Talk:Holocene extinction/Archive 3

Stuart Pimm plant extinction and the effect of climate change on plant biodiversity

Include: Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate". relating to Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity. 209.26.222.162 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It has been added in the section Ongoing Holocene extinction. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Human influence on extinction

The article reads:

"Extinction of animals and plants caused by human actions may go as far back as the late Pleistocene, over 12,000 years BP, but there is no direct evidence for this theory and it is more likely abrupt climate change played a much higher role in the extinction of larger mammals."

The source quoted is the text "Are we now living in the Anthropocene?". As far as I can see, the authors only state that humans didn't cause the climate changes thousands of years ago, they don't say that these climate changes caused the extinctions or that humans didn't cause them. Most of the text is about the present and near future, but here's what they say about extinctons:

"Biotic Change

Humans have caused extinctions of animal and plant species, possibly as early as the late Pleistocene, with the disappearance of a large proportion of the terrestrial megafauna (Barnosky et al., 2004). Accelerated extinctions and biotic population declines on land have spread into the shallow seas, notably on coral reefs (Bellwood et al., 2004) and the oceans (Baum et al., 2003; Myers and Worm, 2003). The rate of biotic change may produce a major extinction event (Wilson, 2002) analogous to those that took place at the K-T boundary and elsewhere in the stratigraphic column. The projected temperature rise will certainly cause changes in habitat beyond environmental tolerance for many taxa (Thomas et al., 2004). The effects will be more severe than in past glacial-interglacial transitions because, with the anthropogenic fragmentation of natural ecosystems, “escape” routes are fewer. The combination of extinctions, global species migrations (Cox, 2004), and the widespread replacement of natural vegetation with agricultural monocultures is producing a distinctive contemporary biostratigraphic signal."

I don't see support for the claim "it is more likely abrupt climate change played a much higher role in the extinction of larger mammals". Ssscienccce (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The section, while describing events that are indeed dramatic, uses unnecessarily dramatic language. Words like 'terrifying' and 'ruining' are not appropriate for an encyclopedic article, i.e. it's POV.1812ahill (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic Change

The article states: "The ecosystems encountered by the first Americans had not been exposed to human interaction and were far less resilient to man made changes than the ecosystems encountered by industrial era humans, those environments seasoned as they were, having been exposed to over 10,000 years of human interaction." The scientific literature may not support this claim so it needs to have a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.159.62.2 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The article says "North and South America[edit source | editbeta] There was a debate as to the extent to which the disappearance of megafauna at the end of the last glacial period can be attributed to human activities, directly, by hunting, or indirectly, by decimation of prey populations. Recent discoveries at Monte Verde in South America, and at Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania have effectively ended the "clovis first" position of American Archaeology and pushed the arrival of humans in the Americas back many thousands of years. This coupled with a more complete fossil record of the extinct animals has weakened the correlation between human occupation and mega-fauna extinction in the Americas. However around the world there is often a very strong correlation between human arrival and megafauna extinction, an example being Wrangel Island in Siberia, where the extinction of Mammoths (approximately 2000 BC) coincided directly with the arrival of humans. Furthermore, the success of mega-fauna in surviving previous more severe periods of climate change suggest natural events were not entirely to blame."

This may be original research and so it requires support. Please add this support.

The article reads: "Other, related human causes of the extinction event include deforestation, hunting, pollution,[28] the introduction in various regions of non-native species, and the widespread transmission of infectious diseases."

There is little doubt that some of this commentary is considerably more appropriate to the modern era, but how is this relevant to the Holocene extinction? There is increasing evidence that the Holocene Extinction event was caused by a cosmic/comet impact. The black matte layer, the "nuclear glass", the Greenland ice cores all point to massive natural calamity. The entire section regarding human causes seems like it is the present day being pressed onto 12,000 years ago. Human populations, at that time, were less than wolly mammoths. Any of these comments about impact on environment for the Holocene Extinction would be better appropriated to many different mammals then homo sapien.

This whole section needs to have the socio-political commentary removed. There is *no* citations that support any of these statements to be included and/or attributed to the Holocene Extinction event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:587:101:1205:397B:DE92:A14D:A9BD (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Extinction rates "__x__ % of *all* species

A small handful of microbiologists in my social circle cringe whenever they hear these sorts of statements, because - according to my friends - they almost never include microbial species, and in terms of sheer number they say microbial species are more than half the total. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Quaternary extinction event

There are two articlles on the same topic. Quaternary extinction event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.159.62.2 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, these are not the same event. The quaternary was earlier, before the beginning of human-created climate change, and may be related to the end of the last ice age. 2601:640:4001:266C:B482:6BB5:EE4B:F86F (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusions within the article

This is an incredibly confused and confusing article in need of a drastic rewrite. It presents rival arguments claiming anthropogenic extinctions at different rates at different places. It does not present the recent findings of the disappearance of large predators in Africa over the last 2 million years, not the disappearance of megafauna in Australia, or the North American findings of the association between Clovis assemblage and US Megafaunal disappearance. It makes no reference to the Richard Leakey Book "The Sixth Extinction" nor the work of Tim Flannery. I suggest a complete re-write. 49.196.2.188 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

McCallum (2015) and Mongabay as a source

Regarding these diffs [1], [2] I think that the paper is too primary and doesn't carry much weight as it's currently presented. It certainly does not justify removing apparently contradictory information that is sourced to Cambridge University Press and the New York Times. Mongabay.com is a blog owned by Rhett Butler, as mentioned here [3] which I don't believe meets reliable source standards at all because it's selfpub. Hit counts have nothing to do with reliability. Geogene (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Time Magazine listed Mongabay as one of the top 15 websites in 2008. Per Wikipedia page that covers it the site has been used as an information source by CNN, CBS, the Discovery Channel, NBC, UPI, Yahoo News, among others. If the source is good enough for CNN, I thought it would good enough for Wikipedia as a secondary source. Further, it publishes two different scientific journals that have pretty decent reputations. Further, I know for a fact Mongabay has been cited on Wikipedia in other places. So it has precidence. However, Birdwatch Magazine has been a mainstay in teh UK for a LONG time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongabay

Then, as for merit on the issue. Science Advances is a rapid publish platform that currently does not even have an impact factor rating https://www.researchgate.net/journal/2375-2548_Science_Advances, Versus Biodiversity and Conservation which has a fairly decent one in the twos. https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1572-9710_Biodiversity_and_Conservation. Whether one or the other will be ranked hire in the future is conjecture, but right now, B&C is a higher ranked journal as SA has NO RANK! anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.91.52 (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mongabay's Wikipedia page doesn't have a reference for the assertion that anyone uses Mongabay as a source. There are other aspects of the Mongabay Wikipedia article that I find questionable, namely that it reads like an advertisement (but I can't re-write every article that has that problem). Also, other organizations may not limit WP:SELFPUB to the extent Wikipedia does. I'm not sure why you have pre-emptively attacked Science Advances, which gets much more prominent coverage in the Mongabay article. If it is an inferior journal, then why does Mongabay give it superior coverage? I hadn't (yet) pointed that out, but there it is. Precedence means very little here, there are hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles out there with sources that may not meet the reliability standards. That is not a justification to allow additional instances of a selfpublished source. I may see what I can do about sources to Mongabay in the future, but I can't fix them all... Geogene (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you have misinterpreted something, first, no one is comparing Mongabay article to Science Advances, and no one is attacking Science Advances. i am stating a matter of fact. Current accepted dogma is that journals with impact ratings are superior to ones that do not have impact ratings. There is currently debate regarding this, but nothing has changed in the greater scheme. BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, the paper in which McCallum's paper was published has an impact rating of over 2. Science Advances has NO impact rating. Therefore, at this point in time, Science Advances IS an inferior journal until it is provided an impact rating, which it almost certainly will get.

