep paper I'm *still* working on and the archived thesis submitted years ago. So don't use me as support for Rana - I pointed out those pubs as evidence of my pre-existing ambivalence on the topic, as proof that I'm not simply dead-set on one or the other. And if I see convincing evidence that my upcoming paper should use Rana, I'll change it, but so far, I have yet to be convinced. HCA (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Yes, I understand that it was your adviser who preferred Rana, and that you are open to discussion about which name to use.Ranapipiens (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Ok I formatted above a little nothing more. So you are a taxonomist? What is your area of expertise? I assume by saying you have no COI you have no publications and have done no original research on the Ranidae? I have published on the taxonomy of frogs, but it was the Hylidae. I spoke the ICZN commissioner, I know him and what he would say. I chat to him all the time, I have published very heavily in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature over the years. So don't worry I knew that was not you. His recommendation was that we take a conservative view unless there is a consensus here on wikipedia to do otherwise. The main thing I was hoping you would listen to him on was that species get moved around from genus to genus all the time and what that does to their attachment to the literature as you put it or stability is irrelevant and as a taxonomist I do not find that a big issue. I have had to swap species names around because of misidentified types, far more confusing than whats being proposed here, people figure it out. It does not bother them. Saying you have expertise in systematics without explaining it just makes you sound worse. Your answers can be about a paragraph ok, this is not a scientific paper here. All I see is you digging your heels in saying its my way, no one else has a say. You see if you go to my user page you can see who I am, what I do, what I have published. The reason I cannot be annonymous is because I work on taxonomy and make taxonomic updates, for NPOV and COI I therefore have no choice but to be open. So if you are going to try and ride ruckshot over other editors, you are going to have to do the same. Faendalimas talk 04:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Ok I do not appreciate being lied to. You just told me above you have explained you do not have a COI or NPOV issue on your talk page. I read it top to bottom. You have denied it on the many, many times you have been accused but offered no satisfactory surety of this, despite many requests. You have claimed inside information on unpublished scientific reports on this topic. Yes you may not have cited it but you are claiming this knowledge. That almost ensures you have a COI issue or at least a NPOV issue. These accusations have come from about 6 editors, many of them highly experienced. You have made highly disruptive changes without explanation of a protracted period this year. You need to explain yourself in a way that is believable. Your story does not wash with me, if people knew inside material on my taxonomic papers and were discussing before it was published here I would be most unimpressed. Basically your story does not add up. Your claiming knowledge of intellectual property prior to its release. It is either yours, which means you have a COI NPOV issue. Or you are doing something I would not want to be caught doing. Explain yourself please. Or I have to take it further. Faendalimas talk 05:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC) First, I have never "ridden ruckshot" over any other editors. I have a long-standing involvement in these pages, and I noticed some recent changes that made them inconsistent. I fixed the inconsistencies, but left other references in place for appropriate balance of views. When I was asked about changes, I explained the reasons and provided more references to the published literature. When others did not have some of those references available, I quoted from them verbatim so that they would have the relevant information. I have explained that my expertise is in amphibian systematics; I have worked on every family of amphibians. I would not attempt to edit taxonomic pages on frogs if I did not have such expertise; I think it would be irresponsible to do so. I have done my best to follow every guideline on WP about appropriate behavior, including maintaining a neutral point of view. Badgering editors about their identity is expressly NOT appropriate behavior under WP guidelines, though. Neither of the other editors of the pages in this discussion has revealed his or her identity, either, and I've certainly never asked them to do so.Ranapipiens (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC) You were apparently adding your last comment as I was adding mine. I have not lied in this discussion and I do not appreciate being accused of lying.Ranapipiens (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I did not and am not asking you for your identify, I have no right to do so, just something to show you do not have a coi, like what your expertise is for example. I have looked at your edit history, back to 2008. You did very little for long periods, until this year. When you were asked you did not explain you said they were wrong. I read what you said. Every time they put up references you said they were wrong, and that you had inside info to prove it was not good form. Faendalimas talk 06:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I have not deleted references added by others. I have cited the published papers that are most central and relevant to the issues, but I have not objected or edited if others think other papers are also relevant. I have argued my opinion and my reasons on my talk page only, and have kept a neutral point of view on the WP pages. I don't think I need to explain why I have had time to contribute to a volunteer effort at some times but not others. There has been one suggestion about a resolution to this disagreement, by the ICZN Commissioner, which I fully supported. He confirmed that this is NOT a matter of ICZN rules as others had argued, but simply a matter of good taxonomic practice...and that reasonable taxonomic practice suggests the conservative approach of retaining the widely used names (Rana) until there is community consensus to change. He also suggested that the alternative viewpoint be presented and referenced. I agreed with all of these points, and noted that that is what the pages do now. There have been no other suggestions for any other resolution.Ranapipiens (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Process issues

I want to design a process for this mediation that will set it on the path to success. Would you be willing to work on that before we move to the subject matter? The reason I asked for 200 word summaries was to try to get clarity and not overburden anyone (least not me) with lengthy statements. I am convinced that in writing in an encyclopedic context that brevity is crucial. Shakespeare wrote that "brevity is the soul of wit." One of the definitions of wit is: "mental sharpness and inventiveness; keen intelligence." That is what I hope we shall strive for. Now, I know that there are scientific considerations and that these sometimes cannot be diluted. So we will need a mechanism to point people to fuller argument. This could be done by creating sub-pages or by using collapse boxes. I will constantly be asking for clarity. Ultimately that will be needed for the article. For now, I would like each of you who choses to comment to make your point in 200 words or less. You do not all have to comment. If someone else makes a point you agree with, it is often helpful if you say that. What are your thoughts on process? Sunray (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am good with developing a process, and the keeping of limiting comments in size too. Way to many essays in this debate over the last 6 months. Just one suggestion as each part of resolving this issue is dealt with box and close it. Maybe also in the interests of maintaining focus each section be started by question we must address. Just suggestions, no problem if that's not agreeable. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to limit responses to 200 words. However, I would like to be able to respond to each person’s separate points in 200 words. As I noted above, there are three people on one side of this discussion, and just me on the other, so it would be unreasonable to limit the discussion to 600 words on one side, but to 200 words on the other. Also, I hope that as moderator, you will insist that we stick to discussing the substance of the case, and that you will not allow personal attacks. I feel that principle has been violated repeatedly so far.Ranapipiens (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

he is not denying you that, neither am I. this is where we now discuss the issue, not write papers on it is my point. Each person makes and responds to points as needed, just keep it short. That's all. ok? Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed!Ranapipiens (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Before we proceed, I need everyone's input on a sticky issue (it is one of the issues raised in the summaries above). There is a paper in press that includes as authors all the major labs that work on Rana, from Europe, across Asia, and in North America (it even includes one Australian-based systematist, even though the genus doesn't occur there). The primary authors are the same as Che et al. 2007, but it includes many more authors from other countries (essentially covering the range of Rana in the broad sense, and all the major labs that work on Rana systematics across the world). This paper has been widely circulated among the amphibian systematics community, but it is not yet published and so it is not publicly accessible. I obviously cannot cite or quote from the results until it is public, and I understand that it can't yet be the basis for what we do on WP, or cited on WP until it is published. Unlike all the previous mtDNA analyses from limited samples of species, it includes data from a broad array of nuclear and mtDNA genes, sampled from almost all the known species of Rana in the broad sense. It forms a community consensus (in the sense of the Rana systematics community) on the preferred taxonomy of the group. I have asked one of the authors of this paper if they would consider posting it to BioRxiv in advance of publication, but frankly, that is their decision to make. If they do so, then at least it would be publicly available prior to publication, and we could discuss it. On the one hand, I understand that WP should be based on the published record (and I obviously feel that the published record already supports the use of Rana as the appropriate genus). My belief is that publication of this paper will remove any lingering doubt from others. So, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to spend a great deal of time arguing about the current publication record, prior to the publication of this paper. On the other hand, it isn't published yet and can't be discussed until it is published. So the question is: how much time should we spend discussing the preferred nomenclature for this group, when an international group of Rana systematists is about to publish a definitive paper on the subject? Should we wait for this paper to appear before proceeding, or argue about the current published record, only to have the conversation become moot upon publication of this paper? I am willing to go either way, but I thought there should be an understanding from everyone of the situation. I'm not arguing for any particular way to handle this...I am asking for your suggestions and input. I could try to ignore what I know and base the discussion only on the published literature, but that seems unfair in one sense to the other participants, since I've already had a view of the future published record. So I seek your input and preferences on this matter.Ranapipiens (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I commented on this very issue already Here as have many others on your talk page. You cannot use primary material that is yet to be published on Wikipedia, it is also unethical. You were told 6 months ago you should have left these taxa in Lithobates until everyone had a chance to see that paper. If the paper makes nomenclatural acts the authors cannot release a pre-published version of it. That alone could invalidate their nomenclatural acts, electronic publication. So it has to wait until it is released and adopted by the secondary literature. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 00:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I will talk to Jing Che and Steve Donnelan (I assume) about it and get a better idea. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 00:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

