Talk:Viscum album

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Viscum album is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Having looked up the reference

Blamey, M. & Grey-Wilson, C. (1989). The Illustrated Flora of Britain and Northern Europe. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 0340401702.

I can only note:

By its nature (a tertiary source, in condensed form, for a very limited geographic area) this book is not very suitable as a reference
It does not contain the taxonomy that it is claimed to contain.

Brya 16:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The information given is compiled from the three different references cited, not from just one. - MPF 13:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Right and if you put on a cardboard crown that will make you the king of England as "man + crown = king". The references provided cover Europe (assuming three subspecies there in the taxonomy used in that work) and China (assuming one subspecies there in the taxonomy used in that work). This adds up to a lower limit of two subspecies and no upper limit. Basing the present text on the references provided is guesswork at best. Brya 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it adds up to four named subspecies, which are clearly distinguished. How on earth do you get the mathematics 3 + 1 = 2???

I've added another ref which confirms the total range of the species as already described from the previous refs. If you are aware of additional details and references, please add them, instead of continuously complaining about what is already written. - MPF 16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only express my amazement of such a degree of ignorance. A taxonomic treatment is only relevant for the area described and the plants considered. Subspecies are not chemical elements but are relative to the judgement of those taxonomists drawing up the treatment. It is quite common that a subsequent treatment regards the subspecies of a previous treatment as species or varieties. It would be nothing out of the ordinary if recognizing meridianum as a subspecies is only possible when using a concept of the species that precludes any other subspecies. The previous subspecies would then be species or varieties, or not worth recognizing at all. In referring to the Flora of China you establish a minimum of two subspecies (note the the FoC does not give a species description, detailing how many subspecies there might be in the species as a whole). On the evidence presented there is no reason to suppose there might not be five or six subspecies (I would not be surprised if there might be up to twenty in some views), or as little as two. What is in the article now is pure conjecture. Brya 06:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the Flora Europaea reference which accepts three subspecies. That the Flora of China does not mention these extralimital subspecies other than the type is immaterial; the two accounts are not inconsistent with each other and can very reasonably be taken together. You have been invited to provide additional references which give additional information or a different viewpoint, but have not done so; from this I conclude that no such contradiction exists, or if it does, you are not aware of it either. There is no evidence at all for your conjecture of five or six, or up to twenty, subspecies.

By the way, your adding the {Unreferencedsect} is totally inappropriate. It is referenced. If or when a monograph of the species is ever published (or if it is already, when someone obtains details of it), then that can be added, but until it is, the page is reasonably based on the available references. - MPF 12:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly ignoring everything that wikipedia is saying about verifiability. When you are presenting a taxonomy not commonly accepted, the burden of proof is on you. As you indicate that the taxonomy you are presenting has been drawn up ("compiled") by you this is original research. It does not matter if I can disprove this. It does not matter if it is not explicitly disproved by the references provided. It is upon you to provide a reference for this (so far unreferenced) taxonomy. Brya 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Original research means if I go out, collect some mistletoe, and describe it as a new taxon in wikipedia. What I have done is derived research, derived from several sources, which is not only permitted, but encouraged. References are provided. - MPF 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. You were pushing a taxonomy which was not found in any reference you could produce but which was not original research, as you had compiled it personally. I am glad to see you have stopped pushing your own original taxonomy, although "are commonly accepted" is firmly into the category of weasel words. Brya 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As to your statement that "the two accounts are not inconsistent with each other" this to is immaterial: it is upon you to prove that they are consistent in their treatment of Viscum album. Brya 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not necessary. I am writing an account for an encyclopaedia, which is (and should be) based on references, not a formal monograph on the species (which of course should include original research, and is therefore not suitable here). I have included what is in the references, no more, no less. - MPF 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the other way about. You were publishing a new monograph (indeed unsuitable here) and passed it off as an account for an encyclopedia. Brya 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only suggest you stop violating basic wikipedia policies. Brya 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced information, as you have done, violates basic wikipedia policies. The only time it can be done is when additional reference is provided which demonstrates the previous information is superseeded. - MPF 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the verifiability page

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

You still have not cited a source for the taxonomy you put in, and the reference that you specifically claimed as containing this taxonomy proved not to contain anything near it. This was either a deliberate lie or proof that you must be even more deficient in mental capacity than I had thought. Brya 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary by Brya: "cleanup, removing unreferenced original research taxonomy, removing cluttered description at variance with Flora Europaea, reducing self-aggrandizing picture to proper size"

As pointed out, it is neither original research, nor unreferenced. The description is from several sources (as are all the descriptions I write for wikipedia, so far as is possible); if it had been verbatim from Flora Europaea (which by inference is all you are willing to accept), it would be breach of copyright. - MPF 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You had introduced the Flora Europaea as a creditable reference. The fact that you cannot stand a direct quote from the reference you had introduced yourself indicates that you had no position whatsoever. As you have firmly established being totally unreasonable I suppose I will leave the page as it is, and hope the reader will recognize the initials MPF and the level of error that entails. Brya 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)