Latest comment: 2 years ago115 comments12 people in discussion
I recently brought this issue up at the dino project[1], and it just came up at the red panda FAC as well, so I think it's time to discuss it here. Many articles combine parts of different published cladograms to make novel trees, which are not supported by any single source (see red panda and examples given in the dinosaur project discussion), but this is pretty much the definition of WP:original synthesis, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. But since we don't have any guidelines that address this particular issue in this context, many editors would probably not be aware of it. So what do we think should be done? Should it be allowed or forbidden with a strict, written guideline here? FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I disagree, as I just laid out at Wikiproject Dinosaurs. Combining multiple sources to summarize their conclusions is precisely what Wikipedia is about, and is not SYNTH. As long as a summary cladogram appropriately obeys due weight and does not imply any new phylogenetic claims, there is no problem with it, and a single cladogram that appropriately summarizes several studies is more reader-friendly than several directly "quoted" cladograms. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
My opinion–the practice should be forbidden and a guideline added to wherever (here and/or cladogram template documentation). It's fine to summarize the conclusions of a cladogram in text, but not by altering the published cladogram. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
But as Jens pointed out at that discussion: "The topology changes if we add additional taxa, so we are unlikely to get that cladogram in the first place if we would re-run the analysis." It is unlikely a tree would even end up looking the same if such additional taxa were included (as their mere inclusion affects the topology), so it is very much original synthesis (more so in cladograms based on morphological characters rather than genes, of course). FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The cladograms we depict on Wikipedia, generally, are not meant to depict the results of a specific analysis in and of itself. They are meant to depict a hypothesis of the evolutionary relationships of the organisms depicted, as recovered by such analyses. The topology of an analysis changing if you modify taxon sampling is an artifact of the analysis, not a biological truth. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
After thinking about it a lot, and carefully re-reading WP:original synthesis, I'm starting to think that these modified cladograms are okay, and not a form of original research:synthesis. The main purpose behind the policy seems to be about prohibiting new original conclusions. These "synthesized", summarized cladograms are not actually putting forward any new conclusions, but rather just combining information from multiple sources, like what we do with all the rest of wikipedia articles, but just in a visual form. I agree with Ornithopsis. I think these cladograms are fine. Cougroyalty (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I regularly publish cladograms in my own research as a taxonomist, I get the policy arguments here and from a purely policy point of view I would come to the same conclusion as Ornithopsis and Cougroyalty. However, as a scientist I do have an issue with them. A cladogram is a graphical representation of a phylogenetic analysis, a mash up of several cladograms with additional taxa added also by what? a guess? is not a graphical representation of an analysis, it is not a hypothesis, as these are tested or testable. It is an opinion with no scientific merit. To me if you wish to use a cladogram from a research paper then copy it, make an image of it or use the tools here to make a reproduction of it faithfully, that is presenting a tested or testable hypothesis. If it does not include all the taxa you want feel free to explain that. But by presenting a cladigram that is a mashup you are presenting false science, or pseudo science. So to me this should not be permitted as it is a misrepresentation of the work or works used to produce it. It is true that adding additional taxa can completely destroy the topology of a cladogram, it can change the direction of analysed homology within the data and hence move entire clades around. You cannot make these guesses and present it to the public, its basically dishonest. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I would also throw my hat in here as well, on the subject of "synthesized" terminology (as brought up in the WT:DINO side of the discussion); obviously if it's a disputed clade that's something that should be handled with more discretion, but if we're talking about quite stable, widely agreed clades I think that adding clade names can be very useful in adding clarity or condensing cladograms. When a page has multiple cladograms, for example, adding a non-controversial clade name that's on one cladogram to another that didn't originally have would allow superior ease of comparison between their results. An example of condensing can be seen at Kritosaurini, where Saurolophini and Edmontosaurini are inserted since without using the names the tree would have to list each individual taxon, making the tree much more unnecessarily big despite none of that information being relevant to what the cladogram is being used to depict. And as Cougroyalty says, I don't think it's really synthesis by definition; clades aren't "conclusions" or "interpretation" they're just descriptive terms that operate with objective definitions. We're not implying any newly formed conclusion we're just applying labels for ease of demonstrating things clearly; no different than using different but synonymous terms than a paper when describing an anatomical characteristic. Combinining actual topologies into one tree is a completely different clearly dishonest matter, per Faendalimas.LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think LittleLazyLass brought up a great point upon making the distinction between combining different "topologies" into one tree, vs. merely condensing / synthesizing / summarizing non-controversial clades. For this specific red panda example, a larger Caniformia cladogram from one study was combined with a more detailed Musteloidea cladogram from a more recent study. However, the more recent study didn't show Musteloidea's relationships within the larger Caniformia. That aspect isn't really disputed, but it is useful to the reader to still be able to show how the red panda is related to the giant panda. But now, following the strict interpretation of this rule, it no longer shows this, which is a bummer. That merged cladogram was a net positive. Cougroyalty (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
From the comments added so far, it seems there are different cases where different policies apply. I think we would benefit from formulating which cases are affected by what. There seems to be some cases where it might be ok, and others where it isn't. So if we can agree on which, we should make a policy. I think the red panda cladogram is borderline, since it's two major, uncontroversial clades defined by DNA studies, but those sauropod cladograms based on morphology[2] which took clades from different papers and mashed them together in one don't seem ok. So how to put this into words? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Even the red panda case is a Frankenstein'd tree; I think a set of two cladograms beside each other, one contextualizing the other, would be more transparent and preferrable for such a case. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
in response to @FunkMonk: ok yes there are cases here and they are different, alot of how to do this is going to depend on the understanding of the editors of how cladograms work and what they are, which requires either prior skills or investment of time into this knowledge. Not saying you need a degree in zoology you do not, but you do need to research this. Ok I will run through some scenarios, I will use turtles as an example because its what I specialise in and hence have all the data at hand, but its applicable anywhere across the life systems.
1. to utilise for example a cladogram of the family Chelidae but include in it the relationship to Podocnemidae and the Pelomedusidae effectively obtaining all the Pleurodira you will need an over-arching phylogeny for all turtles into which you could place those three clades. Thomson et al 2021 produced an overall phylogeny, they used exemplar taxa to represent the different branches of the Pleurodira. You can get more complete Phylogenies of the families in other works, eg Fritz for Pelomedusidae. Then in Thomson et al's phylogeny remove the token Pelomedusid species and replace it with the complete clades from the more descriptive papers. This requires considerable care, attention to detail and honestly some knowledge of the taxonomic groups your writing about. But you could do this.
2. you must be mindful when adding paleontological data to neotaxonomic data, ie modern species, these are intertwined but in many groups use alternate classification systems, ie ICZN and PhyloCode. They are not completely compatable, you need to strip away the extra PhyloCode classes, not add them to ICZN it will not work and PhyloCode is not an accepted classification system for most living taxa. It would put what you present out of synch with international conventions such as IUCN, CITES and most checklists.
3. If you do not have a broad treatment of an entire order to act as a guide for the placement of the families you cannot combine different family clades from different publications based on no evidence. This would be innapropriate.
4. you need to cite the publications each part of the cladogram came from and acknowledge it is a combined view of muliple cladograms. Personally I think the Red Panda one could be done but I need to examine the literature for this group, you would need published cladograms for the Mustelidae and the Ursidae as well as an over-arching cladogram for the Mammalia (at least Placentals) to place them appropriately.
5. my own view here is that you should develop a policy and a set of help pages on how to do all this with reference to some papers on Phylogenetic Methodology so that people can do this well if they wish to do it.
I am happy to help develop this I teach phylogentics and publish it, I have no issue with people doing this, I just want to see it done well enough to present reasonable accurate information. You could also utilise Wikispecies to get a lot of the classification depth and the publications that support it. I agree with @LittleLazyLass: the Red Panda is a frankenstein tree but it can be done just has to be improved. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk21:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
When talking about the Frankenstein Red Panda cladogram, I assume we are talking about this:[3] right? It might be good to talk about this specific example in more detail. From looking at both studies, it took the broader Caniformia cladogram from the 2005 study, but at the Musteloidea level, in swapped in new phylogeny from the 2018 study. First for clarification, this is the precise action that is at issue, right? And then second, is this ok? The argument for it being ok is something along the lines of how the upper branches of the tree are not in question, and that it is just updating Musteloidea based on the latest study. And of course the counter argument is the Original Research:Synthesis argument, which would then advocate for showing two separate cladograms.
Personally, I think that the "Frankenstein" Red Panda cladogram was fine, since it was not proposing any new conclusions, but merely saving space by showing everything in one cladogram instead of two. I'll also agree that there have been more egregious cases of synthesizing cladograms which should instead have been shown with two separate cladograms. I guess I'm thinking it seems more ok in situations where a more recent study goes into more detail to refine a more specific phylogeny in one area, that maybe it can be combined with a high level summary of a previous cladogram, just to kinda show larger uncontroversial group relationships? I dunno. I'm no expert, and I could probably go either way here. It's just that some of the synthesized cladograms I have seen have been rather harmless, whereas other synthesized cladograms are clearly wrong, and I am trying to find a way to articulate the difference. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Well the over arching phylogeny that would support placement of families it should be using would be this one by Hussanin et al (2021) the relationship between the Red Panda and the Giant Panda is in common name only, they are not related at all really. There are numerous families between them and many species. The limit of it really is yes they are both placental mammals. The cladogram depicted artificially indicates a relationship because of its over simplification. What would be better would be to present the relationships within the Musteloidea. However even that superfamily does not contain the Ursidae and hence the Giant Panda, the sister of the Red Panda among living taxa is the skunk (Mephitidae). Also the cladogram on that page indicates that the Ailuridae is sister to the rest of the group which latest research does not agree with, Ailuridae and Mephitidae being sisters and they are sister to rest, so its out of date also. So the issue is it is an oversimplification resulting in a net data loss of the tree. I am not sure why it seems important to relate the Red Panda to the Giant Panda, any more than it is to relate a Kangaroo Mouse to a Kangaroo, one a marsupial the other a placental. I think it would be more beneficial and more accurate to point out the Panda part of the name is an artifact of common names and in fact they are not related at all. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk22:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I maintain that cladograms should be treated in more or less the same way as text, as far as determination of what is "going too far" as far as SYNTH goes. A cladogram, after all, is a sort of written language for portraying evolutionary relationships. I believe it should be acceptable to combine cladograms as long as the relationships being presented by the user-created cladogram are consistent with the consensus of the literature about the relationships of the portrayed taxa. It doesn't take a genius to interpret a cladogram and determine whether it's consistent with the relationships shown in a different cladogram, even if they don't include the exact same set of taxa. Moreover, not only do I think that such summary cladograms are acceptable, I believe they are desirable. Presenting a single cladogram that is a direct "quotation" of a particular study may violate due weight by placing wildcard taxa in the positions recovered by that particular study. However, simply adding cladograms providing opposing views may result in a cluttered article dominated by numerous cladograms presenting a number of possible relationships. In such a situation, presenting a single summary cladogram that depicts only widely-accepted relationships and omits unimportant wildcard taxa would seem to be the best approach to making a good article. In the red panda case, my understanding is that the relationships among Canidae, Ursidae, Pinnipedia, and Musteloidea are not controversial. Therefore, as long as a source supporting those relationships is provided, showing a cladogram placing musteloids within their phylogenetic context is not SYNTH because it is not presenting any new claims. In contrast, here's an example of a use of modified cladograms that would be SYNTH: Apesteguía et al. (2016) recovered Gualicho and Deltadromeus as sister taxa in a phylogenetic analysis. Cau (2018) recovered Gualicho as a member of Tyrannosauroidea, but did not include Deltadromeus in the analysis. Therefore, one could try to create a cladogram that depicts Gualicho and Deltadromeus as sister taxa within Tyrannosauroidea, but this would be SYNTH because no phylogenetic analysis has supported such a result. Basically, the concerns that have been raised about presenting modified cladograms are not because modifying cladograms is inherently SYNTH. If a modified cladogram does violate due weight or synthesize a new phylogenetic conclusion, that is a problem. But if it's simply presenting a summary of well-supported phylogenetic relationships in a reader-friendly way, it's fine. If a specific case comes up where there is disagreement over whether the presented cladogram accurately summarizes what the sources say about the phylogenetic relationships, we can discuss it on the talk page like adults, just like we'd do if there was a dispute over whether the prose accurately reflects the sources. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I have to staunchly disagree with the idea that cladograms are simply textual representations of relationships. Their purpose is to be illustrative and diagrammatic, and their conclusions are specific to each individual study. I have removed referenced to clades like Stegosaurinae from the cladograms on Stegosauridae and Stegosauria because while that clade is defined, Maidment and colleagues have not referenced it or even mentioned its existence since the first 2008 paper. All subsequent iterations in 2010, 2017, 2019 and 2020 did not have any reference to Stegosauridae or Stegosaurinae or Dacentrurinae, so including those labels on a diagram, even when it may align with Mateus ea 2009, would be a misrepresentation of the results those authors are displaying. We cannot assume they endorse the placement of a clade that they do not discuss, just as much as we cannot assume the authors of a unique anatomical structure presumed present in a photograph that they do not discuss. and that's why I have to conclude that mashing together the results of one analysis with the labels of another is no better than mashing the results of two disparate analyses together, both are examples of Synth and must be avoided. Everything within Wikipedia is supposed to be supported by a citation, and while we can cite "said authors defined X clade as x > y", we cannot use the cladogram of another publication even if its by the same authors and apply the logic "they said that there so we can show this here". Modification of a published figure *must* be supported by citations that align with those modifications, and things like the placements of clades or the exclusion of wildcard taxa are different between individual runs of the same phylogenetic matrix. Every single phylogenetic analysis figure published is a unique combination of a unique set of Most Parsimonious Trees that have unique character resolutions with unique stability. Apart from where otherwise published, like the Theropoda synth of Hendrickx ea 2018 or the Ornithischia synth of Madzia ea 2021, we cannot go around combining disparate figures from disparate publications at will. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like reinforce IJReid's points (and those of others above). If I put together material from different sources to produce a description of some taxon, I would be expected to show clearly the source of each part of the material, by inserting references at appropriate points. The use of multiple sources in this way is not WP:SYNTH, provided nothing non-trivial is deduced from the combination of different sources. The issues with almost all the merged cladograms being discussed here are twofold.