First, the current discussion began less than two months ago, so no one said anything to me six months ago. I agree that this paper can't be cited, and I have not based any decisions or actions on its content. I have cited only published papers, and I have left the taxa in Rana, following the current published literature. I only brought this matter up because it is one of the subjects listed for discussion. I have not even revealed the conclusions of the paper in question. I am happy not to mention it again, until the paper is published, and now I will not do so. I just wanted to know if others thought we should let this paper come out before spending a lot of time spinning our wheels.Ranapipiens (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we have an ETA on that? I know some journals can be painfully slow in moving a paper from "accepted" to actually published, especially those that, for whatever sentimental reason, still use pulped dead trees. HCA (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

According to your talk page it started in July, sorry I was figuring its end of year, sort of is for me so I over rounded. Faendalimas ^talk 02:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey this is off topic and I am not expecting it to contribute anything to this discussion, but Ranapipiens, be careful with peoples in press taxonomic works, there are people in this world who have heard about in press papers and have scooped them because they can self publish in a week. I know of several researchers who have had to pull papers because of that and there is nothing they can do. It is dangerous ground, and other editors involved in this issue have also heard of this happening and can attest to this too. With taxonomy, no one should know until it is published. Ok that is just good advice. Faendalimas ^talk 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I already agreed that I would not mention it again, and I did not reveal any information about their results or conclusions.Ranapipiens (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Agenda

Would participants be willing to set out an agenda of issues to be dealt with? Sunray (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions for the major discussion points:

1. What are the published reasons given as advantages and disadvanatages to using Rana versus Lithobates as the preferred genus for North American true frogs? (To focus on the published taxonomic reasons for each position)

2. Do recent publications on the systematics of the group support the use of Rana as the preferred genus? (To focus on the current publication record on the use of the names)

3. What is the best way to fairly represent both nomenclatural preferences from the current literature in WP? (To focus on a fair solution for the WP pages that reflects the current publication record)

Ranapipiens (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with setting out an agenda.

I think it must focus on Wikipedia, and the rules of Wikipedia with respect to the history of this case.

I think any agenda needs to be kept very simple and very focused on Wikipedia to have any chance of succeeding.

I think all parties should respond before we start setting out an exact agenda.

Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 22:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, as I've mentioned previously, this whole thing often veers way too close to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. What we can figure out from reading the literature isn't useful if it fails those rules and WP:V. HCA (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

So, taking the agenda suggestions proposed by Ranapipiens and the comments by Faendalimas and HCA, how about these modifications to the proposed agenda?

1. Summary of arguments for and against Rana versus Lithobates as genus.
2. Review of applicable sources with reference to WP policies (WP:RS, WP:VER, etc.)
3. Comparison with other examples of nomenclatural preferences in WP.

Are there other issues that we need to consider? Sunray (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

To me I guess among WP policies is the way these edits were done has lacked consultation, particularly with both other editors and the WikiProject:Amphibians and Reptiles. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 21:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The suggested agenda looks OK to me. I'm unclear which edits Faendalimas is referring to above, however. The pages in question originally had Rana as the genus (which I view as the current taxonomy), and I had spent quite a bit of time working on these pages to clean them up since 2008. Within the last year, they began to diverge through various edits, and by July, they used a confusing and inconsistent mix of names, both between pages and within pages. It is true that no one consulted with me about making those changes despite my history with the pages, but I don't think that is an issue we need to discuss or worry about. I started in late July to fix all the problems, and make them consistent again for name use. At that point, I was contacted on my talk page about the edits, and we began a discussion of the current taxonomy. I added a requested reference to one page after that discussion began, but I didn't make any further edits as we discussed the issue, and I haven't made any more since. That seems to be where we are now.Ranapipiens (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your first sentence was all that was needed here. I was referring to you consulting with the people who had been editing those pages up till July, who are all members of the Wikiproject:Reptiles and Amphibians, whom you did not consult with, a Project you have not been involved in. What one persons view is does not matter so much as the consensus view here on Wikipedia, within the WikiProject that has been editing it.Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 11:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The agenda looks fine to me. Micromesistius (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi please give me a couple of days I have an infection in my mouth, makes it a bit hard to concentrate etc. I am happy to catch up in a few days. So feel free to continue. Just thought i should let you all know. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 08:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know Faendalimas. Sunray (talk)

Thanks for your comments. It looks like we have an agenda that we can begin working on. Sunray (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of arguments for and against Rana versus Lithobates as genus

Would participants be willing to provide 200 words describing the arguments for and against? In this case I would like you to collaborate so that we will have a 200 word argument for each side. Sunray (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Rana

200 word abstract in favor of using Rana:

Rana (in the large sense) is clearly a monophyletic group, as supported by every published analysis. But, if the group is divided into Rana and Lithobates, or into three genera including Pseudorana, one or more groups are paraphyletic, thus creating problems where none existed. Systematists thus quickly rejected the proposed change. Major biogeographic, physiological, morphological, and behavioral differences are also not captured by the proposed split, so many workers prefer to use the traditional species groups or subgenera within Rana. Rana species have been widely used as model organisms, and many of the species have an extensive literature using the name Rana. Given no taxonomic problems with Rana, most biologists have retained that name (as summarized in two published studies). The most recent nomenclatural review, new species descriptions, the major online resource for amphibians, and the most recent textbook in herpetology all use Rana, so use of Rana follows WP:RS . In contrast, the online species list that retains Lithobates is authored by the person who proposed that change; it clearly does not represent WP:NPOV. The pages for Rana currently include references to both points of view, although the most widely published name (Rana) is used as a primary name.Ranapipiens (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Would you be able to explain why the species list that retains Lithobates doesn't represent a neutral point of view? Sunray (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to do so. Should I do that now, or wait for the 200 words from the opposing argument?Ranapipiens (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead, I've created a separate section for this discussion. Sunray (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, a NPOV “means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In contrast, the online list of amphibian species by Frost disproportionally promotes Frost’s own 2006 proposal (all references are listed earlier in this discussion), and either ignores or is clearly biased against other published views. Since Frost et al. published the proposal to recognize Lithobates as a genus in 2006, there have been numerous significant rejections of that proposal published by reliable sources, and the majority of biologists continue to use Rana as the preferred genus (as documented by Hillis, 2007, for the period up to 2007, and by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, for the period 2007-2014). There are also authors who have used Lithobates as a genus during that time, but they have been in the minority (based on the published analyses noted above). The WP pages in question currently follow the majority and current published opinion (e.g., they use Rana as the genus for Holarctic true frogs), but cite and note the alternative proposal by Frost, which seems to be a fair and proportional representation of both viewpoints as reflected in the published literature (thus representing a NPOV). I agree that both positions should be cited and included in this way. In addition, the traditional genus Rana should continue to be listed as the current genus for the group, since it is supported by the most recent published nomenclatural reviews of the group, represents the majority use in published literature, and is used in major neutral secondary sources.Ranapipiens (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I formally object to this. Ranapipiens is using this as a "backdoor" to promote his views on Rana by characterizing opposition references as violating NPOV. His claims on popularity will be addressed in our upcoming response, but are fatally flawed as shown in Frost et al 2009. Frost does indeed run ASW, and thus it favors his taxonomy. The only other expert-curated source, AmphibiaWeb, has taxonomy determined by Cannatella, a primary opponent of Frost on this matter and co-author of the Pauly et al 2009 paper, thus it rejects Frost as a source. Ranapipiens is attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings selectively excluding a reference opposed to him by characterizing it as COI (while ignoring his own favored website's COI on this issue) and falsely characterizing disagreement as violating NPOV. You cannot just claim that any source that disagrees with you is POV, thereby preventing your opponents from citing everything. To allow this dishonest trickery to occur would fatally corrupt these proceedings. Both major frog taxonomy sites are run by those with COI in this debate, which we need to keep in mind, but you cannot exclude one on this basis without excluding the other, leaving us with no worthwhile secondary sources (which I would be OK with, actually). HCA (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not merely noting that AmphibiaWeb uses Rana rather than Lithobates. As I noted, the most recent nomenclatural review of the group (Fouquette and Dubois, 2014) uses Rana as the preferred genus. The most recent herpetology text (Pough et al., 2015) explicitly discusses the issue, and uses Rana as the preferred genus. Recent species descriptions in the group (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2014) use Rana rather than Lithobates. None of those sets of authors were involved with any of the authors who proposed or initially rejected Lithobates as a genus. The only two published analyses that I know about that evaluate usage note that Rana is used for the respective species far more than is Lithobates. The National Center for Biotechnology Information taxonomic database uses Rana rather than Lithobates, and for many molecular biologists this is a far more important and relevant resource on taxonomy than is ASW. Several other sources (the SSAR common names list, ITIS) do use Lithobates, but each of those is tied directly to Frost, who is clearly promoting his own (2006) viewpoint to the exclusion of more recent published opinions: he is either the author (SSAR commmon names list), or the list is tied directly to his list for amphibians (ITIS). That clearly does NOT represent a proportional, unbiased, neutral viewpoint, which is all that I am saying. I still agree that Frost's views should be cited, but they clearly should not be the only (or even the primary) viewpoint represented, since they represent an outdated and minority view. And, it is clear that Frost's list does NOT represent a NPOV, since it promotes Frost's viewpoints, to the exclusion of other published literature. So please don't call my views "trickery": I am noting the genuine concerns that I have for exclusively using an online list of names that has a clear bias in favor of the author's own viewpoints, despite more recent published references that reject those views. I based all of my comments on the published record only, including the point about the relative usage of the two names; there is no original research or synthesis involved (to avoid any violation of [[WP:NOR]). I don't know how I can be any more straightforward about this. Ranapipiens (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