second, if MOngabay is not acceptable, fine, but Birdwatch UK is certainly acceptable. So, the issue is mute. third, Why does Mongabay spend more time on the article from Science Advances? Its simple. Stanford university, where Erlich works, wrote a professional press release in their promotions department. They are promoting STANFORD FACULTY. Then, they tossed the news release on a system like PRWeb with instructions to writers that they could use the press release as written and stick their name on it. In fact, if you do a cursory search of the news articles on this topic, you will see that 90% of them, including one on cnn's website are not even edited. They just post the same press release. In the case of Mongabay, the news release was rewritten to a large degree, but includes most of the same material. then, the the Mongabay author must have known about Mccallum's paper, which was all over twitter per Altmetrics, and added taht information in. However, there was no press release from McCallum of which I am aware because he is not at Stanford. This is easily observed if you just coast the web, not that I was expecting you to do this. BirdWatch UK covered McCallum's paper before the Stanford press release happened, and had already released it, as can be seen on the link I provided to you. They did not cover teh Science Advances article, as they did not yet receive the news release. Did you see the CNN tweet from Azeda Ansari in regard to the his article? While at it, do Tweets count as citations? The reason I ask is taht each one is logged into the Library of Congress, or at least they were if that has not changed. I would not think that is a legit citation though! BTW, I saw a comment about promotions and links. I don't know what link you are referring too. First, I have not had a conversation with you about promotions as far as I am aware. Second, I don't even know what link you are referring too. The only links I had were links to the news articles in the references or similar kinds of things, at least I don't recall anything else. Finally, I just looked at the Mongabay Wikipedia page again, it is under "BUSINESS MODEL." Where, this is written, "Mongabay.com is independent and unaffiliated with any organization. The site has been used as an information source by CNN, CBS, the Discovery Channel, NBC, UPI, Yahoo!, and other such outlets." I know I have seen Mongabay quoted in National papers and such, but as you say, Wikipedia has their own standards. They are odd, sure don't follow the standards I worked under while writing for Encyclopedia Britanica, but hey, its the rules. So, can I put the citation back up then? It is not contrary to what is written, is in fact accurate, and was even recognized by David Wake (of the National Academy of Sciences) on his website Amphibiaweb, where they did a short blurb about it. I don't think they did a blurb about the Science Advances article, even though one of the authors was from his own department! I found thought the paper should be mentioned because it is important in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.91.52 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I oppose it. It doesn't carry the necessary weight. I'm looking for something with a writeup in the NYT or Economist, or maybe something that had been written up prominently in a literature review published by, say, Oxford University Press. Those are the kinds of citations already prevalent in the article. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

@Indricotherium: You have tagged the article for merging with the Quaternary extinction event. That would make for a very large article. However, you have offered no rationale for your proposal. Can you please explain why you think Holocene (or Anthropocene) extinctions should be viewed as a seamless continuation of the earlier Quaternary (or Pleistocene) extinctions, rather than as the rise of a separate wave of extinctions driven by different causes? I would have thought a better case exists for renaming the article "Anthropocene extinction". --Epipelagic (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Epipelagic:, my rationale was that there is very poor differentiation between the two pages.

* If the extinction in the Pleistocene is differentiated from the Holocene by time alone (making the cutoff about 10,000 years ago), it becomes debatable as to where to put the 'end' of the Pleistocene extinction, because it pretty much continued from then. There is a great deal of debate as to how much humans contributed to ice age extinctions, but more recent consensus suggests they can be attributable to the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa (even with minimal hunting pressure), especially in light of more concrete evidence demonstrating mass extinctions following colonisation of NZ, Australia and Madagascar.

* Also, mass extinctions tend to occur over the space of a few million years, and geologically speaking, it would be ridiculous to consider two separate mass extinctions within the space of 1 million years.

* Alternately, you could try splitting them up based on which were caused by humans and which were climactic - but recent consensus suggests in many places they both interacted with each other to cause mass extinctions, with ecosystem modification following megafaunal extinction potentially affecting climate on the other side of the world, causing more extinction. Also, the Australian mass extinction was definitely caused by humans - so it would make sense to put it under 'Holocene' - but it occurred 50,000 years ago, which would timeline wise put it as part of the Quaternary.

I think either more clear separation between the two articles would need to be made, or both should be combined to be a comprehensive article describing the Sixth mass extinction, including extinctions lasting from the end of the ice age up until today. Alternatively, a more general page like Anthropogenic extinction would remove the timeline ambiguity and would allow discussion of both prehistoric and modern mass extinction attributable to humans. Let me know what you think. --Indricotherium (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Indricotherium: I've reconsidered my suggestion of having an article on "anthropocene extinctions". The anthropocene has not been officially defined as a formal geological epoch. Even if it is officially defined, it may be defined starting as late as 1945, which would further aggravate the problem with the term "holocene extinction", in that the era begins after significant anthropogenic extinctions have already occurred.

While there may be some overlap and linkage between Quaternary extinctions and anthropogenic extinctions, it seems clear that anthropogenic extinctions are entirely overtaking the continued significance of Quaternary style extinctions, and should be considered as a separate event in their own right. I like your suggestion of having a separate article on "anthropogenic extinction". Let's get comments from more editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

They should be merged since the Quaternary extinction event article is quite literally a really long list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Article name

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

---

Should the title of this article be "Anthropogenic extinction"? See preceding discussion. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The current name is what I've stumbled upon most frequently in the literature about the actual extictions. The other name seems to be pushed more by environtmentalist types, therefore more hyperbolic. Also, it is by no means settled that the Holocene extinction event as a whole was human induced (climate change vs. over-hunting debate), unlike what is claimed above. It also seems like this article is a bit biased in that respect in the prehistoric extinctions section. There is still considerable debate among researchers, with many claiming the animals were already in serious decline due to the results of natural climate change, and that humans were simply a contributing factor to their extinction (but not necessarily all of the extincions). FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The article currently appears to basically equate the terms 'holocene extinction' and 'anthropogenic extinction' (to the extent of stating "{...}where the Holocene, or anthropogenic, extinction begins{...}"). While this is probably a stronger equivalence than is strictly warranted, I think it's fine for the article's purposes; the material discussed is mostly clear anthropogenic impacts leavened by some reservations about the megafauna blitzkrieg. However, changing the title to "Anthropogenic extinction" might shift the focus too far. I think it's better to have an article on "Holocene extinction", where that is explained to be mostly anthropogenic, than one on "Anthropogenic extinction", which then has to be qualified / shown to be not strictly applicable.-- Elmidae (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are some comparative Google page counts...

search term	scholar	books	news
Holocene extinction	833	1300	490
Anthropocene extinction	63	445	333
Anthropogenic extinction	628	905	11
Sixth extinction	2380	8830	3040

From that perspective, perhaps we should go for "Sixth extinction" or "Sixth extinction event". But the more I think about it, the more undecided I become. I doubt it matters that much. The different options each have somewhat different implications, and the focus of the article will need to shift slightly according to which title is used. One problem with the use of Holocene or Anthropocene is that both these terms are controversial, and the term Holocene might give way in the future to Anthropocene. Then again future shifts don't really matter, since the article can be adjusted again at an appropriate time. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that many Google scholar results for "sixth extinction" seem to refer to specific books, not the subject itself. The Sixth Extinction (book) (2014), and The Sixth Extinction[4] (1996), perhaps others. The term also seems to be mainly used for human-induced extinction, and is therefore more a pop science synonym of Anthropogenic extinction than of Holocene extinction. In this light, it would make more sense to have a separate article about the Anthropogenic extinction (specifically about human-induced extinctions), since Holocene extinction is a wider subject (includes extinctions that may not have had human influence). Regular Google research also include many references to an X-Files episode, The Sixth Extinction, so such results should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyhow, what makes you state the term Holocene is controversial? It is a commonly accepted stratigraphic unit. From reading the Anthropocene article, it appears this has been proposed in addition to Holocene, not as a replacement. FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well Holocene is controversial because Anthropocene is controversial. The International Commission on Stratigraphy is set to consider formalising a definition of Anthropocene sometime this year. If that happens then the use of the term Holocene might well be modified by the formalisation of the Anthropocene (I said "give way" – as in "make room for" – not "replace" :) --Epipelagic (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• No The time may come (possibly soon) when there is a definitive reason to choose one name or another, but as long as it is worth arguing about it is too soon to mess about with troublesome and tendentious activities like juggling and swapping (or, IMO even debating) titles. Of the alternatives, "Holocene" is the least evaluative, most general, least POV, and already in place, so it is the natural choice for now. To change the title while there still is room for argument is not sensible. It is not as though the sense of the article and the nomenclature need be affected; as long as we can have redirs or minor associated articles with links under Anthropocene extinction, Anthropogenic extinction, Sixth extinction and so on, the value to the reader is not reduced, whereas arguments and name changes penalise all parties apart from the wikiwarriors. Until the finer points become sufficiently well established to justify separate articles (and links) unambiguously, discussion of the distinctions can be dealt with in this article, possibly just in the lede, but if desired, in sections. JonRichfield (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus, at least for now, to leave things as they are. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• No per JonRichfield's reasoning. 8bitW (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The public, such public as there is, which has heard of this kind of extinction and which understands (at whatever level) the difference between "holo-" and "anthropo-", will be expecting "holo-". It's not that "anthropo-" isn't in some sense correct, it's that (whatever Google may say) "holo-" isn't... "anthropocentric". Which makes it inherently the better choice, I think. (BTW, has anyone else heard about the exploding methane plumes in the arctic? Man, we are so screwed...) KDS4444^Talk 12:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Why nothing about extinction in Europe and Asia?