Each part isn't clearly sourced – a long list of references in the introduction to the cladogram doesn't amount to proper sourcing any more than a single long list of references at the end of an entire section does. (It would justify and often get a "more inline" tag.)
Presenting one merged cladogram implies that if the separate studies had included all the leaf taxa, they would all have produced this result, which is definitely WP:SYNTH – and highly implausible, since they will almost always have used different characters, outgroups, and methods.
Some kinds of manipulations of cladograms in published sources seem acceptable to me. For example, where the published cladogram goes down to the species level and has clearly labelled clades, it can be simplified by using only the clades and omitting the species (provided this is made clear). Since the order of branches isn't significant, swapping sister taxa to make the cladogram work better with {{Clade}} is acceptable. But merging cladograms should simply not be allowed. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, so to clarify (and really beat this dead horse) - the majority position (other than me and Ornithopsis) is as follows in these examples.
BAD EXAMPLE - So this merged cladogram is "wrong" -
The following cladogram is based on the molecular phylogeny of six genes,[1] with the musteloids updated following a multigene analysis.[2]
Is this a correct summation on how this situation should be handled, in terms of a specific example? Basically, that merged cladograms are never ok, and should instead be shown in separate cladograms? (Sorry if this is all formatted weird here on the talk page.) Cougroyalty (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think merged cladograms violate WP:SYNTHESIS as long as the source for each part is clearly explained. The long lists of sources predecing a cladogram that bears little resemblance to any of the source is obviously wrong and this is something that needs to be eliminated.
I think the red panda is a good example of merging, where the main topology and a component part of separately sourced (the phrasing could be improved). The cladogram is to illustrate something that is hard to express in words and should follow the same rules as a piece of text explaining something. No one would suggest that each paragraph of text should be from one source. It's not synthesis to construct a paragraph using multiple sources or for a sentence to have different parts with different sources. I see no reason why an illustration should have different rules as long as its clear where the information comes from. If the topologies of all nodes are sourced. there is no synthesis in the Wikipedia sense . — Jts1882 | talk16:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not get why you do not just use Hussanin et al 2021 which is a broader phylogeny includes the groups you want, uses more data and seems a good tree from a single source and hence dataset. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(@Faendalimas: Honestly, that is a question better asked at the Red Panda talk page. It is besides the point for the discussion here at this page. The Red Panda cladograms here are now just being used as examples to address the larger policy issue.) Cougroyalty (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Cougroyalty: Fair enough. Ok in the above example I think you could combine the two so long as you acknowledge both papers, you may want to mention the branch swap between the Mephitidae and the Alluridae though at this level of detail its not significant, but its being transparent in what was done. I think you do need to cite a higher order cladogram to fully justify the relationships in the Carnivora, which is why I was citing the Hussanin et al paper as it covers all of them. It gives you more support in the literature for what your presenting. In this case. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk17:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
A lot of the objections to the idea of using modified cladograms seem to be based on the premise that a cladogram can only be an exact representation of the results of a specific phylogenetic analysis, which is patently untrue. I'm not saying we should be allowed to create cladograms depicting controversial phylogenetic relationships (except in cases where they're made for the purpose of illustrating the controversy), I'm saying we should be allowed to modify cladograms to represent uncontroversial phylogenetic relationships in cases where no published cladogram that would be optimal is available. IJReid, your stegosaur example seems like a case where placing the labels may be a violation of due weight or synth, not because modifying a cladogram is inherently in violation of policy, but because the use of the clades is controversial and using it on a cladogram would either be violating due weight (by falsely implying there is a consensus that the clade should be used in that way) or synth (by making novel referrals of a taxon to a clade name). In a case where a clade name's use is widespread and uncontroversial, but happens to not be included as a label on the specific cladogram being used, I don't think there's a problem with adding it. Peter coxhead, your point that a cladogram can't include inline citations is a fair one. My suggestion is that the manner in which the source cladograms have been combined or altered should be clearly described in the cladogram caption, and appropriately sourced (the original red panda cladogram is an example of this being done). Cases where the modifications are too extensive to summarize in only a few sentences would probably be instances where the modifications are indeed too extensive to be allowed. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Its pretty consistent that the few uncontroversial clades are already included in the figures or labelled in captions. Modifying a result to display the internal relationships found by a different analysis is probably the best example of undue weight, given that it is now the responsibility of the editor to chose which of the variety of cladograms should be displayed. Two separate cladograms can be used to display internal and external relationships, instead of combining both into a literal synthesis of results. I would reiterate that the only combined analyses we can display are those that are published, like the cladograms used in Hendrickx ea 2015 and Madzia ea 2021, because otherwise it is entirely on the editors to chose, justify, and cite the synthesis in a way that would be OR. Cladograms shouldn't be treated as text, they should be akin to images from published papers, which should not be edited, including clade labels, "pruning" taxa, or adding relationships from another study. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
While I agree in regards to merged cladograms, I still fail to see how this logic applies to clade names and how the application of clade names not used in trees violates WP:SYNTH. To quote that page: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.". The conclusion that, say, Edmontosaurini (from my earlier example) consists of everything closer to Edmontosaurus than Saurolophus, Kritosaurus, Hadrosaurus, and Brachylophosaurus is a citable fact. By putting that term at the corresponding location on a tree I am not implying or stating any conclusion other than the fact that Edmontosaurini consists of [the same definition]. The inclusion is not synthesis but an entirely valid use of multiple sources. Unlike the Red Panda example, which very much demonstrates a conclusion neither paper puts forward and is definite WP:OR. Of course cases like Stegosaurinae will exist - but the issue there wasn't the synthesis, it was the fact Stegosaurinae is not a clade in use. The fact that you can use the act of inserting clades poorly does not invalidate the concept. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I also tend to view cladograms in Wikipedia as a type of quotation. We shouldn't change anything, except for simplification (collapsing of nodes), which is necessary to keep focus. Concerning the clade names, I argue that we should not change them as well. The reason is that clade names that are defined on valid taxa cannot be invalid; they may fall out of use when they are considered to be not useful (or not useful enough). So the fact that a particular study uses or does not use a particular clade name is important. If we look at dinosaurs, for example, there are many clade names that are used by some authors but not by others. Titanosauroidea for example is certainly valid, and we can support this with reliable sources. But the name is no longer in wide use, and attaching it to the cladogram of another study that intentionally left this node unnamed would be terribly wrong. Conversely, removing this name from a cladogram feels wrong, too, as it is simply a misrepresentation of the source. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Titanosauroiea is just Stegosaurinae again; the fact that you can cite examples of clades that should not be put in cladograms because they shouldn't be used as clades at all does not undermine the concept. I expect hypothetically sticking Titanosauroidea in a taxobox would likewise be received poorly on the exact same grounds; this does not dissuade us from putting valid, non-controversial clades in those. Continuing to cite out of use clades will not start making that have bearing on the subject of whether adding clades violates WP:SYNTH. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
How do you determine if something is a "valid, non-controversial" clade name? The very fact that a name is missing from the cladograms we want to add it to may indicate that there is no strong consensus for the use of a name. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Presumably the same way we already do for infoboxes and nav boxes? It's a judgement call, one we're making regardless what we decide to do about cladograms. Looking at my Kritosaurini example, Saurolophini and Edmontosaurini have seen very wide use for years and their validity has not been challenged whatsoever. The fact it's not included in the paper in question is pretty clearly nothing to read into. Papers often exclude names from cladograms for no particular reason whatsoever. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
As I wrote above, the validity of these clade names is out of question, as is the validity of Titanosauroidea. That does not necessarily mean that there is broad consensus of usage. That papers often exclude names "for no particular reason" seems to be a dangerous claim to me. It is more likely that the papers did not consider these names to be useful enough. We don't want to have a name on every single node, so each study decides which names provide value and which do not. We should not override these decisions, because if we do, we are misrepresenting the source and make usage of names appear more widespread than it actually is. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
In the specific example of Kritosaurini, I would still advocate against collapsing unlabelled clades. None of Edmontosaurini, Saurolophini or Brachysaurolophini are in the figure or the text, and as far as relevance to the article goes there is not substantial need to label or collapse those clades, either the cladogram can be truncated to just Kritosaurini since its meant to illustrate internal relationships, or it can be expanded to show all the results (and probably rearranged for viewing convenience). I agree with the interpretation of Jens, cladograms are direct quotes, not paraphrasings. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
"Substanial need", perhaps not, but having a properly focused cladogram rather than an ungainly one taking up a bunch of unnecessary space is certainly preferrable. Nothing misleading or non-citable is being done and a tangible if small benefit is returned. In regards to this "direct quotation" framing, I simply say that same thing that I did about SYNTH; you're not changing the substance of anything by merely adding a label for clarification. It is not objectionable to add bracketed notes to direct quotations for ease of understanding, or to quote relevant passages selectively. Likewise cutting off portions of trees, adding clades for reader understanding and ease of comparison, or combining these to trim trees in places papers do not put an express named division are not a form of "misquotation" whatsoever but entirely benign manners of adaptation from an original context into the quoted context. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTSYNTH. Your position is based on a very broad interpretation of what "original synthesis" means that is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's SYNTH policy essentially means that you can't justify original research by claiming it is a logical conclusion of various verifiable claims; it is not making broad claims about all synthesis of information. Indeed, synthesizing information from diverse sources into a format that is accessible to readers is precisely what Wikipedia's mission is. Your comparison of cladograms to images does not really strengthen your case: user-created images are widely considered acceptable on Wikipedia, provided that they are supported by sources. For example, the maps in the infobox on Byzantine Empire, a featured article, are user-created. You yourself have uploaded many images, such as your skeletal of Vulcanodon, that are at least as SYNTH as the red panda cladogram was. I'm not saying that user-created cladograms can't be criticized for violating due weight or presenting novel phylogenetic claims that do violate SYNTH, I'm saying that I don't think there should be a general policy against modifying cladograms, because such a policy would be excessively strict and inhibit our ability to clearly present information. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I wonder, though, how much of said "ability to clearly present information" we would actually loose if we would apply a strict policy. Can you give examples where a modified cladogram is clearly superior to alternative solutions? Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Specific examples? Not offhand, other than the red panda example we've been discussing. But here's a somewhat exaggerated hypothetical to illustrate my general point: consider a situation where five different studies have conducted a phylogenetic analysis of the same clade. These studies had nearly identical taxon sampling—perhaps one or two taxa were omitted by some of the studies, but nothing more—and obtain identical results for the relationships of all the species in the clade, except for one wildcard taxon that is recovered in a different position by every study. It would be inadvisable to present only one of the cladograms, as this would violate due weight with respect to the phylogenetic position of the wildcard. It would be undesirable to include five different nearly-identical cladograms that differ only in the placement of one wildcard taxon that is largely incidental to the topic at hand. To me, this seems like a case where the best choice would be to present a single cladogram that depicts the relationships that were consistently recovered by all five studies and omits the wildcard, noting this in the cladogram caption. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the red panda, a better, complete cladogram has been offered above. I don't think this is mere coincidence; if the clades are really uncontroversial (which you require yourself), then such cladograms do likely exist. Regarding your hypothetical case, I'm not sure if something like this is even possible. Removal of the wildcard taxon is likely to change the topology; at the very least, we cannot be sure that all these five studies would came up with the same cladogram again if they all would have removed that wildcard taxon. So in my opinion, this is definitely a no-go. We simply provide the most recent cladogram as an example, while discussing the others in the text. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Your proposed solution violates due weight more severely than my proposed solution violates SYNTH. The fact that different phylogenetic relationships from the ones presented in published sources could, hypothetically, exist is irrelevant, because those hypothetically different phylogenetic relationships are not supported by any sources. I don't think we should make editors waste time looking for a published source that provides the exact cladogram they want if the sources that they already have adequately support the phylogenetic relationships they want to portray. Pruning a wildcard taxon from a cladogram depicting otherwise well-supported relationships is not making any novel inferences. A posteriori pruning of wildcard taxa to visualize a tree better is perfectly acceptable practice that does not make any implications about what the underlying analysis would have found with different parameters. You're demanding an unreasonably strict and rigidly-defined standard of evidence be upheld at all times. If a modified cladogram really is portraying relationships or taxonomy that could reasonably be interpreted as controversial, we can argue the issue then, on a case-by-case basis. We do not need a blanket ban on modified cladograms. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
We don't have due weight issues if we provide one cladogram as an example. This is established and accepted standard, all or dinosaur FAs are doing exactly this. And yes, I think we are making novel inferences: "How would this cladogram look like if we remove that taxon?". See it as a formula: If we remove one number, then the result is likely to change. We need to provide the whole thing, unaltered. And I do think there is a real demand for a policy, all our terrible merged dinosaur cladograms speak for themselves. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Pruning a taxon can impact the results in completely unexpected ways. Often papers will prune taxa to improve resolution, in which case we can chose to use their pruned analysis if resolution is what we are going for, or we can use the whole analysis. That is about as much input as we as selectors, not editors, of information, have the ability to decide. A blanket ban *may* be controversial in very unique cases that have not yet been identified, at which time we can revisit and present exceptions based on stronger arguments than hypotheticals. Displaying the differing relationships of a single family of mustelids on the red panda page is not worth synthesising two cladograms, a single sentence in the text stating that other studies have placed the family as the most basal group suffices and doesn't undermine the results of the earlier analysis with different results. If we chose to amend or adjust an analysis to our pleasure we are undervaluing the previous studies by declaring that their results are not worth presenting as they intended, which would mean we are not giving them due weight. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}03:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
If I may add a slightly different point here but I am essentially agreeing with @IJReid: I think some are not really understanding what a cladogram is. It is a graphical representation of a phylogenetic analysis, it makes it visually easier to understand but its topology is entirely reliant upon the algorythms used of the data behind the analysis. If you look at the papers presenting them and actually go to the supporting data downloads which are optional you can look at the raw data, it will be a series of molecular sequences or codified morphological data, whatever. Clipping off a taxon somewhere is not how you manipulate these trees. If as a taxonomist I feel its necessary to remove a taxon, and this happens for example I find evidence the molecular data is corrupted, I have to rerun the analysis to get the new tree. I do not expect it will look like the previous tree, it could be completely different. Basically the algorythm works by looking for shared derived characters, a two stage algorythm, first it finds shared characters then it tries to predict which characters are apomorphic and which a plesiomorphic (ie derived or ancestral). When you remove just one taxon from the analysis you may be removing the one that provided the evidence for the direction of what is known as the phylogenetic signal which will if that happens rendor that entire cluster of shared characters either reverse their polarity (polarity = the direction of evolution between two states) or become uninformative. This can result in entire clades being swapped around or collapsing. I said above there are some limited adjustments you could make, so long as you acknowledge them, but it must be done with understanding of the algorythms involved, and the principals behind it, and a genuine understanding of what these trees represent. The tree has statistical factors indicating how well they are supported, eg CI (Consistency Index), RI (Retention Index), Bremer Score, etc. All these statistics are damaged each manipulation you make, if the score fall below a certain point the tree collapses. They are representations of shared characters which is used as an analogue of relationships. When people take my trees on here and frankenstein them to use the phrase used here I am not comfortable with it, because I know my data does not support that tree, yet your citing me on an encyclopedia as having published that. So please a lot of care must be taken with this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk04:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Can you give an example where one of your trees has been used in a misleading way?
I think this discussion is going way off topic. The "cladograms" (we shouldn't get hung up on the name of the template used to generate them) are just illustrations reprsenting phylogenetic relationships and have to follow wikipedia rules on reliable sources. It's actually a table so needs to follow rules of other tables.
I don't think anyone looks at a cladogram showing part of a full analysis and thinks this is a new analysis using just the data for the seleected part. If we take the view only exact and complete representations of a figure should be shown, then the red panda article would have to show the whole phylogentic tree from Hassanin et al with all the species terminals, as a reanalysis without all the feliform terminals would probably give a different result. — Jts1882 | talk06:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
well obviously the Chelidae however the one of mine that was there and was edited has been replaced a long time ago, which was appropriate not arguing with that. Anyway the one there now is out of date and should be updated to Zhang et al 2017. Which is cited on the page (for Pseudemydurinae in the classification section, ref # 35. The one there now under phylogeny is not representative of the Georges et al one either. Arthur Georges was my post grad supervisor so I know his work well and he is co-author on much of mine.
sorry if I got a little off topic above, some points that were being raised I felt needed clarification. and as I said further above I really do not mind it being done, so long as its done carefully and cites all sources. Eg in the classification, not the phylogeny on the Chelidae page TTWG 2021 only covers living species, so where did all the stem taxa added in there come from.
My point on cutting them down, no I do not think you need to show the entire cladogram from Hassanin et al, just the relevant section, the problem occurs when you prune taxa from the middle of the cladogram to simplify it, however you can just take the relevant clade and reproduce that, effectively moving the root to the Carnivora node for example, just acknowledge this was done. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk07:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Ahh sorry @Jts1882: I just checked the talk page for Chelidae I recall now we had discussed this. I gave you the Holly et al 2021 and Thomson et al 2021 refs for the Cladogram. Forgot I had done that. Yeah needs a bit of a work out but we can continue that on the talk page for the taxon. My mistake there. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk07:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree totally about the inappropriateness of inserting terminals within a tree. You can't add fossil taxa to a tree of extant species determined by molecular analyses. That is definitely synthesis. Stem taxa should be shown in a separate tree in such cases. — Jts1882 | talk07:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Scott: I know perfectly well how phylogenetic analysis works. I may only have a bachelor's degree and not be in academia now, but rest assured, I'm familiar with the field. Now, I don't know what you learned, but in my understanding, a cladogram most certainly is not specifically a graphical portrayal of the results of a phylogenetic analysis per se. A cladogram is a diagram showing phylogenetic relationships among taxa. Phylogenetic analyses are the methods by which those relationships are investigated, but the notion of phylogenetic relationships among a group of taxa exists independently of any particular analysis and can be portrayed in a cladogram without that exact set of relationships having been recovered. According to my understanding, the following is a perfectly legitimate cladogram:
Ctenophora
Ammonoidea
Platyhelminthes
Dunkleosteus
Passeriformes
Now, I doubt that anyone has ever conducted a phylogenetic analysis including that exact set of taxa, and arguably a meaningful phylogenetic analysis of only those five taxa is impossible. But does that mean it's not a cladogram, or that it's scientifically inaccurate? I don't think so. I cannot imagine any possible context in which someone would need that exact cladogram, but my point still stands. IJReid: Presentation depends on context. The best way for a team of authors to present their results for the purposes of their paper may not necessarily be the best way for us to present their results for the purposes of a general encyclopedia. It is not "undervaluing" them or "not giving them due weight" to adjust the presentation of results for a different purpose. It's true that I haven't thought of specific examples, but I know I have, in the past, felt it was necessary to modify a cladogram to more clearly present the necessary information, and I think it is likely I will feel that way again. I don't want to spend hours trying to come up with specific examples only to get bogged down for hours more arguing over the best way to handle a single specific situation and ultimately missing the forest for the trees. Fundamentally, I do not see any reason why cladograms should be treated differently from text in terms of following Wikipedia's content policies. If the statement "dogs are more closely related to cats than fish. Fish are more closely related to cats and dogs than worms" would be allowable, I do not see why presenting that exact same information in a visual form would not be:
Worms
Fish
Dogs
Cats
Obviously, cladograms that present novel or controversial phylogenetic claims are problematic, but that doesn't mean modifying cladograms always is problematic. If an article contains a bad cladogram, that is a problem that can be fixed as it comes up, just as we can fix bad text. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I was referring to the types of cladograms being used here and my explanation was not directed at you it was general comments to give an appreciation of how they work based on several comments above. I got that you probably knew what a phylogenetic analysis is. I did not name anyone in the above statement. Besides I think this is a useful discussion and seems to have interest, even if its wandering a bit. Never hurts to see others views. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk07:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jts1882: as I argued above, I think sourcing is the key. If a cladogram is clearly explained in the text as illustrating a properly sourced set of relationships, that's fine by me. It's not SYNTH, merely presentation (e.g. the text could say something like "The relationship between these taxa is ...[ref] and is illustrated in the following cladogram"). But merging cladograms/relationships from different sources when there is no overall source for the merged cladogram/relationship is a different matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Jts1882 asked for an example, again, the Saltasaurinae cladogram[4] I mentioned earlier could be an example of such a "Frankenstein cladogram", where the results of two different studies are mashed together with no regard for how the analyses were conducted. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
As the person who made that Saltasaurine cladogram, I have to agree that it was a synthesised diagram. I would also hazard a guess that many of the taxa listed as saltasaurines in the infobox cannot be cited as belonging to the clade, having been found there phylogenetically but unlabeled and undefined, much the same way I removed taxa like Loricatosaurus or Lexovisaurus from being listed as stegosaurines, or Adratiklit as a dacentrurine. While the phylogenetic results may place taxa within those clades phylogenetically, it is unsourced OR for us to conclude that without any indication other than our interpretation of phylogeny, taxa fall within that clade.