None of that makes ASW NPOV. Attempting to remove a source simply because it doesn't match your views is unethical and unacceptable. HCA (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have NEVER attempted to remove references to Frost's POV. I have repeatedly stated that his viewpoints SHOULD be cited and included on the relevant WP pages. I merely answered the question posed of me by the moderator as to why Frost's list of amphibian names does NOT represent a neutral point-of-view (which it clearly doesn't), which is why that list should not be used as the sole basis for the species names on WP. Instead, that viewpoint should be represented and cited proportionally, along with the more recent and widespread published views on the issue. That seems to be exactly what WP:NPOV recommends.Ranapipiens (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Horseshit. You said, and I quote, in your statement above that "In contrast, the online species list that retains Lithobates is authored by the person who proposed that change; it clearly does not represent WP:NPOV", in a deliberate attempt to discredit it with COI issues while hypocritically ignoring them for AmphibiaWeb. Your entire basis for the NPOV claim is 1) it's authored by Frost (for which the corresponding objection could be raised for AmphibiaWeb, which you cite without name by without caveats), 2) it doesn't match your selective view of the literature (which we will argue is incorrect and scientifically flawed), and 3) It doesn't follow your claimed consensus (which we will show is non-existent). You totally fail to consider that, rather than acting out of bias, ASW/Frost simply disagrees with you and with the other authors you cite; instead, you assume that disagreement is proof of bias. HCA (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's please keep this discussion civil, and focused on the facts. There is no point in making this a personal attack on me. I did say that Frost's list clearly does not fit the criteria for WP:NPOV, which I think is clear. I also argued that the majority of recent neutral sources use Rana rather than Lithobates. In addition, I agree that many frog systematists who have been involved in this debate ALSO use Rana rather than Lithobates. None of that detracts from my argument that the views should be represented fairly and proportionally. I have never tried to exclude Frost's viewpoints or references to his works; I have simply argued that they should not be the sole basis for the presentation on WP.Ranapipiens (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't clear at all, and your use of this WikiLawyering to "poison the well" against a reputable, multi-author source run by one of the best museums in the world is unwarranted, as is your constantly shifting goalposts - you did not argue "they should not be the sole basis for the presentation on WP", you argued that ASW was not NPOV while conveniently ignoring the same issues in your favored source. Oh, and I note that the only list you cite otherwise, the National Center for Biotechnology Information taxonomic database is run by Hillis, which means it's in violation of WP:COI on this issue if ASW is. I notice you didn't disclose that COI, or AmphibiaWeb's similar COI. You cannot "pick and choose" - either we're excluding lists/databases by the relevant author on both sides, or not at all. Either they're all violating COI/NPOV or none are. HCA (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First, it seems that Frost's ASW list is authored only by Frost, who is now retired from the American Museum of Natural History. In citations to his list, he is the sole author listed. Second, I did not do anything to "poison the well"; I directly answered a question that was posed to me by the moderator of this discussion about why I did not consider Frost's list to represent a neutral point-of-view. I even asked if he wanted me to wait to address this point until after you posted your 200 words about Lithobates, and he asked me to go ahead and post it. Third, I listed a number of other recent published sources besides AmphibiaWeb that use Rana, and did not indicate any "favorite" source. Fourth, the NCBI list was also not the only other source I listed; it was one of many. Fifth, I was unaware that Hillis ran the NCBI taxonomy database; what is your source for that? That does not appear to be consistent with what NCBI says on its website, and I don't see his name associated with it in any way. If that is correct, then it is certainly not something that is obvious from the NCBI site. I have consistently argued that the discussion on WP should be proportional to the recent publications on the taxonomy of this group, and that no views should be excluded. I have never tried to exclude any viewpoint; I have simply argued that showing ONLY an outdated minority viewpoint (using Lithobates as the genus, as promoted by Frost) is inappropriate and does not follow WP standards.Ranapipiens (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/taxonomyhome.html/index.cgi?chapter=advisors HCA (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting...that link shows a very large number of taxonomic "advisors" to the NCBI database. Hillis is listed as an advisor for chordate taxonomy. The advisor listed for amphibians and fish is IJ Harrison, of the American Museum of Natural History. None of these many advisors seem to "run" the NCBI database, though: it seems to be a broad cross-section of taxonomic experts from a very large number of institutions who provide input to NCBI when asked.Ranapipiens (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Amphibians are Chordates aren't they. But besides you all have to accept here that Herpetology is a small field, seriously it is, when it comes to real taxonomists who specialize in Herpetology, we all know each other. We all have input into everything in one way or another. You are not going to get any site that is completely void of this. AmphibiaWeb should not do taxonomy, they are good at natural history but they do not understand taxonomy and nomenclature. ASW at least does. As an encyclopedia we should not be interpreting primary literature in any case. Now the worst thing in all this, you want people to stay civil, you destroyed their work, when you were asked to revert it you have spent 3 months not only wiki-lawering but filibustering. To prevent anything but your own view. You cling to minority beliefs that almost no amphibian biologist wants to see, and claim its the majority. In the end you are basing your entire summation on one book, and the sad part is on that, Allain Dubois agrees with Frost, is just conservative. Currently the amphibian biologists in general consider and only go to the French Wikipedia, they spent 8 years getting the amphibian taxonomy right, more than any other wiki, this is followed by Wikidata, and as such will be followed by most of the different language wikis. My view is the edits that put Lithobates into Rana should be reverted until such time as there is a genuine cause to address this and not the opinion of one person. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 21:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just don't understand almost any of the statement above. I have cited numerous published works, and have argued that all views published in reliable sources should be represented on the respective pages, which is simply a core WP policy. I cited WP policy because it is explicitly listed as part of our agreed-upon agenda above, and because I was explicitly asked to comment on this point by the moderator of this discussion. I have cited both primary as well as multiple secondary references from the recent published literature to support each of my points. My arguments are not based on "one person's opinion"; they explicitly follow and are supported by recent cited literature, including primary papers, textbooks, secondary nomenclatural reviews, and taxonomic websites. I think it is inappropriate to judge sites like AmphibiaWeb and say that they are "good at natural history but they do not understand taxonomy and nomenclature." That is an inappropriate editorial statement, and indicates a strong bias against a highly respected and reliable site for amphibians. Nor are negative statements about the NCBI taxonomy site appropriate; the National Center for Biotechnology Information consults with large numbers of expert taxonomists to come up with their consensus taxonomy (as listed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/taxonomyhome.html/index.cgi?chapter=advisors). Since the question was raised about Hillis' involvement in NCBI, I contacted him and simply asked him what was his involvement in NCBI. He said "In the early 1990s, I suggested the major categories of chordates for the NCBI taxonomy, and sorted the sequences that were then in the database into those categories. I haven't done any work for them since, although I get questions from them from time to time about new submissions and how they should be classified, as do most systematists." So his involvement was about a decade and half before the first suggested use of Lithobates as a genus, and it is clearly completely false to say that "he runs the database" or even has a major input into it. You present no evidence for your statement that I "cling to minority beliefs that almost no amphibian biologist wants to see." On the contrary, the numerous references, textbooks, databases, and recent nomenclatural reviews I cited show that statement is clearly false, as there are many amphibian biologists who continue to prefer Rana. It doesn't make any sense to say that "Dubois agrees with Frost" when the most recent review by Dubois on the subject (Fouquette and Dubois, 2014) explicitly discusses the issue, and then chooses to use Rana rather than Lithobates as the genus for these frogs, based largely on the fact that Rana continues to be used by the majority of biologists (that was their published assessment, not my opinion). So, please...let's stick to the facts, stick to the published record, and let's work together to find an appropriate solution that follows WP policy, and represents all the significant viewpoints from reliable published sources fairly and proportionally. That is a core WP policy...not "wiki-lawyering".Ranapipiens (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not mention NCBI, and I did not care that Hillis was involved in it, or that Frost is involved in MacDaimards work on ITIS my point was that with so few herpetologists in the world that is inevitable and has to be lived with, by both sides of this argument. So once again you missed the point and went off on a tangent, I was trying to point out that all this neutrality you are insisting on outside of WP is impossible to achieve so you both may as well drop it. What matters is that we editors in this debate are neutral. Also with consensus I am talking about consensus on WP only the editors here, and in that you are the only person who wants to sink Lithobates. What I said about Amphibiaweb was my opinion as a professional taxonomist and paleontologist, I acknowledged that, take it for what you wish. As for Allain, I asked him for one, but further you just have to look at what he has written over the years. He considers Hillis' outcome paraphyletic and unsupportable, taxonomically, the nomenclatural different is just a personal decision of where to apply the ranks. As for your minority view, well I have been asking around, getting an idea of what professional amphibian biologists all over the world would like to see. There are factions over this issue in amphibian biology, it has caused a major split within the amphibian world. From the responses I have received it would seem that the only ones that want Rana are in someway linked back to Hillis, or dont know what to do so are following what they know, wrong or right, then there is a big group, not all linked to Frost, who want to see it split. Their biggest argument for recognising it (apart from the taxonomic issue) is that it makes zoogeographic sense. This has major flow on effects through out biology, ecology, management etc. So yes based on the views of amphibian biologists worldwide, your view is a minority. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 11:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That is your personal view based on who you happen to know, which differs markedly from my experiences in the world of amphibian biology. In contrast, I've cited published papers to support everything I've said, and argued that we should follow core WP policy, rather than a particular personal preference.Ranapipiens (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