There seems to be a glaring omission in this article as it lacks any discussion of megafauna extinction in Europe and Asia. True, the extinction of species in the Americas and Australia was more dramatic and, true, mankind coexisted with megafauna in Eurasia for thousands of years as they did in Africa. But it is also certainly true that many species -- mammoth, etc.-- became extinct in Eurasia early in the Holocene -- and that humans probably contributed to that. It seems unbalanced not to include a discussion about Eurasia in the article. Smallchief (talk 20:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Dating for extinction lists

I have a suggestion to differentiate Quaternary extinction event and Holocene Extinction- namely, the fact that the anthropogenic extinctions ≠ holocene extinctions. At least in the listing of extinctions, we should only include extinctions after 8,000 BCE, at the end of the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary, to properly account for the fact that this extinction is divergent from the Quaternary extinction event, with the end of the Late Glacial Maximum. The Quaternary extinction event, although also enveloping the Holocene as well as the Pleistocene, refers to the rather nebulous confluence of climate, human impact and various other stimuli, which although culminated in the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary circa 11,000 BCE-9,000 BCE, was also spread throughout a 60,000 year period, of which climate changes made extinct many of the species on those lists. However, the Holocene extinction covers mostly the stragglers of the last extinction and the nouvelle extinctions taken by the Neolithic revolution, human expansion and climate moderation typical of the Holocene BCE, after which further human colonisation, population growth and ecological modification lead to the extinctions from 3500 BCE (start of recorded history, the Bronze Age) to today.

The Holocene extinctions have a far more anthropogenic focus, perpetuated by a different mode of human interaction with the environment, and although (to me) humans had a decisive impact upon the extinction of megafauna during the Late Pleistocene (200,000 BCE-9,700 BCE), this impact was both different in nature, and diluted/compounded with various other factors. This is why, although these articles are closely intertwined, there should be a separation with the overall scope of either one. Thus, I believe, in regards to the formatting of this article, we should shift 'Prehistoric extinctions' to 'Post Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary (8,000 BCE-3500 BCE)' (Preboreal, Boreal, former Atlantic, with mentions of QEE victims between 9,700 BCE-8,000 BCE and beyond during the Quaternary Extinction Event inside the introduction to each region); 'Into the Common Era (3500 BCE-1500 CE)' (Atlantic, Subboreal, Subatlantic); and 'Recent Extinctions - 1500 CE beyond' (Subatlantic). In the PP/HB (8,000 BCE-3500 BCE), we should remove Australia, and condense it to Australasia and Oceania- 60,000-40,000 BP is far beyond the scope of this article- then add Africa and Eurasia to the lists. The key is to only list extinctions after the range of the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary.

Of course, some overlap is needed with the Quaternary extinction event, with a comprehensive list inclusive of precise extinction dates, however to do so, we must ensure we do not clone the lists, as having worked extensively on them, there are an incredibly wide range of figures for extinction dates, although some species deserve to be on both lists, with the QEE having a more extensive scope into the Holocene due to extirpations and a megafaunal focus rather than one of anthropological impact. After this work, we should transplant the information blocs pertaining the late Pleistocene extinctions into QEE. To mediate the readers who are specifically looking for the full lists of extinct megafauna present in the other article, we should heavily link the QEE article. Moreover, these lists should be substantiated to the same extent as the QEE article. I am planning to commence this work myself relatively soon, though I believe some verbal acknowledgement and input from committed editors of this article is needed before I perform this overhaul. I look forward to this reformation. SuperTah (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"10 to 1000 times higher" than other mass extinctions

@Wolfdog: Recently, someone added a clarification tag to a paragraph you added to this article. Can you add a reference that verifies this claim, specifically? Jarble (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jarble: The "10 to 1000 times" statistic seems to sourced already. As for the "10 to 100 times" claim, I can't remember at the moment where I got that information. It can be removed or, better yet, replaced by newer estimates. Wolfdog (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the MAXIMUM number of species lost is supposed to be 7% and the other mass extinctions were anywhere between 75 and 90(!), I would say that it's based on hysteria and that what happened in Madagascar and New Zealand are rightly part of the end Pleistocene extinctions, albeit rather late. Also, what happened in Australia took place 45 THOUSAND years ago, while the Plestocene was still going on. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Extinction of woolly mammoths on Wrangel island

I am wondering how the sentence "for example, in Wrangel Island in Siberia the extinction of dwarf woolly mammoths (approximately 2000 BCE)[60] did not coincide with the arrival of humans" is deduced from the article that is used as citation. In the cited article, no such claim is made. Furthermore, in the Wikipedia article on Wrangel island, it is postulated that the extinction actually does coincide with human arrival (both of them being dated around 1700BC).84.87.204.78 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

WR 104

The Holocene extinction event will begin probably in 389,400 years beacuse the Wolf-Rayet star WR 104 would explode in a supernova. It will be suggested that it may produce a gamma ray burst that could pose a threat to life on Earth should its poles be aligned 12° or lower towards Earth. The star's axis of rotation has yet to be determined with certainty. A new epoch will begin in 1,589,400 years but, it is no sure that the human species will extinct because it will have colonised 6 million planets. The OmegaYnoss ★ ^{(disscusion • Contribs)} 21:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

adding the word "alleged"

The simple fact is, is that there have been numerous "extinction events" that are worse than this one which aren't counted in the "big five" such as the Jurassic-Creteceous, the Eocene-Oligocene, etc. In fact every single geological "epoch" or "stage" has had a pretty nasty biological collapse when it ends. That's why the fossil record is divided that way.

While anthropogenic ecosystem collapses during the Quarternary are real enough, none of them have to do with man-made climate change or CO2 emissions. This doesn't mean that Trump denialism is correct and that censorship of government scientific data is justified, it's not. If you're going to have an article with this title, fine. But get the facts right. 7%, which is bad enough, isn't 80%. It's alleged. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not our call to make; if it's referred to as a mass extinction by the majority of reliable sources, then it goes in, regardless of your personal impressions of the matter. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur. There are a plethora of peer-reviewed scientific journals being cited in this article. Hardly dubious sources. However, I am adding a dissenting voice in S. Pimm for NPOV, who claims we are close to a sixth mass extinction event, but not quite there yet.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holocene extinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116122058/http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html to http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"

The abovenamed is listed as a source in section one of the article. The listed authors are "William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome, Mauro Galetti, Mohammed Alamgir, Eileen Crist, Mahmoud I. Mahmoud, William F. Laurance, [and] 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries". I edited the number to 15,372 being the sum of eight named authors plus the 15,364 signatories. This was reverted, because it was presumed that the "stated number [15,364] in the given source" was the total number of scientists who made the statement. I have added the reference to the eight authors (all of whom are scientists) as prose. Te Karere (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Overexploitation section - Atlantic cod collapse graph.

Without disagreeing with the basic premise (Over fishing caused a collapse in cod population) this doesn't seem to be what the graph is saying. The graph is only half the story at best.