As far as the example cladograms of Ornithopsis show, translating text into diagrammatic visualizations is something I'd thought of doing in the past, but decided against because it would be a misleading presentation of information. The relationships of textually described taxa can be displayed using an indented or bulleted list, but without a directly quotable figure or newick tree I would still consider creating a cladogram out of text description to be synth and/or OR. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
It's worth noting even now how synthesising cladograms can directly contradict what authors are intending. Saltasaurini has a cladogram (I am in the process of replacing) that labels Saltasaurinae, a relatively uncontroversial clade of Saltasaurus > Opisthocoelicaudia, and Saltasaurini. Except that the paper it comes from does not apply the accepted definitions in their labels, with Saltasaurinae being the node of Neuquensaurus and Saltasaurus instead. This is not discussed anywhere in text, nor is it given further explanation about what taxa they consider saltasaurines. Allowing even the most basic synthesization of labels onto a cladogram vastly changes the results the authors are presenting into instead supporting almost all of Titanosauria being within Saltasaurinae. This may only be one example, but it is a good example to illustrate how the consensus and established uses cannot be assumed without being stated, no one should disagree that the misleading labelling on Saltasaurini should be avoided, and the same logic should apply to all other locations and examples. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
See, this is a case that I think illustrates my point: it's bad because it contradicts the source. I agree that it's best not to add clade labels where their use could reasonably be viewed as contentious, but there are plenty of clades which have a more or less stable definition and contents where I think it would be acceptable to add them. Most titanosaur clades are not examples of that. As far as I can tell, the Saltasaurinae cladogram being discussed is an exact replica of the cladogram in the first source, except that it has Saltasaurinae labeled according to the phylogenetic definition provided in the second source. It isn't a mashup of the results of two different phylogenetic analyses. Because Saltasaurinae lacks stable contents and there are studies that put the name in different places, it's probably inappropriate to use it there. The other problem with that cladogram is a matter of due weight, as the contents of Saltasaurinae vary extensively among analyses and including only one cladogram could be viewed as favoring that particular hypothesis (unfortunately, there are no taxa consistently recovered as saltasaurines outside Saltasaurini, so even if you ended up agreeing with me that creating a consensus cladogram that excludes wildcard taxa should be acceptable, it would not be practical here). Once again, read WP:NOTSYNTH. As long as anyone with a basic familiarity of how to read and draw cladograms would agree that the cladogram is not making any novel or contentious claims about the phylogenetic relationships of the taxa portrayed, and the relationships portrayed are supported by the sources provided, it is not SYNTH, nor is it misrepresenting the sources being used. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a contrasting definition of Saltasaurinae that restrict it to the equivalent clade of Saltasaurini, which, though not as common, still exists. And these cladograms have the benefit of including the definitional taxa. Madzia ea 2021 openly chose to not label Ornithischia in their reference figure of Dieudonne ea 2020, because there were no external specifiers scored and ran, despite Dieudonne ea labelling the clade. These interpretations and assumptions are not always stated by the authors because they aren't relevant to the paper, but that doesn't mean we can overlook them. Perhaps Poropat ea considered phylogeny too volatile to label Saltasaurinae, perhaps they don't believe in the clade. We don't know and we can't presume to fill in the blanks just for our own convenience. If a page "needs" a certain figure, find one to use, instead of combining those of separate results to achieve the desired outcome. The red panda example at the beginning of this is a very good example of a situation where there really is no need for modifications, a single sentence of text can explain how skunks are alternatively found to be the most basal musteloids. The relative stability of a single clade is a subjective assumption based on a variety of potential factors, like the same base analysis and characters being used, or the omission of certain key taxa. The Brown et al 2022 study makes a very good point of this, showing even relatively "consistent" clades like Marginocephalia are subject to conflict under different conditions. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
+1, this sums it up pretty nicely. And in addition, we also need to consider that cladograms come with a date of publication, and mirror the state of research at that time. In dinosaurs, cladograms often become outdated after just a few years. If we modify a cladogram to arrive at some non-existing "truth", let's say by adding clade names to older cladograms according to current usage of clade names, we are not only misrepresenting the source and make usage of these names appear more widespread then it actually is. We are also distorting or loosing the aspect of research history. Last but not least, I still haven't seen a single example where synthesising cladograms could not be easily avoided. I do not understand why we need such synthesis in the first place (given all the problems that have been pointed out above), and I don't really see what would speak against establishing a much-needed policy. Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I feel that examples have already been provided where modifying cladograms is an appropriate choice (e.g. pruning wildcard taxa from a tree showing otherwise well-supported relationships). However, for further examples, there is a wide range of possible situations where it may be desirable to show a particular set of taxa, and no single published cladogram may be available. For instance, let's say someone wants a cladogram showing something like the phylogenetic positions of mammals historically classified as insectivorans, or dinosaur species once included in Megalosaurus—for some such situations, there may be no published cladogram that includes all relevant taxa, but such a cladogram could easily be created without implying any phylogenetic relationships not supported by available sources. Or perhaps, for an article on an evolution of some anatomical structure, it is desired to put the taxa discussed on the page in some phylogenetic context. Perhaps there's a common name applied to multiple unrelated groups and a cladogram showing the actual phylogenetic position of each group known by that name is desired. Perhaps there is some phylogenetic controversy and a pair of simplified, easily comparable cladograms showing the contrasting hypotheses is desired and the source cladograms just aren't ideal for that purpose. Perhaps the published figures just aren't ideal for our purposes for some reason. Several of your objections are based on the notion that a cladogram necessarily reflects the results of a particular phylogenetic analysis exactly, which is simply untrue. A cladogram is simply a visual representation of a set of phylogenetic relationships; as long as the sources provide support for the phylogenetic relationships portrayed, there is no problem. Wikipedia has never had a policy that we must present information framed in exactly the same way as our sources. The interpretation of SYNTH you are relying on is far broader than what is implied by established policy. I have already argued for my position that cladograms should essentially be held to similar standards as text, but per WP:OI, original images that do not advance novel claims are also allowed on Wikipedia. I do not see any reason under Wikipedia policy why cladograms should be held to a stricter standard than either text or images. Furthermore, as SYNTH is not presumed and SYNTH is not a rigid rule, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why a strict policy is required that bans all cladogram modifications even if there is no specific evidence that the modified cladogram is advancing a novel phylogenetic hypothesis or making a controversial claim. The red panda issue is a moot point as an additional source was found; the titanosaur phylogeny examples are hardly relevant to the kinds of cases where I think modified cladograms are acceptable, as titanosaur phylogeny is notoriously controversial and several of the clades have conflicting definitions, so we're in agreement that it's probably for the best to not use those particular examples. Neither existing Wikipedia policy nor the needs of scientific accuracy provide justification for a blanket ban on modified cladograms. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
A new policy is not necessarily a blanket ban on modified cladograms (although I personally would support that). There are many cases where I believe you would yourself agree that modified cladograms are inappropriate (as in the titanosaur examples you mentioned). But we need a policy which provides a guideline of what is acceptable and what is not, to not have this discussion over and over again in the future. Maybe we can formulate some alternative policies ranging from very lax to blanket ban, and then select the best one based on majority opinion. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Jens that a variety of proposals can be given, and from that one or a compromise of more can be enforced as a wikiproject guideline. As far as beneficial modifications go, I would suggest the limit is the extent displayed by my current edit of Kritosaurini. Different from the original cladogram, the monophyletic genera Saurolophus and Edmontosaurus are collapsed, the branch of Kritosaurini is rearranged (without changing any relationships) to be the bottom branch instead of the top, and taxa outside Saurolophinae are truncated. These three modifications: collapsing clades/genera labelled by the paper, cutting out irrelevant outgroup taxa and stating in text the scope was restricted, and vertically swapping branches for the best visual display, are where I would limit modifications. Anything else can be provided by an alternate cladogram or a description in text instead of by modifying our presentation of the published figures. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}21:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it would be more productive to discuss more specifically what we do and do not think should be permissible, in order to work on drafting a possible policy. So, we agree that the following operations should be permissible:
Collapsing genera and labeled clades into single terminals
Restricting the displayed portion of the cladogram to the clade of interest
Swapping the order in which branches are displayed
In turn, here are some restrictions I would agree with:
Adding clade labels where they would be controversial, either due to the existence of competing definitions, obscurity of the clade name, or because applying the label according to its definition would result in content significantly different from the conventional understanding of the clade, should not be allowed
Combining cladograms in such a way as to present novel phylogenetic claims (e.g. synthesizing "Deltadromeus has been found to be the sister taxon of Gualicho" and "Gualicho has been found to be a tyrannosauroid" into "Deltadromeus is a tyrannosauroid") should not be allowed, as this is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH
Cladograms that portray one side in an area of active phylogenetic debate should be appropriately labeled as such, as to do otherwise would be a violation of WP:NPOV.
Changing terminal taxon names based on taxonomic revisions that are controversial or significantly affect the hypodigm of the taxon (e.g. Troodon to Stenonychosaurus) should not be allowed, although noting these situations in the caption or with a footnote may be appropriate.
However, here are some examples of modifications I believe should be allowed (with sources provided and changes appropriately explained in the caption):
Changing terminal taxon names based on widely-accepted taxonomic revisions that did not affect the hypodigm of the taxon (e.g. Brachiosaurus brancai to Giraffatitan brancai) should be allowed.
Adding clade labels where they would not be considered controversial should be allowed
Pruning wildcard taxa, if multiple source cladograms differ in the placement of only a few taxa, should be allowed.
Collapsing conflicting phylogenetic relationships into polytomies should be allowed on a limited basis.
Creating ad hoc cladograms that depict uncontroversial phylogenetic relationships, where no adequate published cladogram is available (e.g. to show the phylogenetic relationships of a series of specific taxa mentioned in the prose), should be allowed.
Of course, even in these cases, it would be possible to challenge whether the modified/user-created cladograms are the most appropriate way to illustrate the point at hand, as occurred with the red panda cladogram, and that should be handled on a case-by-case basis. However, if the primary objection is SYNTH, and the phylogenetic relationships or clade labels depicted are appropriately sourced, per SYNTH is not presumed, the burden of proof should be on the one objecting to their use to provide evidence that the cladogram is depicting novel or controversial claims. As a side note, annotating a cladogram with footnotes would be one way to get around the difficulty of providing sources for a modified cladogram, if necessary. As far as writing up a policy is concerned, the policy could conclude with a general statement to the effect of "if you aren't sure whether a modification you want to make would be allowed by this policy, it's probably best not to make it", in hopes of discouraging over-bold cladogram modifications. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal of IJReid (simplification and swapping should be allowed). This seems necessary to keep cladograms at a reasonable display size to maintain focus. These rules are clear-cut and easy to follow. If we allow anything more based on the vague requirement of being "non-controversial", it becomes very difficult to draw the line, requires considerable knowledge, misrepresents the sources, and in my opinion is simply unnecessary. And as mentioned above, a truly non-controversial cladogram would not require modifications (such as changing clade names) in any case, since it can be expected to get it right to start with. For the other hypothetical use cases pointed out by Ornithopsis (e.g., show the modern classification of taxa previously included in Megalosaurus), I would agree with an above suggestion to use bullet-point lists (as we do in our dinosaur article). This makes it immediately clear to the reader that it is not a cladogram taken from a paper, and this distinction is important in my opinion. Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
All quality Wikipedia editing requires some degree of expertise and good judgment; cladograms would not be unusual in that regard. As long as the article is clear that the cladogram depicted is not an exact copy of a cladogram in the provided sources, modifying a cladogram is not misrepresenting the sources. Since you presumably do not believe that all articles should be made of verbatim quotations of sources, I do not see why you insist on applying that standard to cladograms. As far as defining "controversial" goes, that seems pretty obvious to me: if a claim is supported by the sources provided, and those sources are credible, the burden of proof is on someone objecting to the claim to provide evidence to the contrary. That's how it works with literally everything else around here. The application of clade names and phylogenetic relationships of taxa being non-controversial does not necessarily imply that the exact cladogram desired exists. Sometimes it may be desired to highlight the relationships of a particular set of taxa, and not every published cladogram labels every clade—or would you take the view that the fact that Diplodocoidea is not labeled in figure 18 of this paper as implying that the use of the clade Diplodocoidea is controversial, and that it would be impossible to identify what clade in that cladogram is Diplodocoidea? Long story short, you're insisting on holding cladograms to a much stricter standard than anything else on Wikipedia. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I feel this stricter policy will make our articles better. If I am looking at an article as a reader, I want to see the cladogram as published in the cited paper – I am not interested in the personal judgement of some Wikipedia author. I don't see why any reader would want this kind of modifications. Modifications may be misleading since readers simply do not expect them, while benefits in clarity are minor at best. Regarding the clade names, maybe a compromise could be to allow adding them if they are used elsewhere in the paper (as is the case in your example). Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
While the specific example of labelling Diplodocoidea is a decent idea, the biggest problem with the proposal is that Diplodocoidea is simply not relevant to anywhere that analysis will be used. The relevant area of the study wouldn't extend beyond Macronaria anywhere on-site we wished to use it, especially given there are analyses specifically for the larger scale where all those clades are labelled (Carballido ea and derivatives, Mannion ea and derivatives, etc). The biggest issue with any claim for inserting labels not being Synth is that all the justification needed to argue it is synth per synth not being presumed, and restart an entire debate on this topic, is the sentence "the source doesn't use that name". There isn't a need for adding labels where they are not, even if it might be considered nice to have that option available. A different analysis can be used or discussion of the ideas can be given in text.
As far as the other points go, I would say the relabelling of a taxon following renaming is probably acceptable (provided it is cited), but isn't really required since redirects exist and most new studies would have a phylogeny to illustrate. And it's not always uncontroversial, like how Ajancingenia may or may not be acceptable, or some authors consider Tyranno/Tarbo and Gorgo/Alberto congeneric. Provided every link goes to the correct location for what is coded in the analysis, relabelling species may not be necessary.
Pruning and collapsing nodes and terminal taxa I have to strongly disagree with allowing, given the blatant disregard for the results that comes with it. If wildcard taxa are truly wildcards, as in the study states they are, then the study can prune them. Beyond that all we can do is mention in the text that a taxon has a controversial placement, anything to "beautify" a cladogram is a simple misrepresentation of the source. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
My biggest issue with all this is not really about WP:SYNTH as I am not entirely convinced this is what it is, largely for reasons indicated above. My issue is the loss of good information, or the inaccurate portrayal of information, and that can be failing to accurately confer with the citations being used.