One thing I said was personal view, which I acknowledged. The rest was based on what people in major organisations from around the world told me when I asked their view on this situation so I could become fully appraised of it. Also I really do not see you following the policies, what I see is cherry-picking, interpretation of primary lit, usage of unverifiable lit, extension of WP policies that are for editors outside WP, and this is for your personal opinion, I have seen no other editor agree with you here. It is holding the English Wikipedia back from catching up to the rest. Why, because you think everyone is wrong and your so adamant about it that everything here is frozen, and that reeks of COI. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 03:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We're getting diverted from the particular point, which is that the POV allegation should be stripped from the Rana statement. It is based on nothing more than that ASW has COI (as do other sources which RP has argued are acceptable) and that it doesn't agree with his views. The inarguable conclusion is that there is no more basis for the claim to exclude ASW than any other source on NPOV grounds. Just because a source disagrees with you doesn't make it POV, and you cannot support a POV arguement with the very claims that you are supposedly using sources to support. Otherwise, creationist editors could exclude any site written by an evolutionary biologist as POV, because the author has COI and it doesn't agree with a widely-believed view. See how silly this all is? HCA (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing, and I have never argued, that ASW should be excluded or not cited. I clearly stated that it SHOULD be cited, along with other views. I simply noted that it has an obvious COI, and therefore it should NOT simply be adopted as the "standard" taxonomy. Rather, the NPOV of WP requires proportional representation of published, reliable views. That includes citing Frost's viewpoint, but it also includes all the many major references that disagree with Frost.Ranapipiens (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if you believe that whats wrong with citing both sides as you say, but keeping the relevant species under Lithobates until there is a clear reason to change it. Thus following the most comprehensive wikis and keeping the WP in different languages and also Wikidata in agreement with each other? Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 03:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's consider which genus is the status quo. It is easy to assess which name is used more frequently in scientific publications by searching for the respective names on Google Scholar. If we compare the use of “Rana pipiens” to “Lithobates pipiens”, for example, Google Scholar finds 52,100 scientific publications that use “Rana pipiens”, compared to 792 publications that use “Lithobates pipiens”. In other words, 98.5% of the scientific literature of this species uses Rana as the preferred genus. Of course, one could argue that the appropriate comparison is only the literature since 2006, when Lithobates was first suggested as a genus. It is easy to restrict Google Scholar searches to publications within specified date ranges. From 2006 to the present, Google Scholar finds 9,630 papers that use “Rana pipiens”, but only 719 papers that use “Lithobates pipiens”. So, since the proposal to use Lithobates as a genus, 93% of authors have rejected that proposal, and have retained Rana as the appropriate genus. One might argue that adoption of a new genus takes time; therefore, we can restrict the search to the past year, almost a full decade after the proposal to use Lithobates as a genus. From 2014-2015, Google Scholar finds 1,570 papers that use “Rana pipiens”, and only 251 papers that use “Lithobates pipiens”. In other words, in the past year alone, there have been more than twice as many papers that used “Rana pipiens” as have EVER used “Lithobates pipiens” (even though a decade has passed since it was proposed, and rejected by many authors). If we consider a broader usage, and not just scientific publications, we could repeat the search using Google rather than Google Scholar. This produces very similar results, but obviously finds many more sites than there are scientific publications: there are 240,000 sites found for “Rana pipiens”, compared to 24,000 sites found for “Lithobates pipiens”. No matter which of these searches is preferred, the answer is the same: Rana is used overwhelmingly more often than Lithobates as the preferred genus name for this species. This finding is true not just for this one species; the same trend holds other species that are affected by the change. So, I agree with the solution proposed earlier by the ICZN Commissioner: retain Rana as the genus, as the vast majority of authors currently do, but cite the minority opinion of Frost, which has been followed by about 7% of authors in the scientific literature since it was proposed.Ranapipiens (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