The graph plots fish landed, not fish population. Hypothetically we could have stopped landing fish for any number of reasons. That the population had collapsed being just one. Could we add a word of explanation about why cod landed is an acceptable analogue for a collapsing cod population? Or even better find a graph that correlates cod landed with cod population.

I'm being picky I know. Sorry.

185.47.106.84 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Also the graph on the commons doesn’t have any sources so there’s no guarantee it’s accurate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"Gobbledegook. Please rewrite in English."

??? That statement makes less sense than the sentence that it presumably modifies which seems reasonably readable --142.254.1.239 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure all it was trying to say what more agriculture equals more people and less environment   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth?

Like with any taxonomy, there will always be lumpers and splitters. Isn't there plenty of evidence to suggest that the #6 is not universally accepted?

e.g. Here's a bunch of random sources that say it's the 7th: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22seventh+mass+extinction%22+%2B+pleistocene&btnG=

2604:2000:1103:845C:8130:BA9E:383A:9856 (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)R.E.D.

The seventh mass extinction is a clever title for a narrative he wrote about humans dying out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Serious citation issues with intro

The second and third paragraphs are completely unsourced. And all of the sources for the fourth paragraph are just tacked on the very end of the paragraph. In particular, the fourth paragraph quotes the term "super predator", but whoever wrote it completely forgot to indicate who they were quoting. The term never appears in any of the sources cited for this paragraph. I'm unqualified to confidently verify these claims, or provide sources, but hopefully someone who is qualified will check this issue out. Jebadiah Sweepstakes (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost all the citations were deleted any another editor a few years back per MOS:LEADCITE, but some have been added since. With very few exceptions, the vast majority of the material in the lede is expanded upon in the body of the article with proper citations. The citation pertaining to "super-predator" can be found in the first sentence of the third paragraph of the sub-section "Competition by humans".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Holocene extinction

I'm not a scientist, But I've lived in Hawaii for 50 years. IMHO, the loss of Hawaii species of plants and animals is due more to the introduction of feral animals Like rats and pigs than human activity? Couldn't find this discussed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.51.58 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Introducing feral animals is human activity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Here are the parts where it mentions that,

• In the lead, "...proved highly sensitive to the introduction of new predation, and many died out shortly after early humans began spreading..." - A vague reference to be fair
• "...the introduction in various regions of non-native species..." - in the section "Activities contributing to extinctions" ... Again it is vague however, in this case, as part of the list such that it is, probably shouldn't be too detailed.
• "...and predation by introduced mammals." - The picture of the Dodo in the "Agriculture and climate change" section
• "Many of its species are endangered or have gone extinct, primarily due to accidentally introduced species and livestock grazing." - in the section "Islands" ... exactly what you are looking for..
• "The Polynesians also introduced the Polynesian rat." - in the section "New Zealand"
• "As well as habitat loss, introduced predators and pollution," - in the section "Diseases"
• "...habitat loss and the introduction of invasive species." - the picture of the Golden Toad in the "Diseases section

There is plenty of mention of non native predation. It may lack an in depth analysis however. Possibly not in time to answer the OP but it's not totally absent from the article. ~ R.T.G 23:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Softening of exceedingly authoritative language

I would like to prevent a revert war by employing Revert and Discuss and starting the discussion.

Please note the flags at the beginning of this section about the entire article being controversial.

If this article is about a ongoing, global, epoch-relevant extinction caused by human activity, then it must be seriously curated.

My changes (highlighting the theoretical nature of some of the assertions, and also softening the superlatives "unprecedented global superpredator" - with no support for "unprecedented" and no definition for "superpredator" - yeesh) are completely consistent with an encyclopedic tone. (WP:ENC).

I also completely deleted the reference to amphibian population decrease, because the doubts (about this being human caused) introduced more than ten years ago by two scholarly papers have been confirmed by a third one (in Science, no less) in 2018. The number of authors on these papers represent a substantial fraction of the entire knowledgeable community when it comes to this phenomena, and the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster (and it is one!) have been authoritatively proven wrong. Since this article is officially about "ongoing, global, epoch-relevant extinction caused by human activity", those references and the related text would ideally have been removed last year. (Or two years ago, now, it being 2020)

Perhaps we can agree that the tone of this article is somewhat alarmist?

I am really, really no kind of expert on this topic, and I know it. My changes were not meant to insert opinion, but rather soften the authority of assertions and claims that were more lightly underpinned.

Riventree (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello@Riventree:. The rate of extinction the world has experienced since the last ice age has not been matched since the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. That is not a theory. There are only a handful of comparable events in the entire history of life on the planet, the dinosaurs dying, the Great Oxygenation event... The fact of the extinction is not theoretical. The ongoing nature of it is not theoretical. The only theoretical part of it is similar to the other great extinction events. We can only theorise at the cause.

You claim to have a source which controverts a source already used, but you have not produced that source.

The idea that humans are not a significant contributor to extinction is practically insane. I invite you to listen to a condensed documentary about the Passenger Pigeon called "From Billions to Zero in 50 Years - The Extinction of the Passenger Pigeon"[5] and remember, only the species with popular stories and catchy names are remembered in culture. Most.. almost all.. are not even discovered, let alone heard of. The sad fact you must learn, is to push us towards the strength in our nature, we must acknowledge the weakness, or we cannot see it to improve it. Your mission is admirable, but misguided. Deny slavery is slavery, and it will pervade society. Deny that children can be abused, and they will be beaten vigorously and sold by their guardians. There is a long list of human nature we have overcome, and not one bit of it overcome by pretending there was no problem humans have a stake in.

What you are proposing seems worth trying, but we've already tried it. Sorry about this, but the subject of this article is certainly alarmist. Catch yourself on. There's nothing to see here if you don't care to look. We aren't going to lie and say we can only think of causes that don't involve humans. We are not going to try our best to avoid suggestions that humans may have had an effect. It is not fair to ask us to, thanks. ~ R.T.G 00:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Specifically commenting on the Anomalocaris statement here, since I have now had to remove that twice. The insinuation that Anomalocaris was "another super predator" is not borne out by either of the two cited sources [6][7]. They merely talk about the species/genus being an apex predator, which is nothing dramatic - there is one in every ecosystem. The "super predator" reference we use regarding humans [8] talks about an ecosystem-destabilizing, short-term emergence of top down exploitation. Not only is that not applicable to geological time frames (which is the only time frame a Cambrian fossil record can refer to), it would also require exceptional evidence to make this claim about a paleo-ecosystem. Consequently neither of the cited sources even goes near the term. If the intention here is to relativize anthropogenic ecosystem impact, this is not the material to turn to. - Not that I believe that we have to add any hedging; I think the article currently well follows the scientific consensus, and that doesn't bear much downplaying of human impacts any more. Updates on new findings re amphibian decline should of course be incorporated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello@Riventree:. The rate of extinction the world has experienced since the last ice age has not been matched since the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. That is not a theory. There are only a handful of comparable events in the entire history of life on the planet, the dinosaurs dying, the Great Oxygenation event... The fact of the extinction is not theoretical. The ongoing nature of it is not theoretical. The only theoretical part of it is similar to the other great extinction events. We can only theorise at the cause.

You claim to have a source which controverts a source already used, but you have not produced that source.

The idea that humans are not a significant contributor to extinction is practically insane.

And gosh, I totally agree with you. Humans DO contribute to extinctions. But that's not the topic here. The topic of this article is a global, epoch-relevant human-caused extinction, and there is NOT a lot of scholarly support that it's even REALLY happening, much less that humans are causing it.

I invite you to listen to a condensed documentary about the Passenger Pigeon called "From Billions to Zero in 50 Years - The Extinction of the Passenger Pigeon"[9]

Oh FFS... My references to Science and Nature are deleted, and you're citing A YOUTUBE VIDEO?

You, personally, are hopeless as an editor. Go away and stop reverting other people's work.