I do not have an issue with relabeling taxa that have had an accepted name change since the cladogram being cited was published, the TNS publication that connects this should be cited. This is a nomenclatural correction not a taxonomic one and hence is not dependent on the analysis.
I do have an issue with citing a publication for a cladogram that the authors did not actually produce, so apart from my last point here, a cladogram presented should agree in topology with the one in the paper.
The issue with controversial vs uncontroversial is that this is essentially a subjective decision on the part of the editor, unless there are clear publications that support this discussion, in which case cite them.
In regards to pruning and collapsing, where you effectively focus on the clade of interest, have cited the publication but are ignoring all other clades I have no issue with this, as even though you have cut out those clades people can go to the original publication to see the rest. Plus they have been cut from outside the node you have set as the root for purposes of what your displaying. This is fine, cutting out terminals from inside the clade you are using implies closer relations that analysis showed between the taxa you have removed the intervening taxa from, this is not congruent with the original analysis nor is it a faithful reproduction of the authors work you cited.
Collapsing is more complicated, and would be case dependent, and how you label it. If your not interested in the genera within the sister clade for example you can collapse them all into the family, eg the Red Panda example there is no need to include all the Pinapeds, it can be a single line labelled as Pinapeds hence referring to the whole group. But I do not think it is appropriate to collapse taxa within the clade of interest as this is misleading.
I also have no issues with labeling modifications that are aimed at the intended audience, ie if the Cladogram being used is too scientific, effectively scientific jargon, then simplification or modification of terminology is fine, off top of my head an example changes "Aves" to "Aves (Birds)" or something similar, as this is respecting the different audience here.
Support IJReid's views here, and if we could boil it down to the wording of a policy, we could perhaps have a vote? FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
In order to better understand the sources of disagreement, I would like for FunkMonk, IJReid, and Jens Lallensack to explicitly say whether they consider banning all significant modifications to cladograms to simply be a logical application of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research to the matter of cladograms, or if they would agree that Wikipedia policy does not require such modifications to be banned and are taking the stance that cladograms must be held to stricter standards than other content. Faendalimas has already indicated that he is taking the latter stance (...from a purely policy point of view I would come to the same conclusion as Ornithopsis and Cougroyalty). If you are taking the former stance, please clarify what aspects of those policies you are basing your stance on; if you are taking the latter stance, please explain what it is about cladograms that means they need to be held to a stricter standard. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Referendum
I might as well present this in a formal list for opposition and support. Here are the various options for cladograms:
Collapsing genera and labeled clades into single terminals
Support -IJR
Support -Ornithopsis
Support -Faendalimas
Support –Peter coxhead
Support –FunkMonk
Support -FanboyPhilosopher
Support -Cougroyalty
Support -LittleLazyLass
Support -Jens
Support -Lythronaxargestes
Pruning outgroups to restrict the displayed portion of the cladogram to the clade of interest
Support -IJR
Support -Ornithopsis
Support -Faendalimas
Usually ok, but needs caution –Peter coxhead
Support –FunkMonk
Support -FanboyPhilosopher
Support -TimTheDragonRider
Support -Cougroyalty
Support -LittleLazyLass
Support -Jens
Support, if clarified in caption -Lythronaxargestes
Swapping the order in which branches are displayed
Support -IJR
Support -Ornithopsis
Support -Faendalimas
Support –Peter coxhead
Support –FunkMonk
Support -FanboyPhilosopher
Support -Cougroyalty
Support -LittleLazyLass
Support -Jens
Support -Lythronaxargestes
Adding clade labels where they would be controversial (see explanation above)
Oppose -IJR
Oppose -Ornithopsis
Oppose -Faendalimas
Oppose –Peter coxhead
Oppose –FunkMonk
Oppose -FanboyPhilosopher
Discouraged, but exceptions might be allowed on a case-by-case basis -Cougroyalty (I think this can be done in some situations if noted appropriately, such as the last cladogram I created on the Tomistominae page - the green labels on the right are probably better than the Tomistominae clade name in parenthesis on the left.)
Oppose -LittleLazyLass
Oppose -Jens
Oppose unless for historical reasons (cf. Cougroyalty) -Lythronaxargestes
Combining cladograms in such a way as to present novel phylogenetic claims
Oppose -IJR
Oppose -Ornithopsis
Oppose -Faendalimas
Oppose –Peter coxhead
Oppose –FunkMonk
Oppose -FanboyPhilosopher
Support -TimTheDragonRider
Oppose -Cougroyalty (OR:SYNTH)
Oppose -LittleLazyLass
Oppose -Jens
Oppose -Lythronaxargestes
Cladograms that portray one side in an area of active phylogenetic debate should be appropriately labeled
Support -IJR
Support -Ornithopsis
Support -Faendalimas
Support –Peter coxhead
Support –FunkMonk - alternative cladograms should preferably be shown too
Support -FanboyPhilosopher
Support -TimTheDragonRider
Support -Cougroyalty
Support -LittleLazyLass
Support -Jens
Support -Lythronaxargestes
Changing terminal taxon names based on taxonomic revisions that are controversial
Oppose -IJR
Oppose -Ornithopsis
Oppose -Faendalimas
Oppose –Peter coxhead
Oppose –FunkMonk
Oppose -FanboyPhilosopher
Oppose -Cougroyalty
Oppose -LittleLazyLass
Oppose -Jens
Oppose, but allow additional names in parentheses if relevant in context -Lythronaxargestes
Changing terminal taxon names based on widely-accepted taxonomic revisions
Support weakly, I feel like this isn't necessary if phylogenies are replaced to stay up to date -IJR
Support -Ornithopsis
Support conditionally, must cite ref for new nomenclature -Faendalimas
Support as per Faendalimas
Oppose –FunkMonk this can simply be explained in adjacent text or parenthesis, no real need to change the wording of the published cladogram.
Tentative oppose (other options may be better) -FanboyPhilosopher
Discouraged, but exceptions might be allowed on a case-by-case basis -Cougroyalty (If uncontroversial, then it should already be a redirect. Or alternative names could labeled in parenthesis. Or maybe it just makes more sense to change the name.)
Oppose -Jens (as FunkMonk; we loose information on research history)
Support -LittleLazyLass
Oppose, but allow in parentheses -Lythronaxargestes
Adding clade labels where they would not be considered controversial
Oppose -IJR
Oppose -Faendalimas
Support -Ornithopsis
Support only if clearly referenced –Peter coxhead
Oppose –FunkMonk this can simply be explained in adjacent text or parenthesis, no real need to change the wording of the published cladogram.
Support -FanboyPhilosopher
Support -Cougroyalty (but what is considered controversial or not? Indicates a case-by-case decision.)
Support -LittleLazyLass
Oppose -Jens
Weak support, should be decided based on relevance -Lythronaxargestes
Pruning wildcard taxa
Oppose -IJR
Oppose -Faendalimas
Support -Ornithopsis
Oppose –Peter coxhead
Oppose –FunkMonk
Support conditionally (pruned trees must be present in the original source) Oppose -FanboyPhilosopher
Discouraged, but exceptions might be allowed on a case-by-case basis -Cougroyalty (I'm leaning towards no, but I don't want to make this a strict policy, as I imagine exceptions could exist.)
Oppose -LittleLazyLass
Oppose -Jens
Oppose -Lythronaxargestes
Collapsing conflicting phylogenetic relationships into polytomies
Oppose -IJR
Oppose -Faendalimas
Support -Ornithopsis
Oppose –Peter coxhead
Oppose –FunkMonk
Oppose (No new clarity, conflicting hypotheses better represented in other ways) -FanboyPhilosopher
Oppose -Cougroyalty (OR:SYNTH - a polytomy is a valid hypothesis, and not just an indication of uncertainty. Although rare, speciation can occur in more than just the simple bifurcation branching of new species. So showing a polytomy would be a new conclusion.)
Oppose -LittleLazyLass
Oppose -Jens
Oppose -Lythronaxargestes
Creating ad hoc cladograms that depict uncontroversial phylogenetic relationships
Oppose -IJR
Oppose -Faendalimas
Support -Ornithopsis
Support if, and only if, it is made clear that this is a representation and not from a source –Peter coxhead
Oppose –FunkMonk published cladograms that show the same can usually be found if one looks
Conditional support, with clarification that it combines info from several sources -FanboyPhilosopher
Oppose -TimTheDragonRider
Discouraged, but exceptions might be allowed on a case-by-case basis -Cougroyalty (If done right, and in situations where you are trying to put together a high level summary, and the perfect cladogram doesn't exist in the literature. Again, see the Tomistominae page, but now the earliest two cladograms showing a high-level comparison. (I didn't create these ones.))
Oppose -LittleLazyLass (academically honest, but I see no way this would be citable/not WP:OR)
Oppose -Jens (let's use bulleted lists for this)
Oppose -Lythronaxargestes
I've realized in this context my custom signature is too distracting so I've signed everything as IJR. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have added my votes. Note that my working definition of "controversial" is something along the lines of "somebody could make a good-faith argument with reasonably up-to-date sources suggesting that the information portrayed in the cladogram may be incorrect". Ornithopsis (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Although I haven't engaged in the discussion so far, I still would like to elaborate on my opinions regarding several points of disagreement:
For changing terminal taxon names to reflect widely-accepted revisions, we should be careful to make sure a revision is truly agreed upon before editing the cladogram, and even then it would be necessary to include some reference to the original name. Using Marasuchus replaced by Lagosuchus as an example (just an example, I've heard this isn't quite to a consensus yet), we could try Lagosuchus (= Marasuchus) or vice versa, Lagosuchus* (with a small text *disclaimer below the cladogram) or vice versa, or just simply saying something like "Specimens formally placed in the genus Marasuchus were referred back into Lagosuchus by a 2019 revision of the latter genus.(citation)" right above the cladogram.
I've advocated for the utility of adding uncontroversial clade labels in this discussion. "Pruned" trees can be very useful for illustrating fundamental relationships without the influence of very incomplete taxa, but pruning should be the job of paper authors rather than Wikipedia editors. I support including pruned trees if and only if they are present in the source, provide meaningful information (reducing polytomies, etc.), and are clarified as such by noting which taxa are pruned (and preferably why).
Creating polytomies not already present in a source adds nothing to a cladogram except confusion which needs to be explained. Alternative hypotheses are better represented in different cladograms and/or subsections. Maybe I'd be okay with them in very simple introductory contexts, but never in regard to any large cladogram intending to represent a source tree. Combining non-conflicting cladograms to create a larger and more complete depiction of relationships is not innately a bad idea in my opinion. Still, it must be done carefully and in recognition of a clear consensus, citing all of the sources it uses along the way. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I reiterate that Wikipedia policy does not require any of the restrictions (except the three that I voted "oppose" on, as those three would be clear-cut violations of NPOV or OR), for the reasons I have explained in detail above.
I also remind everyone that the main purpose of allowing modifications is for cases where an ideal cladogram does not exist in the published literature for some reason, but could be constructed as a summary of published cladograms. Opposing modifications solely on grounds that they're unlikely to be necessary seems to be missing the point.
Fanboyphilosopher, we are discussing what modifications of published trees are acceptable, so if you believe "pruned trees must be present in the original source" you mean to vote "oppose", not "support conditionally".