However, brute-force search results are meaningless in this case, because it's a model species, thus frequently used by people who don't know (and, unfortunately, don't care) about taxonomy. Seriously, we've all heard stories of the gel-jockeys who've published 5+ papers on a species and then, upon seeing one in person, say, "Oh, that's what it looks like!". Look up "Drosophila melanogaster" vs. "Sophophora melanogaster", the latter being the closest we have to a correct name (neither genus is monophyletic). Hell, consider "Herpetology" - we're an entire field named after a paraphyletic grouping. Or "dinosaur" in the traditional, non-monophyletic sense. That said, if you take a closer look at the search data, you see a rapid rise in the use of Lithobates, from almost nothing to hundreds of citations per year. But even that shouldn't be trusted - how many are actually evaluating the data versus just picking a database and using that name? I'll own up and say that in this debate I've give literally 100,000x more thought to this taxonomy than any scientific name I've ever used in any paper I've published. In my only invertebrate paper, my total taxonomic consideration was "This is what it says in the guidebook". Raw usage is a terrible, terrible metric. HCA (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to look at usage, we could look at most recent taxonomic revisions by experts in the group (which use Rana). In this case, as noted earlier, no one is claiming that Rana (as used currently) is not monophyletic. The evidence that it IS monophyletic is very strong. Some people just wish to break the monophyletic genus Rana up into smaller genera, each of which of which has been argued to be paraphyletic by someone. That just creates problems where none existed. That is why at least 93% of authors have rejected the use of Lithobates. I say "at least" because the number of papers that use Lithobates includes many that just use it as a junior synonym, and actually prefer Rana. In contrast, even if we subtracted all the papers that include a mention of Lithobates from those that use Rana, the number that use Rana exclusively is overwhelmingly larger. As for Rana pipiens being a model organism: that is true, but the ratio of papers that use Rana rather than Lithobates is similar for all the other species I've checked, including non-model organisms. For example, if we compare scientific papers that use "Rana sylvatica" versus "Lithobates sylvaticus" from 2006-2015, there are 5,180 papers that use "Rana sylvatica" and only 832 that use "Lithobates sylvaticus". We could tally all the relevant species, but the trend will be the same: many, many more scientists use Rana than use Lithobates for the relevant species in their publications. It is pretty overwhelming. Given that the most recent systematic reviews of the group, and the latest textbook in herpetlogy, also explicitly recommend using Rana over Lithobates, the usage of Rana will undoubtedly continue to dominate and likely increase. So, I can't see much of an argument for favoring 7% of the scientific literature over 93% of the literature, especially when the 93% solution (Rana) is clearly monophyletic and the 7% solution (Lithobates) is questionably even a clade, and the most recent taxonomic reviews reject Lithobates as a genus in any case.Ranapipiens (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Bulk searches are useless. Ask a truly random sample of people why they used the name they did, about I'll wager 90%+ will give answers like "That's what's in the guide book" or "That's what we called it when we last published a study on these animals in 1996". You severely over-estimate how much actual consideration goes into name use in non-taxonomic literature. Cite taxonomic and herpetological literature, but bulk Google Scholar searches are meaningless. HCA (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we clearly disagree on that point. I'd say that the use of the name by scientists who study the species in the scientific literature is highly relevant. According to WP:NPOV, a NPOV “means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I don't know how to look at proportional usage in reliable sources except to look at usage by scientists who study the relevant species. Since the majority usage also follows the expert opinions of the most recent systematic reviews of the group, it seems to me that all the signs point to the same solution. I have cited the taxonomic and herpetological literature as well, which supports the majority usage of Rana as the appropriate genus.Ranapipiens (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks for not answering my question. So basically it does not matter to you that WP is viewed skeptically when they have different nomenclatures around the world. That the WP that has invested the most time into this issue (French, 8 years work by a team) does not agree with you and will not. That the Europeans want this genus split up and refuse to include these species in Rana. That the generalized direction in vertebrate taxonomy is to reduce the size of genera so that they are more useful and manageable units, that provide information beyond phylogeny. I will also add that people who study species (unless its their taxonomy) often do not know what to call it. I have written many reviews of the taxonomy of turtles all published in high rate journals and people still fail to realize a species has had its name changed and publish major research in top journals with the wrong names on them. It is completely true many of these researchers grab whatever book they have at hand, its usually at least 10 years old and go with that name. I have been watching that happen for 20 years. The only way you could get an idea of what is the correct name based on publications is if you limit it to museum qualified taxonomists. They are generally the only ones who get the taxonomy of a group right. Lastly WP:NPOV is referring to what you and me and the editors here in WP do, Frost, Crother, MacDaimard, Hillis, Canatella, etc are not governed by it. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 20:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of unsupported assertions in that last statement, but I'll try to deal with each of them. First, the group in question (the relevant species of Rana) does not even occur in Europe, and so there have been very few European biologists who have weighed in on this. Almost none of the literature of relevant species is in French, and I only know of a single French biologist (Dubois) who has written on the systematics of the group. In that single case, in his latest nomenclatural review of the group (Fouquette and Dubois, 2014), he also preferred to use Rana as the appropriate genus for the group, and treated Lithobates as a subgenus. Since this is an American group of frogs, and most of the literature on the species is in English, and almost all the systematists who work on the group publish in English, I don't think that French Wikipedia is very relevant. I think they should (and eventually will) use Rana as well, but since I don't speak French and don't publish in French, I'm not going to get involved in trying to fix French Wikipedia...I'll leave that to native French speakers. As for the "correct" name for these frogs: In this case, there is no compelling reason for a change in the generic name, and indeed, many compelling reasons against a change. Frost suggested a change a decade ago, but many other experts have rejected that change since, and the vast majority of scientists who worked and published on the relevant species over the past decade have agreed that no change was warranted. Just because someone suggests a change does not make it happen, especially when there is no compelling reason for a change (e.g., monophyly). There are no ICZN rules that require a change in this case, and not even any hint of a problem with the monophyly of the group currently called Rana. In contrast, the smaller groups that Frost prefers to call genera have each been suggested to be paraphyletic. Moreover, the major diversity within Rana is not even captured by the genera that Frost would recognize. Instead, the traditional species groups or subgenera of Rana, such as leopard frogs (subgenus Pantherana Dubois), neotropical true frogs (subgenus Lithobates Fitzinger), torrent frogs (subgenus Zweifelia Dubois), and water frogs (subgenus Aquarana Dubois) are actually much more useful and manageable units than the genera recognized by Frost. I don't think it is appropriate to disparage or ignore any discipline within biology, or assume that WP is for an elite minority. I object to HCA using derogatory terms like "gel jock" to disparage biologists who use Rana pipiens as a model organism. This species is used as a model organism mostly by vertebrate physiologists, and I know of no evidence that vertebrate physiologists are any less serious or careful about their choice of names for taxa than are herpetologists in other fields (ecology, behavior, functional morphology, etc.). Since neither genus name is incorrect under ICZN rules, the main thing that matters in the end is preference, and that comes down to usage in the scientific literature, which is clearly overwhelmingly in favor of Rana over Lithobates (see above). Finally, we are discussing what to do with the WP pages, which is how and why I was referring to the core WP principles that are discussed in WP: NPOV. Obviously, those principles do not govern anyone outside of WP.Ranapipiens (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"First, the group in question (the relevant species of Rana) does not even occur in Europe, and so there have been very few European biologists who have weighed in on this. " You do realize that the genus name "Rana" is attached to the European common frog, Rana temporaria, right? And therefore any discussion of, or analysis of Rana that doesn't include that species is worthless, right? Even if all North American Ranids are a monophyletic clade, if they aren't monophyletic with Rana temporaria, they need to be called something else, period, end of story. That's how taxonomy works.