If anyone with a shred of scholarly sense wants to take up this man's cause, I'd be happy to listen.

and remember, only the species with popular stories and catchy names are remembered in culture. Most.. almost all.. are not even discovered, let alone heard of. The sad fact you must learn, is to push us towards the strength in our nature, we must acknowledge the weakness, or we cannot see it to improve it. Your mission is admirable, but misguided. Deny slavery is slavery, and it will pervade society. Deny that children can be abused, and they will be beaten vigorously and sold by their guardians. There is a long list of human nature we have overcome, and not one bit of it overcome by pretending there was no problem humans have a stake in.

That was a lovely fact-free string of opinions and prose which associated my opinion with that of slaveowners and child molesters. It is a beautiful example of why this entire article should be AfD'd: It is, at its heart, a persuastion or call-to-action page apparently supported by zealots and true-believers unconcerned with scholarship, respect for opposing opinions, or provable truths. Shame on you!

Let us all recall that Call-to-action pages and persuasion pages are prohibited as non-encyclopedic.

Riventree (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Rewriting the very first passage to describe the Holocene extinction as "theoretical" is not only WP:OR, as there are no sources present to describe it as such, but it tells lay readers who might be looking for information on this topic not to bother reading on, as its basically not real. The cited sources, which are mostly peer reviewed academic sources or mainstream media reports of such studies (which are good citations for layreaders seeking more information who might not want to read through an academic paper) tell us that there is widespread consensus among scholars and scientists that the earth is experiencing a major extinction event driven by human actions. The only debate appears to be whether this rises to the level of the previous five, with some saying we are on the edge of it, and others saying we are in the midst of it (and this debate is present in the article). The consensus can be seen in significant reports such as the World Scientists Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice, endorsed by more than 15,000 scientists from around the world (more than any other paper ever published), and especially in the landmark report from the UN's IPBES published in May of last year which warned that roughly a millions species are facing extinction in the near future from human actions. That latter should have put to rest any debate that there is indeed an anthropogenic extinction event occurring, but I guess it is silly to think that given people still deny anthropogenic climate change is a reality. Nevertheless, I find the language you included highly WP:UNDUE (and especially in the lede sentence!) as few, if any, peer-reviewed scientific sources are referring to the current anthropogenic extinction event as nothing but a "theory". Your changes would require finding consensus here on the talk page for sure, with the onus being on you given you are altering the present consensus version of the article in a significant way, and given what I've seen posted above by others that might be a challenge. (Oh, and you should not be removing or editing the comments of others, that's a no no on talk pages. The comments of the other editors should be restored in their entirety. Your ad hominem attacks on others here on talk, such as "You, personally, are hopeless as an editor", are also absolutely unacceptable).

You assert that there is no support for "unprecedented" and no definition for "superpredator", yet the cited source does just that.

You also say that studies from years ago cast doubts that humans share responsibility for amphibian decline, when the cited source (published in Science in 2019) tells us that "Anthropogenic trade and development have broken down dispersal barriers, facilitating the spread of diseases that threaten Earth’s biodiversity" and that "Highly virulent wildlife diseases are contributing to the Earth’s sixth mass extinction (1). One of these is chytridiomycosis, which has caused mass amphibian die-offs worldwide (2, 3). Chytridiomycosis is caused by two fungal species, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (discovered in 1998, 4) and B. salamandrivorans (discovered in 2013, 5). Both Batrachochytrium species 15 likely originated in Asia and their recent spread has been facilitated by humans (5, 6)." (emphasis mine) That its spread was "facilitated by humans" makes it anthropogenic.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I refactored Riventree's poorly threaded comment, without changing the text, to help show who is talking and replying to whom and to what. The first paragraph below starting "you are entirely correct" was originally interjected after CJ Griffin's 2nd paragraph above. The following paragraphs from Riventree's comment have not been touched, so my edit here puts her entire response together, per [{WP:THREAD]]NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: You are entirely correct. I apologise and cede the point. It is also used in the (very much less scholarly) Science Daily Article about anomalocaris.

I take your point, although I think that by that logic birds, rather than people, are the cause of the flu. I don't think being the vector by which a pathogen moves between continents shows that you are the cause of the deaths caused by that disease.

I would like to quote my original bit:

I am really, really no kind of expert on this topic, and I know it. My changes were not meant to insert opinion, but rather soften the authority of assertions and claims that were more lightly underpinned.

I meant all of that. This article very much feels like a persuasive/call-to-action piece rather than a scholarly examination of factual data. ::

Having said my piece, I will bow out and leave the article alone. Thank you for hearing me.

Riventree (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Riventree your concerns are understandable. We really do not know the exact details of the extinction. There are certainly articles going around claiming unheard of elements in the extinction of the larger mammals, extra moisture in the air etc. Removing wholly mammoths and rhinos would certainly cause a population surge we can scarcely predict in both fauna and flora, as evidenced by events in the modern world... However, that is just my opinion. Here's a dozen mostly scholarly and similarly respected articles... [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Some of them are brand new, some are a year or two old, some are ten years old, some refer to understandings of the last hundred years. Some are about this animal, some about that, some about loads of animals, and one simply compares the life of the modern big cat to the sabre toothed tiger (there apparently isn't much variation in cats morphology except between big/small, fur, and front paw size).

They all say the same thing. I have not cherry picked them. I searched "decline in species since last ice age". Much as this article seems to be about humans... it is in fact supposed to be based on that tagline, humans or not. They all say the same thing... natural climate change weakened the animals, and humans killed them. Some of them go to great lengths to point out that humans couldn't be solely responsible for every extinction in this period... But they all stress... we are believed to be the final executioner in almost every case. The idea that is an insult is purely contemporaneous... It is an honour to be the most dangerous beast on the planet with its potential fulfilled. Killing a world at war as wild animals makes us king, not pauper. It is running around in the modern age in crisis with our appearance... trying to use one and the same time to both emulate those wild humans, and pretend they were noble in a modern sense, is what the destructive thing is here. What we need to do for the article is face the two things at the same time, climate change, both natural and and artificial, and human dominance, both contributing as the main factors in this topic, according to all sources new and old. ~ R.T.G 14:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@RTG: Saving the terms insult and honor as perhaps too much, I think this text could almost be copied into its own section in the main page. It's both well considered and well supported, and might serve as a good transition from the lead/lede to the rest of the content. Just my 2¢ worth.

Riventree (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I find the wording to be conversational and opinionated. Recent studies are talking about the environmental weakening of the megafauna being more relevant to the Quaternary part of the extinction, but what all these sources tend to overlook in favour of human self flattery is... the idea that humans hunted megafauna because we were hungry is nearly as crazy as the idea that we didn't hunt them at all.. 3 meter rhinos running around loose with no boundaries, no guns, and no fear of humans... That's my personal line of perspective into it, but I have yet to see much sourcing which acknowledges that obvious situation, at that early stage anyway. Slightly later, yes, walled cities and ringed forts were not only protection against other humans. And at the same time, Riventree, we were not the only humans in the world at that time. There were five or six, neanderthals being stronger than us with bigger brains. Maybe they killed the megafauna... but we just don't have the sources for these obvious assumptions. ~ R.T.G 23:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Well actually, we have a couple of good examples of simple civilizations very easily and very wastefully harvesting local megafauna on an industrial level, like the extinction of the Moa where the Maori simply took choice parts of meat and discarded the rest of the carcass (and Moa were easily to kill because they had no natural fear of humans), or buffalo jumps where they'd cause a stampede of an entire herd over a cliff. The overkill hypothesis is pretty well acknowledged (contrary to what our article would have us believe). There is no evidence of such practices coinciding with occupation by a different human species, and mass extinctions coincide with the immigration of modern human species, even in areas where we replaced an archaic human species. Neanderthals were not appreciably stronger nor smarter than humans. There is evidence we hunted (not simply scavenged) wooly rhinos and mammoths and so on. We don't have the sources to support what you're saying because there isn't support for it. Please read up on overkill, then come back   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

According to some of the articles I posted above, more recent study suggests the climate change had a more significant effect and that human patterns seemed to put them in different areas when some of the larger mammals perished, (a notable exception being the cave bear which apparently neanderthals were expected in that case to have possibly had a greater effect on by going into caves more often). Only authoritative sources can improve this article. I'm just trying to point out that I could make variously convincing apologies and flatteries for humans, they would still require sourcing. ~ R.T.G 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Many studies published throughout the 2010s attribute the megafaunal decline more to human actions than climate change. Some examples: Vanishing fauna (2014), Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate change (2014), Humans rather than climate the primary cause of Pleistocene megafaunal extinction in Australia (2017), Body size downgrading of mammals over the late Quaternary (2018).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please update with: "The past and future human impact on mammalian diversity"

Please add some short information on this paper to the article and/or possibly other relevant article/s (like e.g. Human overpopulation or Overconsumption etc). It's currently featured in 2020 in science (September) like so:

After investigating how mammalian extinction rates have changed over the past 126,000 years, scientists report that mainly (about 96% prediction accuracy) human population size and/or specific human activities, not climate change, cause global mammal extinctions and predict a near future "rate escalation of unprecedented magnitude".