Pruning wildcard taxa and collapsing conflicting relationships into polytomies seem to me to be necessary compromises to maintain NPOV while preserving concision. If the general view is that cladograms are a special case that require an especially strict application of policy, not only should all but the most basic modifications be banned, but we should also follow NPOV as strictly. In other words, if pruning wildcard taxa from published cladograms and summarizing conflicting relationships with polytomies on a limited basis are not allowed, following NPOV would require that cladograms depicting every proposed position of the wildcard taxon be included in the article, so that we don't seem to be unduly favoring any particular hypothesis. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I mean, for crying out loud, how is this:
Extended content
Phylogenetic relationship of the red panda based on analysis of
Phylogenetic position of the red panda (Ailuridae) among caniform carnivorans. Studies have found differing placements for Ailuridae and Mephitidae relative to one another, which are summarized as a polytomy here.[1][2][3]
References
^ abCite error: The named reference Flynn2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abCite error: The named reference Law-2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abCite error: The named reference Hassanin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Surely the latter is preferable for the purposes of creating a reader-friendly general encyclopedia article? Anyone who cares about exactly how many mitogenes found exactly what topology is going to read the gosh-dang papers themselves. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the context, I've edited my vote on pruning. I have a lot of issues with unecessary polytomies, even if they are a useful tool in some limited contexts. It's very easy to misinterpret a polytomy, and for that I give a hypothetical example. If you have species A, B, and C, and two hypotheses for relations (A closer to B and A closer to C), a strict consensus A-B-C polytomy could be misconstrued as supporting a third hypothesis, B closer to C. I understand why cladograms polytomies exist: they're a necessary evil generated by consensus trees in phylogenetic programs. But I much prefer including wildcard taxa on a cladogram in multiple positions. That's already the case on the pages for some wildcard taxa (like Incertovenator and Erpetosuchidae) without any previous protests. This approach depicts alternate positions in much greater detail and preserves the structure of the fundamental backbone tree (including non-wildcard taxa). This figure[5] from a paper on sphenodonts gives a great example of just how informative multiple wildcard positions can be compared to a polytomy. In a Wikipedia context, wildcard branches can be set apart from non-wildcards by using dotted lines, small text, or asterisks leading to an elaboration below the cladogram. The way I see it, a polytomy is the worst option available for dealing with wildcards. As for your red panda example, I don't see a problem with showing the different results of different studies, and I doubt a general reader would be too disturbed either. The lower option is aesthetically a bit simpler, but it's not representative of most polytomy situations and still runs into the same Wikipedia policy conflicts. I guess we can agree to disagree on that. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I regret to inform you that the cladogram template is not well-equipped for creating figures showing wildcard positions as depicted in that sphenodont paper, though I agree with you that such figures are nice in papers on the rare occasions they exist. Including wildcard taxa on a cladogram as you suggest would not be possible in most cases if cladogram modifications are as tightly restricted as is being discussed here. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This is where I would consider having a cladogram at all to illustrate the alternatives to be misconstrued. The red panda article itself isn't concerned with the larger scope of relationships beyond having say, the first cladogram and the discussion of the synthesized version present in text. If I were to reconstruct the section of the red panda article myself, it would end up as:
Extended content
The following cladogram illustrates the results found by a mitogenomic analysis of 220 mammal species, showing a sister taxon relationship between red pandas and mephitids. Other phylogenetic analyses of carnivorans or musteloids have alternatively placed skunks or red pandas as the sister group of all remaining musteloids, while still nesting racoons and weasels together.
There simply isn't a need for all of the discussion and included content on a page where it isn't really relevant, though I would support it more on Ailuridae where the different results and why can be discussed in greater detail. Cladograms should not be used as the primary method for displaying content, as their presentation is hardware dependent and they cannot be translated into text readers (all template content is skipped). Cladograms are meant to be supplementary information that can aid in understanding content, not replacing the textual description they are meant to support. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I view this as a violation of WP:NPOV, as it is picking out one hypothesis to favor over the others for illustration. I do not see how favoring one hypothesis over the others for illustration is better than summarizing all three studies with a single polytomy. There's a severe cladogramitis problem on Wikipedia, and allowing cladograms to be simplified and summarized is an excellent way to avoid those articles that consist of almost nothing but five different sprawling cladograms. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea for our cladogram policy to be divided into three parts:
One, it should explain which cladogram modifications are generally allowable without needing a specific justification or additional sources, e.g. reordering branches, collapsing named subclades, and excluding outgroups
Two, it should explain which cladogram modifications are in clear modification of Wikipedia policy, e.g. novel phylogenetic claims such as the Deltadromeus example I have given
Three, it should provide general best practices for use of cladograms, including explaining what modifications are discouraged in most cases.
There are several cladogram policies that I believe should be permissible, because of the possibility of edge cases, but that I would be willing to compromise on by listing them as discouraged in most cases. Remember, we aren't deciding what modifications we should always make, but which ones we should never make. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The solution to overrepresentation of cladograms is not to change how we go about treating what is in effect just our replacement to using figures from papers for accessibility and consistency. Prior to the construction of the Clade template, directly using published figures was the only way to illustrate results outside of bulleted lists, which was unavailable for anything but freely-licensed papers. Cladogram templates have been, since the beginning of their use, recreations of published figures, in essence direct quotes. The templates have been getting improved to add branch lengths or "time calibration" or other features to make them even more directly quotations of published figures, and this progress has mirrored the idea that clade templates are meant to be the better representation than simply using images, which would require review unless directly taken from papers. Bulleted lists can be used to illustrate unfigured results, or text description can suffice, instead of modifying what have been quotes. Excess use of cladograms can be solved by removing those that are no longer the current version, or do not illustrate the concepts in text that we are trying to assist with understanding. Two to four cladograms in a row (eg see Dinosauromorpha) is not a negative when direct comparisons are meant, in the case of the red panda the images should not be used and relationships outside musteloids excluded, because the purpose of the multiple cladograms is to compare only the results between skunks and red pandas, not show the differences in morphology, or explain suprafamiliar relationships. If morphology or larger relationships are what is wanted to be displayed, the family-level differences are not relevant, and only one is needed to show the general trend. We don't need to combine all these intended results into a single unpublished representation. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Please point to the exact policy that indicates that any modification to an image would have to go through a review process, because WP:IMAGEOR clearly states that user-created diagrams that do not advance new conclusions are permissible. Please also indicate what existing policy says that the cladogram template is only to be used for recreating published figures, because I have definitely seen it used in other ways. Perhaps we should just ban cladograms entirely, if bulleted lists and text description suffice to explain phylogenetic relationships. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The entire point of this discussion is about the fact that adding labels or pruning or collapsing are what would be considered "new conclusions". If there's no statement that taxa X, Y and Z collapse into a polytomy, then collapsing them into a polytomy is a new conclusion. So replacing a cladogram from one study with an image that creates a strict consensus out of many is advancing a "new conclusion". Which is why the same standards that apply to images are what is being argued for here, because the use of clade templates is meant to supplant images which would otherwise be unobtainable due to licensing, accessibility policies, or IMAGEOR.
As far as a policy about the use of cladograms goes, that is what this discussion is meant to implement, a project-wide policy that is replacing nothing because there simply is no current guideline or policy or discussion that focuses on what cladograms are meant to be. The lack of a policy due to it being a niche topic and one that certainly wouldn't have been predicted by wiki admin does not mean that we can act like this is a sign that everything we are doing is justified. Cladograms being used in other ways doesn't mean that their use in other ways is right, which is why I've gone about replacing those that I've added in the past that I now deem to have been advancing said "new conclusions", or modifying existing ones like Kritosaurini to no complaint.
This discussion and referendum is meant to establish a policy in an area that is otherwise lacking, and if the conclusion is come to that cladograms are detrimental, or that minor adjustments are fine, or that using them in any possible situation is fine, so be it that is what is meant to happen with consensus and that wikiproject policy is what should be followed. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Pruning or collapsing into a polytomy is not a new conclusion. They are the absence of stating a conclusion. A polytomy is simply a graphical representation that indicates there is more than one possible way the taxa branching off at that point could be arranged. If the sources show more than one way that the taxa branching off at that point can be arranged, depicting a polytomy is nothing more than a graphical representation of a simple fact. Likewise, simplifying a cladogram by excluding a wildcard taxon is simply choosing not to say anything about the phylogenetic position of the wildcard taxon. Yes, there are rare cases where choosing not to say something can be dishonest, and omitting taxa in cases where it would be deceptive should be avoided, but that certainly does not apply to everything. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have to disagree on both points. In the case of the red panda examples, a polytomy just happens to be the most suitable way to display the relationships, because all three possible relationships have been presented. Those three ways that polytomy could possible resolve would be (1(2(34))), (2(1(34))), and ((21)(34)). A polytomy is more detailed than the visual representation of it feels. Many times polytomies exist because any number of the up to millions of possible arrangements are just as likely. If only two of the three possible arrangements were found, while a polytomy is still a possible way to present it, it is not a *true* absolute polytomy between the terminals. If a cladogram was constructed in Dinosauromorpha showing a polytomy of silesaurids, herrerasaurs, theropods, sauropodomorphs, and ornithischians, this doesn't convey the information that silesaurs are either outside the rest or sister to ornithischians, or that herrerasaurs are either outside dinosaurs, stem saurischians, or stem theropods (excluding ornithoscelida here for simplicity). It would be a polytomy if the strict consensus of relationships was displayed, but *only* because two of the five terminals have uncertain positions, not because the internal relationships of them all are completely uncertain.
While this could be taken as an argument for pruning "wildcards", there is more nuance here to be discussed. If silesaurs and herrerasaurs were "pruned", how would we explain why they are omitted? Would we describe it as because they are in conflicting positions between analyses? The analyses themselves never describe them as wildcards, its only because different analyses have them in different places we could say that. Very complete taxa can be wildcards in analyses, and very incomplete taxa can be stable. Unless a study describes a taxon as a wildcard, it having a labile position is not enough for us to state it is a problematic taxon that should be excluded. Skunks could be pruned from the red panda phylogenies and suddenly everything would agree, or perhaps we decide that red pandas themselves are the "wildcard" and prune them from the tree displayed on their own page. Both the act of pruning the terminal, or collapsing the results, are new conclusions because they have never been said elsewhere and are based on an unstated synthesis of different published studies. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I must say that I agree with IJReid's conclusions here, there are just too many assumptions and subjective decisions that would have to be made for many of these modifications to be implemented in a given cladogram, and we would be presenting what some random editor arbitrarily thinks is neutral, consensus, or "more correct", rather than what the actual sources present. And to get back to the initial issue, combining source A and source B to arrive at a cladogram that is supported by neither is a third conclusion, and simply original synthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with Ornithopsis here regarding polytomies. As I mentioned above, a polytomy is a potentially valid hypothesis, and not just an indication of uncertainty. Although rare, speciation can occur in more than just the simple bifurcation branching of new species. So showing a polytomy would be a new conclusion. Otherwise, I generally agree with Ornithopsis that cladograms should be held to the same standard as text. Modifications to cladograms are not inherently violations of OR:SYNTH. It depends on what sort of modification is made. And as always, sources need to be cited. Cougroyalty (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Whether the polytomy is intended as an expression of a genuine hard polytomy or as a summary of conflicting trees can be handled by the caption, as I did with the red panda example above. I should have clarified that a polytomy, when used as a way to portray uncertainty, is not making any new conclusions, and the caption would indicate that. The fact that the polytomy does not rule out any of the three possible resolutions does not necessarily mean it is implying that all three of the possible resolutions are considered plausible. I would agree that summarizing conflicting relationships as polytomies is something that should be done judiciously; I would suggest that our cladogram policy discourage cladograms that add more than a couple of small polytomies.
As far as pruning goes, that could be explained in the caption as e.g. "Phylogenetic relationships of dinosauromorphs based on X, Y, and Z. Silesaurids and herrerasaurids are not depicted here, as X, Y, and Z differ in the placements of those taxa".
The threshold of originality you're applying to consider modified cladograms OR is set at a far stricter level than is applied anywhere else on Wikipedia, except possibly for some of the stricter parts of WP:BLP. It's certainly far stricter than the standards used for paleoart, it's stricter than the standards being applied for taxoboxes, navboxes, or other types of user-created diagrams. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Except that the way we treat published images is not so very different. We don't edit historical art to update it to reflect current science. Even though that would be technically and scientifically allowed, we chose not to. We also very much shy away from suggesting edits to published artwork in recent papers, however horrendous. We simply chose instead to omit things that we see as controversial or bad, much like how I am suggesting here that if a cladogram is considered outdated or not representative, we omit it. The area of wikipedia we edit is focused on scientific communication, where our goal is to properly communicate the results of science, without changing any possible interpretation or leading readers to some unstated conclusion.
Perhaps this is too strict, perhaps we are treating the policies in place as too rigid. But if we don't draw a line between changes that are objectively not changing results, with those that could be seen as subjective in nature, where does that slippery slope of editability lead? All examples brought forth so far can and have been solved with alternative methods that don't require allowing a line in subjective sand. I am of the belief that cladograms here are intended to be more accessible ways of displaying figures in published literature, and should be treated much more like a quote than a paraphrasing.