Obviously, species of the genus Rana occur in Europe. But no one is debating what genus those frogs belong in. I clearly said "the relevant species of Rana", meaning "the species of Rana that we are debating." Namely, the species of Rana that Frost wanted to split out into Lithobates. None of those species occur in Europe. The American species are clearly monophyletic with the Eurasian species of Rana, and no one has said otherwise. Therefore, they should all be retained in the monophyletic genus Rana, which occurs in Eurasia as well as in the Americas. Even under Frost's division, his Rana is not limited to Eurasia.Ranapipiens (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As for my comments on other fields, that wasn't disparagement, that was personal experience. I am a physiologist and functional morphologist. I've worked on Lithobates pipiens, along with a variety of other species. And I can tell you, definitively, that within that community, nobody spends two weeks reading taxonomy papers trying to figure out which is the right name (see again Drosophila's continued useage) because it's ancillary to the central point of the paper. I know I sure didn't invest this level of effort in deciding its name in any of the 3 papers I've published in top-tier journals on these frogs, nor have I ever gotten any mention of taxonomy in any peer-review I've ever gotten. We look it up on the vendor list, the guidebook, a textbook, or a database, and we use that name, and if there's a conflict, we often adopt a wait-and-see approach. Remember, taxonomic names are just tools for communication, and we use them as such. I also used a muscle-motor extensively, but, while I'm aware that there is a deep and rich literature on the subject, I don't know nor can I mathematically describe the electronic control algorithm the motor uses - I know I bought a tool from the top manufacturer and that the controls worked sufficiently well that any errors were imperceptible, so my tool worked. Nobody claims that either taxonomy or controls theory is unimportant, but it's naive to expect people working fairly far outside those areas to be investing huge amounts of time in either unless the finer points are absolutely crucial, which they rarely are. HCA (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I see it as clearly disparaging to use a derogatory term to describe a group of biologists, and then imply that people who publish in herpetology journals understand taxonomy, whereas others do not. I understand that there are many people who publish in all kinds of journals who have little understanding of taxonomy. There are also people in every field of biology who DO understand taxonomy, and work to get it right. So, it is inappropriate and prejudiced to assume that any particular field of biologists are more appropriate to judge the name of species, with the exception of the systematic specialists who study the group. In this case, the systematic specialists who study Rana have clearly favored the retention of the genus name Rana. That is also the position followed by the vast majority of other biologists who study these species, suggesting that those people ARE paying attention to the specialists.Ranapipiens (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I have not used it here but the term gel jocky has been used alot for molecular biologists, there are nicknames (sometimes derogatory) for other fields too. I agree that there are biologists in every field that make a concerted effort to stay abreast of the current names for taxa, however understanding taxonomy I think they generally do not, my point was that alot don't, and there reason is it's not usually that necessary. So although I understand the offence taken by Ranapipiens on the use of the term the real world situation is that outside of specialist taxonomists many have never been taught taxonomy, and certainly not taught nomenclature. You need to be accepting Ranapipiens that standing for what will be seen as an Amero-centric view on this situation is going to be seen as quite offensive. The reason I know Alain Duboit is not because of his work on frogs, any more than I am sure its not my work on turtles he knows me for. We both work on conceptual systematics, and in particular we are both interested in the concept of the genus. So we have each read each others work on this area quite extensively. The concept of a genus as being only defined by monophyly has lost favour, because basically I could stick every species of frog in the world in one genus, as long as I sank all the families into one family (Ranidae I am guessing is the oldest though under the code higher orders are not subject to this) and put them under Anura. It would be monophyletic but I would not do it, why? Because it is too great a loss of information beyond phylogeny. So a genus is defined not only by monophyly (objective) but by the intrinsic information conveyed by the recognition of the clades within the phylogeny (subjective). In other words it is possible to both over-lump or over-split taxa and neither is a desirable course of action and has unfortunate outcomes. Sticking everything here into a mega-genus that is cosmopolitan is over-lumping and a net loss of biodiversity information. That the nomenclature of Frost is not entirely monophyletic is also not an issue, these things happen, so people fix it. In the mean time we accept it until a different accepted through usage proposal comes along. The primary lit you have cited have argued against Frost without presenting an alternative proposal that has since been accepted. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, those papers have presented an alternative proposal: retention of the genus Rana, and recognition of several subgenera for the major groups within Rana to account for the major biological divergences within the group. And, that usage has been adopted by over 90% of the scientists who publish on the affected species, as noted above. And, unlike the taxa proposed by Frost et al., the monophyly of both Rana and its contained subgenera are strongly supported by all data sets, including mtDNA, nuclear genes, and morphology.(Ranapipiens (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You really do not get the hole in your argument do you. So basically you have decided and everyone else must follow? I do not see any point with which I could agree, nor any value in it, they should all be in Rana, I cannot see that this is the accepted view internationally, nor the accepted view across multiple Wikimedia sites. Hence I still recommend a reversion of these taxa to Lithobates as they were in July. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 03:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've made it clear that the position that I support is the one that is supported by the experts who study the group (as reported in the most recent taxonomic revisions, cited above), as well as by the vast majority of scientists who study the affected species (as supported by references and analyses noted above). If >90% of biologists who publish on these species disagreed with my position rather than agreed with it, then I would accept the majority view as the appropriate one for WP. However, I happen to agree with >90% of biologists who reject Lithobates as a genus, and use Rana instead, and I think that majority position clearly should be reflected in WP.Ranapipiens (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sunray: just wondering is this worth it? This editor clearly is not interested in consensus unless it means multiple editors agree with him, the other way around is not up for consideration by what he has written. He also clearly has a COI issue here which is not acknowledged, eg he calls Hillis up when asked about him for additional information. Yes I also asked around about this issue but I acknowledged that and offered the responses to all. There is also a lot of cherry picking going on and sleight of hand argumentative tactics. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 03:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not cherry-picked anything. I have provided references and support for every statement I've made, and quickly and honestly answered every query made of me. In contrast, the side that supports recognition of Lithobates has not even yet presented the requested 200 words in support of their position, despite writing far more than that in this discussion. I am interested in following WP policy: presenting all viewpoints from reliable sources, in proportion to their representation in the biological community. I contacted Hillis because a claim was made about him that I thought to be false, and thought it simplest to simply check the facts, as anyone could have done. He was very responsive, as I suspect he would be to anyone. I think any reading of this discussion would make it clear that I have done everything in my power to keep the discussion civil, straightforward, and on track.Ranapipiens (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Faendalimas asks if it is worth it. Right now I don't know. I made a simple request for brevity and immediately I get walls of text. Sorry, I will not read that. If we get two 200 word summaries, we can begin. Then it will be possible to see if we can have a mediated discussion. Sunray (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sunray:Please let me know when and how you would like me to reply to the Lithobates statement below. It is factually incorrect on several different points, but I will wait for your instructions before responding.Ranapipiens (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you be able to comment in a concise manner? Then we can begin to have a discussion and I will be happy to facilitate that. Sunray (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sunray: Well the reason I asked is because this is seeming more and more like its coming under WP:STONEWALL and I am wondering if cooperation is possible. One editor is pushing a proposal that has been rejected by the other editors. I apologize for the wall of text, these novels are infuriating, its easy to get caught in them. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 02:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's how the policy says consensus is to be determined: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."[1] There will be no opportunity for stonewalling. Sunray (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sunray:May I suggest that each side briefly outline a proposed solution for editing Rana (genus) that neutrally and proportionally represents all published views from reliable sources, in accordance with WP:NPOV? Then, the individual species pages can cite references in support of each name. I think it will help to move to solutions, rather than focusing of differences of opinion about the best or current taxonomy.Ranapipiens (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be a possibility. What do other participants think? Sunray (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Its a possibility, however, I have some issues with this that I have not expressed. I have not done so for several reasons partly because I am not directly involved in the editing of these pages as is the case for two other users not here who also had issues with the edits in July, I became involved in an effort to resolve the issue, clearly I was not successful. Also partly because of my involvement across wikis where this issue is causing complications. Lastly because of my own viewpoint on this is more global. Although I work on turtles I do so from an international perspective so I see many parallels in the issues being confronted here. If people would like I would be happy to explain all that in more detail, but unless its wanted I will keep those points to myself. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 01:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)]

Lithobates

Would those of you who espouse Lithobates as genus be able to provide your rationale in a brief summary statement? Sunray (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We're working on it, but various real-life factors are slowing all of us down below our usual rate of progress. HCA (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the joint statement by User:Faendalimas, User:HCA, and Micromesistius (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Lithobates, as defined by Frost et al. in 2006, is a widely recognized monophyletic genus of about 50 New World frogs. Including these species in Rana would render it paraphyletic, as shown by Che et al. (2007) and Pyron & Wiens (2011) and discussed in Frost et al. (2009). This definition of Lithobates is widely accepted, including the “Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico” (Crother et al. 2011), endorsed by six academic societies, and the IUCN, which uses the Amphibian Species of the World (Frost/American Museum of Natural History) as its primary source of taxonomy. Sources not recognizing Lithobates are split over their position, with AmphibiaWeb (“the major online resource for amphibians” of User:Ranapipiens, and also a non-neutral source through one of its leaders, David Cannatella, whose position Ranapipiens advocates) and Fouquette and Dubois (2014, ”the most recent nomenclatural review” of Ranapipiens) advocating different definitions of subgenus Lithobates. Thus both claims by Ranapipiens, that using Lithobates is technically wrong and that systematists have rejected Lithobates, are wrong. The adoption of Lithobates was initially slow to happen, but this reflects inertia characteristic for changes that affect much-studied, common species.

Discussion

Issue 1: The statement confuses three different concepts of the genus Rana, only two of which are under debate here:

A. Frost et al. (2006) proposed splitting Rana into what they considered two sister groups: Rana and Lithobates. Several authors have questioned the monophyly of one or the other of these two groups.

B. Hillis and Wilcox (2005), Pauly et al. (2009), Fouquette and Dubois (2014), and AmphibiaWeb (2015) combine the two groups in A in one monophyletic group Rana. All studies, including Frost et al. (2006), Che et al. (2007), and Pyron and Wiens (2011) support the monophyly of this group. This is how the WP page on Rana (genus) is currently organized.

C. Pyron and Wiens (2011) used an even larger concept of Rana, including species now placed in the genera Odorana and Hylarana by all sources. This group was paraphyletic, and no sources currently advocate for this view, so it is irrelevant to the discussion. Ranapipiens (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue 2: Current usage