(I also added it to 2020 in the environment and environmental sciences.) I added it to this article to section #Climate change like so:

Studies find that human population size and/or specific human activities, not climate change, caused rapidly rising global mammal extinction rates during the past 126,000 years and currently.

but my recent adjustment/correction of my addition was undone by User:Elmidae. Hence I have removed it so it can be discussed first or be added by other editors.

I found that, while section "#Human activity" makes it somewhat clear what the main drivers of it are / are not section "#Climate change" does not.

Please add it in an adequate way or suggest a text to include here. Thank you.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

References

That revert was not a criticism of the statement or the sources, merely of the subsequent split into "past 126,000 years" and "currently". If we are talking about the Anthropocene, then that entire period is covered (more or less - opinions on extent differ), and as far as I can see the content of the papers does not require that split either. Reinstated with slight rephrasing; thanks for updating with recent literature! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think accuracy is very important. This is why I'd like content to be entirely accurate. The different sources referred to different timespans, even though there are overlaps. I think the Anthropocene is an important concept – but nowhere in that paper is it even mentioned nor is it referring to its time-span. The study has this: To provide a basis to compare the historical anthropogenic effects with the ongoing biodiversity crisis, we predicted future diversity losses under [...] and is mainly about / investigating the past 126k years, and not the most recent times and what readers would think of as "currently" happening. These projections of the paper and similar content may make it suitable for one but definitely not the only reference for the prior text. Please check whether the current text is adequate and matches what the study is about. I think it may be almost appropriate now that there are additional refs, but imo probably isn't yet; key parts of the current text are have been and during the Anthropocene. --Prototyperspective (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the arguments above, I think it might be best to quote one of the authors of the study for clarification. That way we avoid using the term "Anthropocene" given it's not mentioned in the text of the study (possible WP:OR) and also the disputed split into "past 126,000 years" and "currently". How about something like this:

Studies find that human population size and/or specific human activities, not climate change, caused rapidly rising global mammal extinction rates during the past 126,000 years. According to Tobias Andermann, lead author an October 2020 study published in Science Advances, "these extinctions did not happen continuously and at constant pace. Instead, bursts of extinctions are detected across different continents at times when humans first reached them. More recently, the magnitude of human driven extinctions has picked up the pace again, this time on a global scale."

Just a suggestion...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good; other forms that are more similar to the current text would also be fine as long as they are adjusted for better accuracy imo. I'm only not so sure about the More recently and again and this time parts as the past 126,000 years seems to have included this "more recent" period (or not?) and "again" and "this time" implies that were pause in between (was there?). Furthermore "this time" implies that the relevant prior extinctions weren't also caused on the global scale in some form (certainly not in the same form as now) which also seems to be inaccurate. Imo it would probably still be good to include as it's a quote but maybe we should inform (more) about the study's contents instead or in addition due to these possibly inaccurate impressions readers might get from this. --Prototyperspective (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Essay-like

Hello, I worked on this article several years ago under a different account, which I have since forgotten the password for. I notice that althought this is a well developed and referenced article, some sections appear to be like an WP:ESSAY arguing for a particular point of view, that may not directly link to the topic of the article (the sixth extinction). It's particularly important that any citations link to the sixth extinction, as to avoid WP:OR. This is particularly the case in the "Defaunation" section, and in particular sections that talk more broadly about impacts of the meat industry, plastic pollution and other related Human impact on the environment topics. As such, as I have added a maintenance tag. We want to avoid WP:DUPLICATION of articles on related topics. I welcome any discussion or suggestions, and think this could be a great article if a few of these sections are edited for wording/conciseness. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Many of the sources in the section you tagged directly link meat production and consumption to biodiversity loss and mass extinction. Examples include the BBC article on the IPBES report (perhaps one of the most significant sources for this article) which says, "Pushing all this forward, though, are increased demands for food from a growing global population and specifically our growing appetite for meat and fish" . . . "Land use now appears as the major driver of the biodiversity collapse, with 70% of agriculture related to meat production". With one source, an article in Science magazine, the title says it all: Meat-eaters may speed worldwide species extinction, study warns. Another significant source is a Guardian article on a 2017 WWF report which says "60% of global biodiversity loss is down to meat-based diets which put huge strain on Earth’s resources", etc, etc. So as far as I can tell, this is not WP:SYNTH or WP:EDITORIALIZING, or WP:OR or anything of the sort, but WP:DUE material from reliable sources. EDIT: And it should also be mentioned that proper attribution to the source material is included, so as not to be using Wikipedia's voice.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see these claims as WP:OR either. Many of the reliable sources connect meat production (and consumption) with the ongoing human-driven mass extinction. Replacing the term with "deforestation" leads to overgeneralization, which may give the wrong picture. Deforestation can occur due to various reasons but topping it all is the animal agriculture (e.g., beef and soy [which again is produced for the beef industry] in the Amazon region [23]) and this cannot be generalized simply as "deforestation", especially in the lede. Here are some more: [24], [25], [26], [27]. Sixth extinction is so broad a topic, and more often academic, that not every mundane write-up mentions it explicitly by its name but stops with the more familiar consequence of deforestation but still many academic articles mentions the mass extinction, as C.J. Griffin pointed out above. For instance, the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity says, "Especially troubling is the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels (Hansen et al. 2013), deforestation (Keenan et al. 2015), and agricultural production—particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption (Ripple et al. 2014). Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century" ([28]), clearly mentioning both. Thus, the term "deforestation" cannot replace "meat consumption" but can only be included in addition. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources are very clear on this as evidenced above. It should be restored to the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I also dispute the notion that this article, and in particular the Defaunation section, "is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic," as the template at the top says. Just looking over the article and especially that section, it is the opposite that is true. Clearly the cited sources are doing the talking with proper, perhaps even excessive, attribution throughout, with little to no evidence of editorializing by Wikipedia editors or contributors.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. I wasn't disputing the veracity of the meat consumption points specifically - these are well sourced and do directly link to the topic of the article as you have helpfully clarified. I apologise if that is how it came across. On a second look, I think the mention of "meat consumption" in the lead is the only slightly tenuous one, as meat consumption is a major driver of biodiversity loss from the sources, not an example of it like the others listed (acidification, amphibian decline). Also, I think there are a few parts of this article though that widen the net more broadly to talk about wider Human impact on the environment, without sources linking directly to the topic. The part on marine debris was one of these, which I removed.