Sorry, but I guess I am a bit triggered when someone presents a slippery slope argument, which is largely considered a logical fallacy. If there is some greater editorial abuse that you fear, then we can address that. (Perhaps you could elaborate on where you fear this slippery slope might lead?) But what we are discussing here does not seem so severe. And our cladogram creators are competent editors. Cougroyalty (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
My view here as I have tried to state, perhaps not well, is that I do not have an issue with WP:OR when it comes to these cladograms, unles someone blatently did that but I do not think anyone here is suggesting that would be appropriate. To me the referendum was looking at proposals for policy regarding how to create and use these cladograms. I agree that arguments of "slippery slope" are a logical falacy and not the best way to put it, however I think I get what was being aimed at. I get that the way these cladograms are produced is essentially text, a wiki table and much like using excell you can do some interesting things with tables, yes its text. The fact that its text is not the point either. The point is that when you get your resultant cladogram is it an in good faith reproduction of the work in the cited reference, is it true to the analysis that supported the claims made by the paper. This is what we should be aiming at. Hence the things I opposed I stand by, because they permit presentations that are not supported by the data in the paper being cited. You are presenting science and if your citing peoples work you owe it to them to do so in good faith. Presnting cladograms that the author would not have and did not publish because they were not supported by the data is neither good science nor good faith.
On the cladograms above, you have three side by side cladograms, one old one based on 6 genes, seriously, ok 20 years ago but these days thats not enough base pairs. The second one uses 46 genes, hence is likely a combination of both mt and nu genes, better but is still about a decade old and will not hold up to genomics. The last one examines 220 taxa using full mitagenomics. So I would say just present that one, ignore the rest. Collapsing the nodes to make some sort of parsimony between three trees with incongruent data is not a better tree. Its a false tree and shows closer relationships between three taxa than is actually apparent. Do remember that the collapsing of nodes in an analysis is partially dependant on the setting of the retention index and the presence of introgression. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk05:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The point is that when you get your resultant cladogram is it an in good faith reproduction of the work in the cited reference, is it true to the analysis that supported the claims made by the paper. This is what we should be aiming at.
Scott, I think you're making the mistake of treating the map as the territory there. The notion of phylogenetic relationships among taxa is something that exists independently of the phylogenetic analyses themselves, and a cladogram is simply a graphical representation of a given set of phylogenetic relationships (regardless of what evidence was used to infer those relationships). As long as our "map" accurately reflects what other "maps" tell us about the "territory", it doesn't matter whether our "map" is a facsimile of a published "map" and the details of how the "surveyor" created their "map" aren't important.
So I would say just present that one, ignore the rest.
Depends. Would that be violating WP:NPOV, or is it genuinely safe to say that the results of the other two analyses are no longer considered credible? If they're no longer considered credible, why were they put there in the first place?
Going back to some earlier points:
...we would be presenting what some random editor arbitrarily thinks is neutral, consensus, or "more correct", rather than what the actual sources present.
How is arbitrarily choosing a specific published cladogram any better, though? It doesn't solve the "arbitrary decision of a random editor" problem, and it gives more weight to the displayed cladogram, violating NPOV.
Take the following simple cladograms:
Florpus
Blorbo
Mingus
Bouba
Kiki
Florpus
Mingus
Bouba
Blorbo
Kiki
Florpus
Mingus
Blorbo
Bouba
Kiki
Tell me, what is more "arbitrary": choosing one of those three cladograms to show and the others to note in text, or to create a single summary cladogram?
Florpus
Mingus
Bouba
Kiki
Cladogram of Chungusauria based on Gostak et al., Runcible et al., and Smith et al. Blorbo is excluded, as it was found in a different position by each study.
As long as the phylogenetic position of Blorbo isn't the point of the article, I don't see what's wrong with summarizing the results of separate studies in this way. Somebody who cares deeply about Blorbo could go to the Blorbo article, which might cover its phylogenetic position in more detail, or simply read the papers themselves.
Moreover, taxoboxes and navboxes suffer from the "arbitrary decisions of random editors" problems as well, to an equal or greater degree than most of the cladogram modifications I have suggested.
Except that the way we treat published images is not so very different.
True, we usually don't edit published images anymore. But we rely heavily on user-submitted paleoart as well. Original paleoart does have to go through a review process, but it's also much more of an original creation than a simplified cladogram is—why should original cladograms, which are less original than original paleoart, be held to a stricter standard?
But if we don't draw a line between changes that are objectively not changing results, with those that could be seen as subjective in nature, where does that slippery slope of editability lead?
Simple. We evaluate the conclusions depicted by the cladogram, and judge whether those conclusions would be considered to violate Wikipedia's core content policies. Exactly as we do with everything else on this site. There's a nice, solid wall only a short distance down your slippery slope.
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I see nothing in Wikipedia policy or practical concerns about cladogram editing that would require such strict restrictions. Personally, I think that responsibly-made, adequately-sourced summary cladograms are preferable to simply slapping whatever the most recent published cladogram is into an article, as they can often be more concise and are more in line with NPOV. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
However, NPOV would also suggest we consider the weights of phylogenetic analyses and their impacts on the article to determine the most neutral inclusion. This would give the phylogenetic analyses of studies on a particular taxon the greatest weight for inclusion, or analyses that are based on those previous studies on a specific taxon. The differences in strengths of an analysis must also be considered when determining what is truly the neutral stance, which means that the most recent study is quite often both the most relevant to an individual article and the one that should be given the most weight. And while the neutral stance will be constantly changing with every single new result and study, the inclusion of a single reasonable relevant and important phylogenetic result is something that is static and does not require constant upkeep, while never falling into being inherently controversial simply for having been created. NPOV can be easily satisfied by stating in the text the results of previous analyses, which should be done regardless of what cladogram is chosen to be displayed. Choosing to illustrate relationships with a composite diagram means that important information *is* lost, like the phylogenetic placement of Blorbo, which is important for discussion of relatives even though it can be considered by the editors (note: not any study, but the editors) as a wildcard. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
As for arbitrarily choosing cladograms, we simply show the most recent cladogram that is relevant to the taxon, and if there are disagreeing views, two or more side by side. If a paper includes multiple cladograms, we choose the ones the authors themselves point out as the most reliable. That is the least arbitrary action we can take. That is simply following the published luterature, as we should, not meddling with their results. Loving those fake taxon names, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not necessarily agree that the latest publication is the best one. If you are only looking at DNA there are still papers presented now in the last 2 years, that only use 2-3 mtDNA genes and make taxonomic proposals based on this. Why? Because the tech for next-gen sequencing of entire genomes is expensive and not everyone has access to it. So to me, and yes as a scientist who works on this maybe its easier for me, we should be looking at the comprehensiveness of the analysis. Best practice would be a total evidence approach combining analyses from nuDNA, mita-genomics and morphology into a final tree. But this is rare as your talking millions of base pairs and hundreds of codified morpho characters, this is cutting edge tech. Second would be 16-20 nu genes or mita-genomics, or for fossils around 100 codified characters, but no total evidence, this is about 5 year old tech. Third would be a combination of mtDNA and nuDNA up to about 15 genes total, mixed without any reconciliation, this is about 10 year old tech. Anything less than that is 20 year old tech. This is irrespective of when it was published, I have seen species described this year on 2 genes, thats 20 year old tech. As a generalisation the most recent paper is often the best one, but this is not always the case. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk19:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding some of the reasons given for opposition:
Cougroyalty: OR:SYNTH - a polytomy is a valid hypothesis, and not just an indication of uncertainty. It is true that a polytomy can be a specific hypothesis in itself. However, it doesn't have to be, and it could easily be clarified which was the case in the caption. If a cladogram specifically states that the polytomies shown are depicting uncertainty in relationships, it is not making the claim that a hard polytomy exists, and therefore is not SYNTH.
Apatosaurinae
Apatosaurus
Brontosaurus
Diplodocinae
Leinkupal
Supersaurus
Dinheirosaurus
Galeamopus
Diplodocus
Barosaurus
Summary of the phylogenetic relationships of Diplodocidae, with polytomies representing uncertainty. The unstable diplodocine Tornieria and unstable diplodocoids Kaatedocus and Amphicoelias are not depicted. [detailed explanation in footnote]
LittleLazyLass: academically honest, but I see no way this would be citable/not WP:OR An ad hoc cladogram is not OR if it is based on phylogenetic relationships supported by published sources. However, I acknowledge that WP:INTEGRITY means that it may be problematic to create a novel cladogram from a verifiability standpoint. One possibility woud be to require a footnote that provides a text-based description of the cladogram with appropriately-placed citations. Take the following text and accompanying cladogram, for instance:
Diplodocus and Barosaurus are more closely related to each other than Galeamopus, Leinkupal, or Supersaurus (Tschopp and Mateus 2017, Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla 2020). Galeamopus is more closely related to Diplodocus than Leinkupal or Supersaurus (Tschopp and Mateus 2017, Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla 2020). Leinkupal is a diplodocine that is outside the clade containing Diplodocus and Galeamopus (Tschopp and Mateus 2017, Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla 2020), but some studies find it closer to Diplodocus than Supersaurus (Tschopp and Mateus 2017, Mannion et al. 2019) and others find Supersaurus closer to Diplodocus than Leinkupal (Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla 2020). Tornieria is a diplodocine, but it has been recovered basal to Supersaurus (Tschopp and Mateus 2017), as sister to Leinkupal closer to Diplodocus than Supersaurus (Mannion et al. 2019), or in a polytomy with Galeamopus and the Diplodocus+Barosaurus clade (Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla 2020). Dinhierosaurus and Supersaurus are sister taxa (the former is sometimes called Supersaurus lourinhanensis) (Tschopp and Mateus 2017, Mannion et al. 2019, Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla 2020) (Kaatedocus has been recovered in several different positions, as either the sister taxon of Barosaurus, a basal diplodocine, or a dicraeosaurid (Tschopp et al. 2015, Tschopp and Mateus 2017, Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla 2020). Brontosaurus is an apatosaurine (Tschopp and Mateus 2017).
I assume we would agree that the text is verifiable, not OR, and NPOV. The cladogram is simply a visual representation of the text. I see no reason why we could not then create a cladogram depicting those relationships with an explanatory footnote or some other way of connecting it to the readily verifiable text equivalent. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Your text lists separate opinions, while your cladogram presents a single, synthesised opinion. It is therefore clearly WP:synth. If there is no published cladogram like the one you depict, then this synthesis simply goes too far. Such things have to be based on secondary sources. We have no business, nor need, to go beyond of what is offered by our sources. Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Apatosaurinae
Apatosaurus
Brontosaurus
Diplodocinae
Leinkupal
Supersaurus
Dinheirosaurus
Galeamopus
Diplodocus
Barosaurus
There is also the issue that the text currently is not comprehensive. Woodruff ea 2018 also add a specimen to the analyses of Whitlock 2011 (which isn't even considered here at all, but should be specified is a precursor to Whitlock and Wilson 2020), and Tschopp ea 2015. The parsimony results of Whitlock-based had (Supersaurus,(Dinheirosaurus, Tornieria,(Barosaurus,Diplodocus))) while the Tschopp-based had (Diplodocus,(Galeamopus,(Barosaurus,Kaatedocus))). So the Super+Dinheiro clade should be collapsed into a polytomy, and the Diplo/Baro/Galea as well. Or two more genera should be pruned, Dinheiro and Galea are probably most fitting in this situation. Leaving us with the wonderfully detailed and complete phylogeny of Tschopp ea or Whitlock & Wilson that could have been used on any genus page, being reduced to a cladogram that can only really be used on Diplodocidae or Diplodocinae. I do not see how this is a more beneficial representation than instead presenting one or two contrasting studies in full, where people can see for themselves the complete relationships that each study presents as their results. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Jens, read WP:NOTSYNTH. SYNTH is about new ideas being synthesized, it's not saying that nothing that could be called "synthesis" is allowed. The cladogram is not SYNTH; it is a visual summary of the information provided in the text. IJReid, you're right, I forgot about that study. To present a consensus taking those results into account, I would prune Dinheirosaurus but keep Galeamopus and note that the phylogenetic position and status of Dinheirosaurus as a distinct genus are both disputed. Here's the thing: presenting all of the proposed sets of phylogenetic relationships in cladogram form would take up a lot of space, and obviously, we would want to describe some of the competing hypotheses in the text no matter what. This leaves us with two options (both in conjunction with a prose explanation): arbitrarily choose one or two published cladograms to favor over the others for inclusion, or use a summary cladogram. I believe that using a summary cladogram is the clearest, most concise, and most NPOV way to present that information. The cladograms of Tschopp et al. or Whitlock & Wilson Mantilla may be "wonderfully detailed," but they are also not NPOV. The fact that this summary cladogram would not be ideal, e.g., on the article on Tornieria is beside the point; the level of detail about the phylogenetic position of Tornieria that is desirable in the Tornieria article is not warranted in the Diplodocidae article, so the information would naturally be presented in different ways in the two articles. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of the argument of synth in this case, choosing to prune Dinheirosaurus but not Galeamopus I would see as undue along the same lines as picking a phylogeny, because you have now declared that the results of one study is more important than the results of another. Saying Galeamopus is not a disputed genus is a reference to how the most recent studies have split D. hayi, but in much the same way that I would favour a more recent cladogram over an older one, that is favouring a more recent conclusion (new genus) over the old, established consensus (species of Diplodocus). These acts of choosing the most relevant, important, and recent study is inherent to every taxonomic decision we make, and I see no reason to apply a different logic to cladograms. We are not of the duty to choose what the neutral stance is, so presenting the two is better than us drawing our own (note, synth) line which we view to be "neutral". IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Editorial judgment on how much weight is due to each claim is not the same thing as SYNTH. Nobody has challenged Tschopp et al.'s conclusion that Galeamopus is a distinct genus from Diplodocus, to my knowledge, and if you go back to before they named the genus, you can find evidence of skepticism that Diplodocus hayi was correctly assigned to the genus (e.g. Foster 2003: ""Diplodocus" hayi, which is probably a new genus, as its postcranial skeleton is less like Diplodocus than that genus is to Barosaurus"). I am not aware of any papers in the last few decades that justify the referral of Diplodocus hayi to the genus in any detail. In contrast, the most recent detailed evaluation of Dinheirosaurus that treated it as a distinct genus was in 2012, and the majority of recent papers continue to treat Dinheirosaurus as a distinct genus. In fact, the combination Supersaurus lourinhanensis is almost exclusively used by Tschopp and Mateus, except for a couple of papers that note that the combination was proposed but otherwise use Dinheirosaurus. Tschopp and Mateus even acknowledge that the pairwise dissimilarity between the two species "approaches the threshold for generic distinction". I think it's entirely fair to treat the generic distinction of Galeamopus as reasonably uncontroversial at the moment but the synonymy of Dinheirosaurus and Supersaurus as disputed. The fantasy land you and Jens are living in where perfectly objective coverage is possible and judgment calls are never necessary does not exist. We shouldn't try and make it so that editorial judgment never comes into play, because such an outcome is impossible and ignoring that fact is simply being in denial about your own biases. Your judgment call of which competing cladograms are best to depict is no less of a judgment call than my judgment call of what to prune and what to collapse into a polytomy, but I believe my solution is clearer, more concise, and more NPOV than yours. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I know my constant arguing is getting me nowhere and I really should stop, but I would just like to say that I would greatly appreciate it if someone would lay out why they believe the view of OR/SYNTH they are taking here is in line with what is said at WP:NOTSYNTH. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
There are two real points to hit as to how the suggested allowables are or are not permittable following the major policies discussed here, including but not limited to WP:OR and WP:NPOV.