Searching in Google Scholar on the relevant names shows that the vast majority of biologists who publish on these species use Rana rather than Lithobates. 93% of the papers on Rana pipiens have preferred the name Rana since 2006 (there are 9,630 papers that use “Rana pipiens”, but only 719 papers that use “Lithobates pipiens”, the latter often just noting it as a synonym). In the past year, more than twice as many authors have used the name Rana pipiens as have used Lithobates pipiens in the full decade since Frost et al. (2006). The list by Crother et al. (2011) is endorsed by societies only for common name use; the scientific names are only the opinions of the authors, and have no official standing. The frog list within Crother et al. is chaired by Frost, who promotes his own views over other publications. The 2011 list does not follow majority usage or the recent literature on these species.Ranapipiens (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Hillis and Wilcox is not strictly binomial, which even they acknowledge by listing multiple hierarchical clades as subgenera, ie they attempted to name all the Phylocode clades and make it fit with the ICZN rules and recognised that these clades were subgenera. It does not follow Article 6. Since it is not completely binomial the work cannot be used for the purposes of nomenclature. Pauly et al. includes Canetella as an author who is responsible for AmphibiaWeb, hence I imagine he also is pushing his view. Not that I think that matters as I have tried to get through to you, which seems impossible, there are only a dozen or so taxonomists in the world doing this so they all end up working on these online sites in one way or another. Your view of Crother could be said of any book could it not, since books are in general a review of and the opinion of the authors? So that could go for Fouquette and Dubois also, by the way nowhere in Crother (2012) does it state this is for common names only and therefore (it follows) the societies have endorsed it for both common and scientific names. People have already argued against the way you formulate your numbers and its highly biased and statistically nonviable. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 14:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I know of no publication or analysis that supports the view that a simple, unbiased count of usage of terms in the scientific literature (based on a Google Scholar search) is in any way "biased and statistically nonviable". It is a standard, straightforward bioinformatics approach to look at current usage of terms. Your statements about Hillis and Wilcox (2005) are dismissive, inaccurate, and inappropriate...they are respected authors who published in a respected, mainstream journal, and their views are as valid and relevant under ICZN rules as any other author's. It is a completely irrelevant point in any case since many other authors follow the same formulation for the genus Rana suggested by Hillis and Wilcox (2005). As for the Crother et al. common names list: Authors who publish in the respective society journals are required to follow the common names in Crother et al. (2011), but they are free to use whatever scientific names they think are most appropriate.Ranapipiens (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not disrespecting them, in fact I give them credit for pointing out that issue themselves in their own paper "Therefore, all of the clade names within Rana that are defined in Appendix B are subgenera under ICZN rules, even though the clades are nested hierarchically within one another." Because they are nested you end up with multiple subgenera. Hence non binomial. I really do have the greatest of respect for them. I am a scientist I can disagree with someone without disrespecting them, it goes with the territory. Why do you keep talking about Crother et al 2011? I am talking about Crother 2012. People are always free to use whatever names they want, the code is not mandatory, we follow it because we agree to. But its issues like this, and others that are making less people want to. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 16:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the subgenera under discussion include any of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox (2005), so that issue is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. The subgenera in question were proposed by Dubois (1992). I cited Crother et al. 2011 because that is what is cited above in the Lithobates statement.Ranapipiens (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely aware of a "publication or analysis that supports the view that a simple, unbiased count of usage of terms in the scientific literature (based on a Google Scholar search) is in any way 'biased and statistically nonviable'". Frost et al 2009, which has been cited here MANY times includes a extensive discussion of the flaws of this method when it was used by Pauly et al 2009. However, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge or engage in any way with that paper, consistently shut down discussions of it and refuse to answer the valid concerns it raises, usually on silly or baseless grounds. Stop pretending Frost et al 2009 doesn't exist. You swept it under the rug during the initial discussion, you refused to address its concerns on numerous occasions based on the flimsiest of pretexts, and now you're flat-out mis-representing the state of the literature by once again pretending it does not exist. Your behavior with regards to with this paper have rankled me from the beginning, and come across as evasive and disingenuous at best, and I'm sick of it. HCA (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Frost et al. (2009) did NOT object to a search of usage of names from particular years of scientific literature on Google Scholar. They objected to an unconstrained search of Google (web sites, NOT scientific papers), which is an unrelated issue to what I reported. Those are two completely different kinds of searches, which just happen to be hosted by the same company. What I said was true: I know of no publication or analysis that argues that a search of terms on Google Scholar is in any way an inappropriate way to assess usage of the search terms in the scientific literature. It is a standard bioinformatics tool to assess usage.Ranapipiens (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Then bioinformatics needs better methods; a child could figure out what's wrong with this methodology. But even if we ignore the numerous glaring faults, given your hypotheses, how can you explain that the use of Lithobates increases continuously and rapidly, at levels far beyond the output of a few labs? HCA (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

In the past year (2014-2015), 1,570 scientific papers used “Rana pipiens”, and only 251 papers used “Lithobates pipiens”, including ones that simply listed it as a synonym. I think that says something about current usage of the respective names. But, I agree that the use of Lithobates is high enough that we should cite the alternative names and associated references and explain the different usage on the relevant pages in WP. I would like to suggest that we move to discussing solutions that represent all current views appropriately and fairly, and simply accept that you and I will and many other people will continue to use different names for now.Ranapipiens (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The google scholar information is not of any value, since most of the papers coming out of it are medical and of little bearing on the nomenclatural status of the species. I tried alot of constraints to exclude the irrelevant papers and eventually they came out about even, but by then I feel I had over constrained the search and from a statistical point of view that's non viable. As for moving to solutions, well we have an agenda we shall just have to work through it. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 00:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Google Scholar analysis for the time period 2014–2015 is technically flawed: by default, GS matches the search term in the whole article, including the reference list. This means that simple GS search does not reveal the current usage of a term, but is contaminated by its past usage. You can force GS to look at the title only, which gives 13 matches (!) for both Rana pipiens and Lithobates pipiens. For Rana sylvatica and Lithobates sylvatic(us/a), the corresponding counts are 19 and 24, and for Rana catesbeiana and Lithobates catesbeian(us/a) 34 and 45. The results for the corresponding title searches in the Web of Science give 8 and 6 for pipiens, 12 and 12 for sylvatic*, 16 and 26 catesbeian*. I have tried to adjust these for names written as Rana (Lithobates) sylvatica etc.; the raw data give slightly higher counts for Lithobates. In any case, both sources show that Lithobates dominates the current usage for these much studied species, albeit with a relatively small margin. Other caveats of this kind of analysis remain. Micromesistius (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But, if "Lithobates pipiens" is used ANYWHERE in the article, whether as a reference or synonym or whatever, you agree that it would come up, correct? That means that there were a MAXIMUM of 251 scientific papers that used "Lithobates pipiens" in ANY sense last year, whereas there were 1,570 scientific papers used “Rana pipiens” in ANY sense last year. If we assume that every one of the 251 papers that used "Lithobates pipiens" preferred that name but also had "Rana pipiens" listed somewhere, and subtract all 251 papers from the 1,570 papers that used "Rana pipiens", then we are left with 1,319 papers that ONLY used "Rana pipiens", and never once even mentioned "Lithobates pipiens" or cited a paper with that name in the title. I think it is irrelevant that this includes all scientific literature on the species, as WP is for everyone. HOWEVER, that said, even if we use your analysis, we would have to conclude that both names are widely used, and that we need the pages to reflect that fact. I am willing to commit to be sure that the "Lithobates" point of view is clearly and fairly explained, represented, and referenced on the relevant pages. Can you make the same commitment for the "Rana" point of view? If so, then we can stop arguing about our own preferences (where we have an honest disagreement, as does the rest of the biological world, by either of our analyses), and simply and fairy represent both viewpoints on the relevant pages. This would not be hard. For the Rana (genus) page, we can show both alternative classifications very simply: We simply describe the two systems and provide appropriate references to each, and then list all the species that are included in one or the other or both systems, and then add a symbol to show how they are classified under each system. We can note that both systems are correct under ICZN rules, and note the major reasons given in the published literature for preferring each system. Then, under each species name, we can list both species, with appropriate references for each name, as is now done by someone else on the page for Northern Leopard Frog. On the Lithobates page, we can note that it is used as a genus (with reference to the Rana (genus) page), as well as being used by other authors as a subgenus, in two different ways (which we can explain in the same way as for Rana). This seems like a simple solution that follows WP:NPOV and other major WP policies, and represents all the major classifications that are currently used. If, at some point in the future, everyone who publishes on these species agrees that one system is better, then we can edit the pages to reflect that fact. But, we clearly are not at that point yet.Ranapipiens (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with both situations being explained, they should be of course. It is easier for the lay person to understand though if it is hierarchically set out as a genus with an explanation it is used by some as a sub-genus than the other way around. It would also be in agreement then with other online and very important sources such as the IUCN Redlist and ITIS, and other wikis which looks more professional for WP. Would you be willing to agree to that? Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 17:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I know what you mean by "it" above. Do you mean the Lithobates page? We may need to look at example layouts in the Sandbox to understand, but as long as the different ways Lithobates is used by different authors is explained and clear, it should be fine.Ranapipiens (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that was not clear. I meant to set it out so that hierarchically from Ranidae it goes down Lithobates as a genus (Rana also of course) but explain that some authors use it as a subgenus of Rana, why, how, and with refs. From a logistic point of view this could mean the explanation could be done on less pages if desired. It also makes easier sense to those not as familiar with taxonomy to see Family --> genera --> species. Then the more detailed differences can be explained where relevant. We aim at the general public not the specialist. So we do have to keep this easily understandable. Like you said once, or if, an obvious consensus on this is reached in the literature, in which ever direction, we can adjust accordingly, through consensus on the WikiProject:Reptiles and Amphibians page would be a good place to stay abreast of this since there are many species involved. What do you think? Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 20:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that arrangement of the Lithobates page would be fine. We should be able to make it work to make the alternatives clear and represented fairly, with a clear guide to the literature, so that people could use it as a guide to make an informed choice. As for eventual consensus, I'd like to see a broader view of consensus achieved, in the biological community, before we delete alternative viewpoints. I think WikiProjects are sometimes way too cliquish and unrepresentative of the broader world, which does not seem like a good thing from the standpoint of a broad-based neutral point of view that accurately represents current scientific opinion. Please don't take that as overly critical; I've just noticed a tendency in the taxonomy groups for a small group of people to push a minority opinion, and present it as the "correct" answer, rather than trying to represent the current range of expert opinions fairly.Ranapipiens (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That's great of you to positively consider that proposal, thank you. We should see what everyone else has to say. I would like to ask you though to add your name to the editors on the WikiProject:Reptiles and Amphibians page and add its talk page to your watch list. If your not interested in all the other reptiles and amphibians that's cool but this way if anything comes up on this topic you will see it in your watchlist. Meanwhile I am going to give the others a chance to respond. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I added my name to WikiProject:Reptiles and Amphibians.Ranapipiens (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