Similarly, the section "Habitat destruction" focuses on palm oil, agriculture and global warming (how is this last one habitat destruction also?). A better section would provide an overview of current understanding of the scale of global habitat loss and its direct link to extinction, with mention of different forms of agriculture being one of the main drivers, rather than talking extensively about agriculture and then talking about habitat loss. I welcome any further thoughts. I think the Essay-like tag was a bit unwarranted so will remove it, but there are parts of this article that could probably be improved (structure/wording). Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the points. With the sources claiming meat being a primary driver, I feel the change [29] is again diluting this fact (the actual reason). Whereas meat consumption is the primary driver of the mass extinction as the sources have it, human population growth and increasing consumption catalyze it and are thus drivers of the decline, which is the precursor of the mass extinction (as explained in Kolbert's book The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History). Adding meat consumption here might only mean that meat is merely the driver of this decline, while in fact it is also the primary driver of the mass extinction itself. We need to note that "increasing per capita consumption" also includes other consumables other than meat (such as forest and mineral resources, oil, land, etc.), which are nowhere near the actual reason. They are all simply drivers of the decline, which leads to the mass extinction. Thus the "increasing per capita consumption" later in the para points only to the examples (primary drivers of the decline). So, I'll revert the change here. I think the term "primary driver" used for both the layers (decline and extinction) is what causes confusion here. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Arcahaeoindris and C.J. Griffin Maybe adding "primary driver of the mass extinction" would distinguish it from the latter and resolve this confusion. Please review. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Rasnaboy:. I think it looks good, but as Kolbert writes in her excellent book, if we are going to talk about drivers of extinction in the lead there are plenty of other drivers to mention as well as meat consumption. Biodiversity decline and mass extinction more or less overlap in their scope, but separating drivers from the phenomenon of the extinction is something this article could do better.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. We shall create a separate "Drivers" section in the article elaborating the primary and other drivers mentioned in the lede. That would make one huge section, I hope. Will do. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Article structure

I think the overall structure of this article needs work in my opinion. What is the rationale behind the heading being "defaunation"? The Holocene extinction is not just an extinction of animals, it is also an extinction of plants, fungi and other organisms. At the moment it seems like the article is more split by modern era vs. prehistory. Could these be better main headings, instead of "Influences" and "Defaunation"? Or do some of the subheadings of "Defaunation" need to be moved to "Influences"? Just thinking out loud here. Any suggestions on how this article's structure can be more logical? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The heading for the defaunation section used to be "Contemporary crises" until changes made around January 2017 (can't find the exact diff). I think that is a better heading as it would allow for the inclusion of material on the extinction of plants and fungi. Defaunation could be a sub-section of the Contemporary crises section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What about "historic drivers" and "contemporary issues"? Just thinking WP:NPOV for use of "crises". Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "defaunation", as far as my knowledge goes, the extinction of animals are more conspicuous and quantifiable than that of plants since animals are dynamic and live in groups. It's practically easy to track their movements, and hence their extinction if that happens. The extinction of plant species, on the other hand, is quite vague and murky and cannot be said with certainty as we do with animals. I guess even the BER is primarily calculated on the basis of the extinction rate of fauna rather than flora (please correct me if I'm wrong). Most of the sources that I've come across so far speaks of the extinction rate and speciation of animals, although this is certain to happen with plants as well albeit in a non-conspicuous manner, or so to speak. If sources are available, maybe a similar section on "de-floration" can be added. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I can live with that, although I really don't see any NPOV issues with the term "crises". We are talking about mass extinction, after all.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Although I agree, for example see the article for climate crisis, which is separate from climate change. I also don't think defaunation is a particularly useful major heading to use. Defaunation is a specific process. Contemporary processes encompassed by the Holocene extinction also include ocean acidification, for example, and the spread of certain diseases. Defaunation would also include some of the other extinctions that happened before recent times in the "Influences" section. I'm still unsure of the logic of these headings. There are is also quite a bit of understanding of recent plant extinctions so although animal extinctions and declines are more high profile, there is still understanding of extinction in other groups as well. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Quaternary extinction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is to not merge. Further discussion may be had on how to better distinguish them, but definite consensus is they should be separate articles.

---

Suggesting to merge Quaternary extinction into here. As has been suggested on talk pages for both articles, they duplicate each other's scope, and Quaternary extinction is just a long list that is not encyclopaedic. Relevant body of text from Quaternary could be merged into here, and long redundant lists of species either be moved to list pages or deleted. Welcome thoughts Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose the move for now as I believe it could lead to the unnecessary bloat of this article, which could result in the eventual deletion of reliably sourced materials in an attempt to trim it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that there is overlap with this article's Influence section, but most of Quaternary extinction doesn't even pertain to the Holocene anyways. The Holocene Extinction is the 2nd phase of the Quaternary Extinction after the invention of agriculture and industry. The 1st phase was when humans moved onto these continents and islands in the first place tens of thousands of years ago (though the colonization of Polynesia took place entirely within the Holocene)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - one is mainly about prehistoric extinctions, the other about historical ones. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I think each one is a separate issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Many of the extinctions are spread across the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary. E. g. the continued suvival of dwarf elephants on some Mediterranean islands well into historical times, as opposed to the mainland extinction of their closest cousin, the gradual extinction of Megalocerus giganteus, which did locally survive centuries into the Holocene, the survival of mammoths on Wrangel island as well as the survival of giant ground sloths in the Carribeans. Drawing a distinction between these events based on the invention of geological epochs seems illogical to me, when in fact all of these extinctions, whether in the Pleistocene or Holocene, are just symptoms of the spread of humans, as modern research seems to make increasingly clearer. Still I agree with Volcanoguy that Holocene extinction should be merged with Quaternary extinction and not vice versa. Also I do not think of the species lists here as redundant, but as a very handy way to convey the magnitude in which the Quaternary extinction has shaped and altered our planet's ecosystems. --AndersenAnders (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose seems illogical to me given the fact that the Holocene is part of the Quaternary. The Quaternary covers a much longer timespan than that of the Holocene and not all Quaternary extinctions are limited to the Holocene. If the two articles shall be merged then "Quaternary extinction" should be the title. Volcanoguy 07:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. One article deals with prehistoric extinctions with causes that are debated while the other deals with historical extinctions that are confirmed to be caused by humans. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. There could be overlaps but these are two different ones in terms of both cause and effect. That the Holocene extinction is solely attributed to human activities makes it much different from all other extinction events and hence deserves a separate article. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I concur that there are significant differences between both articles, I agree with Indricotherium's suggestion from a couple of years ago, along with several of the other users here, that it would seem unseemly to differentiate two subsequent phases of what is ostensibly the same extinction episode- the Quaternary Extinction Event. Most of other notable mass extinction events have a variety of causes and factors, and last at least 10,000 years, with several lasting millions of years. Both the wider Quaternary Extinction Event and the Holocene extinctions are principally centred around climate change (either natural or human induced) and human resource consumption. That the Holocene (if it is a time period in its own right and not a Pleistocene interglacial) is steadfastly a Quaternary time period only justifies predominance of the Quaternary Extinction Event. However, the fact that the "Holocene" is a media-worthy term does suggest that some form of "Holocene extinctions" wiki page should exist. Perhaps we could find some way to agree on how to reallocate information to properly weight each article according to its scientific relevance. However, I would agree that something should be done about those unwieldy lists. As the original author of most of those lists roughly 7 years ago, they bloomed out of a frustration owing to a lack of such a centralised database of affected species. However, I think that if the articles are to be merged, the lists are better placed in the "Pleistocene megafauna" page (retitled to include the non-megafauna in their contents), or on a linked page of their own. Perhaps the continental paragraphs in the QE article could be saved, and expanded to include the Holocene faunal makeup and the trajectory of their extinctions in the refitted QE page? SuperTah (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Inheritors of the Earth

@C.J. Griffin: Greetings! I just wanted to consider what this revert called a book "promoting what amounts to denialism". Thomas does not deny that humans are causing extinctions due to habitat loss, climate change, and introduction of invasive species. He even advocates for conservation measures to save endangered species like tigers and elephants and coral reefs. Perhaps the title gave the wrong impression, but it is meant to convey that different species are thriving and going extinct at the same time. Thomas does write against the popular opinion that we should restore nature to exactly how it was before human intervention. I found it enlightening that as he points out, many species introduced to different continents by humans are actually co-existing successfully with native species, that humans create species as well as destroy them, and that previous mass extinctions have also resulted in later periods of high diversification. And he makes an important point that "before human intervention" is a fuzzy and perhaps unattainable ideal, given that long-term variations in climate and ecosystem context have meant that the state of nature has always been in flux. (For example, the forests of the northeastern United States have only existed since the end of the last glacial period, on the order of tens of thousands of years.) Perhaps where he is most controversial is where he argues maybe some species should be allowed to go extinct, specifically those that are "always going to be in Accident and Emergency" because they are not well-adapted to the sort of new normal of the world, so conservation efforts can be focused on species with long-term viability. His favorite example seems to be flightless birds, which seem hopelessly vulnerable to ground predators compared to closely related bird species.