The first one I have realized during the course of this discussion, which is that there is no "neutral" point of view. Every stance or decision for "compromise" between studies creates an in between point of view that is not neutral simply for being intermediate, but instead is just as biased because it requires non-verifiable presumptions of balance and equity between studies. The choice to collapse a clade, or prune a taxon, to achieve a supposed "neutrality" that cannot be cited or found in any research, is an introduction of original research through synthesis.
Secondly, there seems to be some different opinions about NOTSYNTH and how it applies here. While it is true that claims of synth must be justified, I have provided sufficient justification through the identification that there is no source that presents the results that would be parroted; therefore synth is not presumed. I am not using synth it to justify removal of content, I am using synth to justify a project-wide policy. Providing the justification that cladograms should be quotations makes it *easier* to add cladograms to articles, since those of us who are "knowledgeable" and "neutral" enough would not have to constantly police cladograms to ensure all additions either follow a single source or are a neutral synthesis of multiple, and it is much easier for those not technically skilled enough to request for an exact figure to be reproduced at WP:TREEREQ, which is a page I created that has been very productive and efficient, increasing the ability for *everyone* to add a cladogram; therefore synth is not rigid. This covers how I am not using SYNTH in a presumed manner, or rigidly in a way that hurts the ability to edit in Wikipedia, which are the biggest applications NOTSYNTH has in this discussion. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Your apparent argument that trying to determine NPOV is an act of OR in and of itself is certainly a bold one that I doubt is what is intended by OR.
I could argue at length about how I feel you're ignoring several passages of WP:NOTSYNTH, including WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH, WP:NOTOBVIOUSSYNTH. I could point out that I don't see how WP:TREEREQ is relevant to whether you're applying SYNTH rigidly. However, it has become apparent that arguing policy is not going to get us anywhere. It seems to me that our problem is our interpretation of cladograms themselves, not policy. You seem to hold the view that a cladogram is inherently a claim in and of itself, whereas I hold the view that a cladogram is a visual summary of a set of claims. Both of us are in complete agreement that Wikipedia policy is clear that presenting novel claims is not allowed, but we can't agree on whether a cladogram is inherently a novel claim in and of itself. Or am I misunderstanding your position?
As far as your argument that using only "quoted" cladograms would make it easier to edit articles is concerned, I am not suggesting that every page should have a bespoke cladogram. I'm saying that the policy should keep the option of making such cladograms open for cases where it is useful to do so. As such, I don't think the scenario you're describing would be a major problem. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I've added my votes based on a cursory read-through of the discussion. I take a fairly moderate view with respect to some of the contentious points—I think that, as long as information is not removed, they come down to choices of presentation, which are acceptable if adequately documented. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposal
Given that I don't think we are likely to see any major swing in opinions at this point, it's probably about time to come up with a more formal suggestion for whatever sort of guideline or project policy we create. It seems like a lot of discussion hinges around how to treat cladograms, with the biggest sticking point and easiest place to compromise being to not make this a blanket ban, but also require discussion and consensus for changes that could be seen as exceptions. I would suggest that:
Cladograms should be treated as direct quotations of figures in published literature (allowing for visual modifications like collapsing labelled terminals and outgroups and rearranging the order of branches without changing the results), except in cases where there is prior discussion and consensus for additional modifications in the form of adding or emending labels from different sources, or collapsing and pruning trees in ways that change the results displayed.
I think this emphasizes that in most situations cladograms should be used as directly from sources, but that there is room for alternatives if they arise. Thoughts? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for proposing this potential compromise. (Full disclosure: IJReid first brought this up to me in an off-site discussion we were having, but other than my saying I was open to the compromise, we did not discuss it further before coming to the talk page). I am more or less open to this compromise, with one major reservation: I think that always requiring a prior discussion for significantly modified cladograms would be overly bureaucratic, however, as there may be some cases where it's difficult to attract the interest of enough editors to hold such a discussion. See WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. So here's my proposal of a revised version:
Cladograms should generally be treated as direct "quotations" of figures in published literature. Modifications to cladograms that are not considered as significantly changing the meaning of the cladogram, and as such are allowable in "quoted" cladograms, are:
Rearranging the order in which the branches are displayed without altering the topology
Limiting the displayed portion of a cladogram to a particular subclade
Collapsing labeled subclades into a single terminal taxon
Collapsing monophyletic genera or species into a single terminal taxon
Correcting typographical errors
Removing clade labels
Cladograms that do not fall within the scope of these modifications are considered user-created cladograms, and should not be used without an editor consensus. Boldly adding a user-created cladogram is not objectionable per se, but a boldly-added cladogram may be freely removed and require further discussion to determine whether it should be added back, and it is important to seek consensus first if the article already has a well-developed section on phylogenetic relationships.
Verifiability means that it should be clear to a reader which aspects of a cladogram come from which source. As in-line citations are not practical to add to a cladogram, this must be made clear through the caption or accompanying text. Footnotes may be used to provide additional clarification if necessary.
Neutral point of view means that the cladogram should not portray any phylogenetic relationships that are actively disputed, unless explicitly being presented as an illustration of a specific hypothesis.
No original research means that the cladogram should not depict any phylogenetic placements of taxa that are not supported by at least one reliable source.
Finally, keep in mind that cladograms should accompany the text, rather than being a replacement for it.
Yeah I think that's fine, its certainly wordier but I think it communicates all the important information and ends up as a decent summary of the points brought up here. I would support this. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
General Oppose. I am strongly in favour of properly sourced “cladograms”, but oppose a restrictive list of dos and don’ts that aren’t based on Wikipedia policy, i.e. WP:RS and the often misunterpreted WP:SYNTHESIS.
The whole of Wikipedia is built on combining many sources to provide information. Every article is a synthesis of material from many sources, but this isn’t synthesis in the WP:SYNTHESIS sense. There is no requirement that blocks of text (paragraphs, sentences), tables or images are solely from a single source, so I see no reason why a “cladogram” should have different requirements.
The “cladogram” is an illustration of proposed or hypothetical phylogenetic relationships, a visual aid to understanding something that is difficult to describe clearly and concisely in text. As such it should be accompanied by an explanation of what it shows and the sources used for each part, just as parts of text or tables can have different sources for different paragraphs, sentences, phrases, columns or rows. As long as a “cladogram” is properly explained and sourced, most of the dos and don’ts above follow naturally. Where there is an issue, any editor can make changes and replace a poorly explained or controversial cladogram, if necessary using the talk pages to gain consensus for the change. This is standard Wikipedia practice.
Rather than compiling a proscriptive list of rules I’d rather see the effort spent on removing the worst examples, such as those claiming they are based on 10-20 references, none of which show the illustrated relationship e.g. this one at chorophyta Perhaps we should have some way of flagging badly sourced or explained “cladograms”, a custom template like {{citation needed}}/{{clarification needed}} that also sets a category. I think tagging cladograms in need of attention and having a group of people who look to fix the issues raised would be a far more productive way of improving the encyclopaedia.— Jts1882 | talk17:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems we more or less agree on how Wikipedia policy should apply to cladograms, and I appreciate that. I think a cladogram policy that clarifies how OR, NPOV, and verifiability apply to cladograms is a good idea, but I disagree with the tight restrictions IJReid and others want to place on the use of user-created cladograms. However, I've been arguing alone in vain for this viewpoint for nearly a month, and unless this debate shifts significantly soon, this compromise seems like it might be the best we can get.
Your suggestion of creating a template to tag problematic cladograms with is a good idea, and it may well be something we can all agree on that will help improve the situation somewhat. Here are a few possibilities:
A header template that says "This article/section relies too heavily on cladograms" that can be added to those articles with a classification section that just consists of a bunch of cladograms (e.g. Anomodontia and Aeolosaurini)
A "clarify cladogram sources" template that can be added to user-created cladograms that seem credible but need better explanation of their sources
A "better cladogram needed" or "cladogram disputed" template that can be added to outdated cladograms and flawed user-created cladograms
I think that figuring out these templates might be the best way to make progress on the cladogram problem that we can all hopefully agree on. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment. How does it sound... sounds like a rewording of what you wanted but got voted against. Look drop the WP:SYNTHESIS garbage this issue, as I said repeatedly is not part of that it is not what its referring to. Also trying to push viewpoints using existing policies by forcing them to vaguely cover a topic that is irrelevant to it is not helpful. I think @Jts1882: makes a valid point, to me being able to identify these issues and have a set of guidelines that a cladogram cleanup group would use is a far better approach. There are too many variables in this to simplify it that much. Cladograms are a tool, and just because you are using text and tables in the wiki environment to construct them does not make them text. The final presentation is what matters and that is often disingenuous to the literature cited. This particular issue is at best vaguely covered by existing policies the way to deal with this is to come up with something new that respects the science because there are plenty of cladograms on Wikipedia that make me groan when I see them. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk20:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
just to point out, my comment is not a signal of no support here, just thinking you may wish to include in this a useful template and category, along with setting up a group that looks at these issues. I would be willing to be a part of this group if people wish. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk16:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Support implement now, tweak later - we need guidelines like these however way we phrase them, and while we may still have to work out the minutiae, this is a good step in the right direction. Since many of us do see cladograms as direct quotes when sued here, we do need to take synth concerns into consideration. And I just remembered another problematic case, a cladogram that was added to the Baryonyx article[6] which renamed a specimen which had been assigned only to Baryonyx sp. in the cited study to the new genus Iberospinus, which might not seem like a big deal, until you realise the cited study found the specimen to be the sister taxon to Baryonyx, therefore warranting placing it in the same genus, while the study that proposed the new name found it elsewhere in the tree, which is what warranted the new name. FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Support – we need to document this somewhere, it will save us much work in the future. We can't expect new editors to discover and read this discussion in order to learn how to to implement cladograms. We need something official. I don't see where such guidelines could have a negative effect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
_(white_background).jpg){kind=small}
_(white_background).jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
_(white_background).jpg){kind=small}
![[5]](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=4565693_pone.0137523.g005.jpg){kind=link}