First, briefly back to the GS analysis. The simplest explanation for the difference in relative prevalence of the two names between article titles and whole articles is that Rana pipiens occurs in many citations and Lithobates pipiens does not, which is natural given that the latter name was introduced relatively recently. Other explanations are possible, but there is no way to tell without going through the articles. Simple GS searches are not suited for analyzing current usage in the primary literature (for all that it is worth). Second, I am all in favor of Lithobates page that present alternative definitions of the genus. These should also stay there forever, as part of the history of that name. Micromesistius (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles on a species do not include the species name in the title of the paper. I've searched through the papers that are returned from the Google Scholar searches, and it is clear that there are indeed many more papers that currently use Rana pipiens than currently use Lithobates pipiens. I haven't made an exact count, because there are so many papers on Rana pipiens, and the information should be based on published analyses, rather than original research, if we are going to cite it. A large number of the ones that use Lithobates simply note that name as a synonym, and prefer to use Rana, so the analysis is indeed biased in some sense. But any reasonable analysis of this literature supports the position that Rana pipiens is currently used far more widely than is Lithobates pipiens. But majority usage, in itself, doesn't make a solution "correct", and this is simply a matter of taxonomic preference (both names are "correct" under ICZN rules). I always support discussing and explaining minority positions, such as the use of Lithobates as a genus, as long as we don't claim that it is more widely used (it clearly isn't) or somehow more "correct" (which is also clearly false). There needs to be clarity about these issues on WP: there is already far too much confusion from people who think they "have to" use a particular name, rather than evaluating the alternatives on their own merits. WP should help people understand taxonomic controversies, and guide them to the relevant arguments...it should not take sides when there are legitimate, honest differences of opinion among the taxonomic experts in the group. That clearly is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. I see the same problem repeated on many WP pages for reptiles and amphibians, and the same problem exists on lists like that of Crother et al. (which is less surprising, since it does not purport to exhibit a neutral point of view). For example, I personally agree with the taxonomic position currently expressed on the Anolis WP page, but the alternative position (recognizing multiple genera within Anolis) is clearly not explained fairly or in an unbiased fashion, with appropriate discussion and citations to the relevant literature. Only one of the alternative genera (Norops) is even mentioned, and that in a highly biased manner (that seems obvious to me, even though I would not recognize it). I don't have the time to take that on, but there clearly needs to be a much better and more honest effort on WP to represent legitimate, expert taxonomic opinions more neutrally and fairly throughout WikiProject:Reptiles and Amphibians. Perhaps the edited Rana (genus) and Lithobates pages can set a new standard that other pages can follow.Ranapipiens (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There are some pages done better than others, that is true. We shall see what @HCA and Sunray: have to say then keep moving forward. Which we seem finally to be doing. One step at a time. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 16:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion. It does look like progress. I would like to hear from others and also to get some concrete steps as to where participants want to go next. Sunray (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For myself I think we have made some progress. We seem to have come to a position that both sides can accept, based on my reading of this. Please correct me if I am wrong. If others are in agreement my thoughts would be to first set up the taxonomic hierarchy so that the pages are connecting as we have agreed and then add the necessary information explaining it all. Or we can divide up those tasks if people want. I would be happy to get the hierarchy set up, so as to ensure we do not inadvertently end up with any orphans, it may also be necessary to do some move requests I would have to check on this. Then @HCA, Ranapipiens, and Micromesistius: could develop good neutral text for at the least the genus and family pages involved, species could be done more ad hoc, to save work, possibly depending on how well known the species is. We could if we wish determine when this may be revisited to see if anything has changed, in this way we can discuss it before anything is changed which I think is a much more positive way to deal with a rather confusing and unfortunately dynamic set of genera. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 17:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have made progress. I was waiting to hear from the other participants about the proposed changes, however. I can work on editing the pages as we've discussed, but I didn't want to start without everyone's agreement on a plan.Ranapipiens (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been extremely busy and likely will be so until the end of the month. I think we should make all proposed edits on the talk pages of the page, so we can tweak as needed without disrupting the main page, then just copy over once we're agreed. Also, can you list the pages being edited, so we can all make sure we're keeping tabs on them? HCA (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just so I know I have a little time this weekend I could get the hierarchy set up if people want and get that part going, then the rest of you can establish to text for the higher orders however you agree to it. Just let me know if you want me to move pages yet. Also @Sunray: could I ask that all of this conversation on this page be placed into collapse boxes except this thread from you stating we have made progress to this comment, or replies if your not the first to see this. Not deleted just to make the reading easier, and editing, lol, not the one that says do not edit just box up the different sections for ease of reading. Sorry we have written a novel and now we pay for it. But at least we seem to have made progress. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 22:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the "Next steps" section before I saw this question from you Faendalimas. I am not worried about the order of the page or the length of the posts if you are o.k. with the result. So my inclination is to leave it as is. If participants want to continue we can do so (applying brevity rules, of course) in the section below. 😀 Sunray (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that a higher-taxonomic-level pages should include an extensive, even-handed discussion of these topics, and we should stick very closely to the literature on these (not our personal readings of it). Furthermore, I think that we don't want to re-hash this on species pages, but rather just have those pages link the appropriate section of the higher-level page. I think, for maintenance purposes, it would be best to have a single substantial discussion of this on just one page, which all the others link to. I think the best location for this is either Lithobates or Ranidae, since Rana is indisputably a real genus (in the way only something named by Linnaeus can be), while Lithobates is the taxon of contention, in relation to the overall phylogeny of Ranidae. The issue gets thornier for species pages (since they need a single name), but that's a separate agenda point. ç (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything in the statement by HCA above, if we exclude the separate agenda point about individual species for now. I think we have to discuss general issue on the Rana (genus) page; I agree that the discussion on the Lithobates page can be more focused, and refer to the discussion on Rana (genus). The Lithobates discussion could go into more detail about the different uses of Lithobates as a subgenus (as well as noting its use as a genus by some, of course). I'm certainly happy to discuss and consider alternative details, but it sounds like we are in general agreement on a solution to the larger issue. Species names may be a trickier issue; if we insist on only one name per species, then I'll argue that the much broader usage of Rana should prevail for the affected species, and that we should follow the recommendation made by the ICZN Commissioner to retain Rana until a clearer consensus to change from the broad, traditional usage emerges. That said, I don't object to listing an alternative name for the species, with the appropriate references, as is currently done on the Northern Leopard Frog page.Ranapipiens (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Should probably say something on the Ranidae page even if its just to point to a more in depth discussion on the Lithobates or Rana page. As it works as a hierarchy the taxoboxes will need to hook up correctly for logistic reasons so anything under Lithobates will need to go there for the taxobox (and page name when its not a common name). You can say what you like on the page if you want both names in the text though, you could limit that to the very well known species to save work if you wanted but up to you. I would leave out the GS results it is not a great tool, I did not constrain to title I used subject areas and removed those papers that are from subject areas that generally dont care what they call it, eg medicine, but I felt it was over constraining and hence lacked validity. You would need to either read all the papers or construct an algorythm. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 19:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Do take care how you say there are opposing views. When it occurs on Wikispecies we have to use a template, it basically says "The validity of this taxon is contested" and that's all. You can say more here (ie more explanation), but it should be as neutral as that statement when all is said and done. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Next steps

I have to say that I believe some good work has gone on here. Now I would like to know whether you think that we can do more on this page or whether you will continue on the talk pages of the respective articles. If you think you have made enough progress here I will close the mediation as successful. I am also open to continuing if there are concrete steps that need further mediating.

@Faendalimas, Ranapipiens, HCA, and Micromesistius: Let me know your wishes. Sunray (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Sunray: for your assistance with this. I am ok with closing I believe. One thing we need to ensure is that we continue to discuss any changes work out an agreement then make those changes. I think from how we went here we are capable of that. Despite our lengthy debate on what was a difficult issue, not one edit war took place in all of this, since I was not directly involved I would like to say grats to @Ranapipiens, HCA, and Micromesistius: for that. Yeah it got a little heated at times but it was professional. Just let me know if you want me to set out the hierarchy for the pages. Any lengthy discussions I would suggest go on the Ranidae talk page as every page effected is under that page in one way or another, but please keep the Wikiproject: Amphibians and Reptiles talk page appraised also. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 01:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was a useful discussion. I am happy with the solution we've discussed if others are as well.Ranapipiens (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

O.k. thank you all. I will close as successful. Sunray (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.