In short, the book presents some factual context about the Holocene Extinction ignored by many treatments (including looking carefully at how many species have actually gone extinct), and some well-informed opinions that I think deserve inclusion for the sake of neutrality, even if I don't personally agree with all of them. The book is certainly not trying to provide excuses for doing nothing, or arguing that extinction is never a bad thing. -- Beland (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I overstated it a bit. Yes, the title itself I found quite alarming. The idea that nature is "thriving" in what he himself calls an "age of extinction" smacked of denialism and flew in the face of nearly every major paper on biodiversity loss I have read and IPBES 2019, which argues that nature is in decline. Now obviously I don't have this book and haven't read it, but doing a quick search on it prior to removal also raised some red flags, and it seemed (to me at least) to be an attempt at putting a positive spin on a very negative event, similar to what some right-wing politicians are attempting with climate change. The antagonists in the recent Netflix film Don't Look Up also came to mind. Based on your description above, I'll admit I might have been too hasty in removing it. If you feel that strongly about its inclusion and decide to restore it, I will not revert it again.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: In a new scientific review of the sixth extinction the book we are discussing here is referenced numerous times, so I figured I'd quote a relevant portion of that here:

We consider that the Sixth Mass Extinction has probably started and present arguments to counter those who would deny this. We will probably not convince those who consider this episode part of the natural evolution of life on Earth and therefore that it is acceptable to just let it happen, that is, that they are wrong. Nor will we convince those who think that it is too late to stop it and that we should therefore embrace it, that is, that they also are wrong. However, we hope that we will at least give pause to those who by denying or downplaying it play into the hands of those who advocate doing nothing about it, or those who, accepting it, advocate that we should do our best to manipulate biodiversity primarily if not solely for human, essentially economic, benefit. This latter view has been expressed to a greater or lesser extent by some prominent conservationists (Kareiva & Marvier, 2007, 2012; Kareiva, Lalasz & Marvier, 2011; Thomas, 2017) and has become a key feature of the ‘New Conservation’ or ‘Neoliberal Conservation’, although the paradigm has been strongly criticised, for example by Büscher et al. (2012), Soulé (2013) and Rolston (2018).

I just found this on Google News today. I figured it might be of interest to those following this discussion--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Well, I guess that establishes that Thomas is a notable author with respect to this topic and the controversy over what to do about it. -- Beland (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article about biomass loss

I removed a paragraph about biomass loss based on a Guardian article, but was reverted. I then tried to rewrite the paragraph, but someone re-removed the paragraph. I obviously support removing the paragraph wholesale, but I'll paste my hopefully more accurate rewrite here, in case the paragraph is reinstated later.

Most recently, insect populations have experienced rapid surprising declines. Insects have declined at an annual rate of 2.5% over the last 25–30 years. The most severe effects may include Puerto Rico, where insect ground fall has declined by 98% in the previous 35 years. Butterflies and moths are experiencing some of the most severe effect. Widespread butterfly populations have declined by 58% on farmland in England. More than 40% of insect species are declining. Germany is experiencing a 75% decline in total insect biomass. Agriculture is believed to be the most significant contributor to the change.

Ornilnas (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m fine with the paragraph as it is written above. Such material is relevant to the article as the contemporary extinction crisis is discussed in the source in relation to the loss of insect populations.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Call me dense, but isn't this "rewritten" paragraph exactly the wording that was just removed by you and another editor? What am I missing? Anyway, I am happy with that wording - no misrepresentation there, and the source makes the connection to the article topic very clear. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I had trouble figuring out what was going on here too. That said, I took a glance at this, and I am concerned about sourcing that to a newspaper/The Guardian. Newspapers tend to overgeneralize bits, and I'm seeing that in some of the content too, especially narrow focus on specific geographies for wider statements. The actual studies behind the insect biodiversity topic are tricky to summarize even among scientific audiences, much less lay audiences here. I'm fine with removal in favor of focusing on scientific sources. KoA (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The original wording was that "Butterfly species have declined by 58%", and that "40% of insect species and 22% of mammal species have disappeared". This can easily be misinterpreted as "the number of extant species have declined by 58, 40 and 22 %", especially since this whole article is about species extinction. But once properly rewritten, the paragraph loses any direct connection to species extinction (since changes in total biomass of a group of organisms doesn't necassarily imply it will go extinct). The Guardian does suggest there is a connection; the first sentence is "The world’s insects are hurtling down the path to extinction". We could refer to this, but it's a pretty bold statement, and I think we need a better source for it than a Guardian article. But then we're back to my main objection, which is that this one Guardian article doesn't deserve an entire paragraph. If we cut it down to the first sentence (a decent summary) and tacked it on to some other paragraph, I wouldn't have any objections. Ornilnas (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We could always cite the journal article mentioned in The Guardian piece: Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. From the abstract: "Biodiversity of insects is threatened worldwide. Here, we present a comprehensive review of 73 historical reports of insect declines from across the globe, and systematically assess the underlying drivers. Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We can definitely write a new paragraph on the basis of that source. But I now see that the same Guardian article is also cited a little higher up ("As of 2019, 40% of insect species are in decline, and a third are endangered."), so it would probably be better to incorporate it there. Ornilnas (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a bit duplicative; merging would be sensible. In fact, I am wondering why the current paragraph on pollinators (starting with The term pollinator decline) is in the "History" section and not the following "Recent extinctions" section. Maybe that should be moved down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Any objection to the material as written in the OP restored to the "Recent extinctions" section with the journal article included as a citation? I would use more blunt language based on the journal source however, such as "More than 40% of insect species are threatened with extinction" rather than "More than 40% of insect species are declining":

Most recently, insect populations have experienced rapid surprising declines. Insects have declined at an annual rate of 2.5% over the last 25–30 years. The most severe effects may include Puerto Rico, where insect ground fall has declined by 98% in the previous 35 years. Butterflies and moths are experiencing some of the most severe effect. Widespread butterfly populations have declined by 58% on farmland in England. More than 40% of insect species are threatened with extinction. Germany is experiencing a 75% decline in total insect biomass. Agriculture is believed to be the most significant contributor to the change.

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see adding the paper as a source as an improvement, as the current text is basically based on the Guardian article, not on the paper. Again, one Guardian newspaper article about biomass reduction does not warrant a whole paragraph in our article about species extinction. The Guardian article can be summarized in a sentence (as it already has been, in the section above). Maybe a summary of the paper would warrant a whole paragraph, but someone would have to write it first to find out. Ornilnas (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if people haven't already done that work in this project! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe the data from The Guardian article is largely based on the Biological Conservation study.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of the numbers are from other sources. A paragraph based on the paper would have to be a completely different text. Ornilnas (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Climate change as a cause of extinctions in the late Pleistocene

The current lede states that climate change may have been a driving factor in the megafaunal extinctions, especially at the end of the Pleistocene. This is presumably backed by the Climate change section in the body, which states that The climate change theory has suggested that a change in climate near the end of the late Pleistocene stressed the megafauna to the point of extinction.. However, I can't find this claim in the sources. The first ("Are we now living in the Anthropocene") mentions megafauna once, but doesn't link their decline to Pleistocene climate change. The other is paywalled, and not even on SciHub. The abstract does indeed discuss late Pleistocene climate changes and its effect on mammal populations, but I don't get the feeling that they conclude climate change led to mass extinction. Can anyone with accesss to the paper confirm that it supports the current statement? If not, I think we need to change the current wording, or get different sources. We have to be extra careful with claims that are referenced in the lede. Ornilnas (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Book chapters are hard to get at even with institutional subscriptions :/ - I can't read this one either. Worse luck, the source was added ten years ago by an IP, so there's no chance of asking the editor. - As for an alternative source discussing this hypothesis, an (also somewhat dated) article by Grayson (1991) that forcefully argues pro climate change / counter overkill comes to mind. Also paywalled, I'm afraid, but the abstract is very clear about the central thesis. If desired, I could also send you the PDF. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

References

What does "from 1.5 to 40’000 species" mean?

"from 1.5 thousand species to 40 thousand species"? "from 1.5 species to 40 thousand species"? Is 40'000 a misprint or a notation I'm ignorant of? Jackaroodave (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The "40’000" has been changed to the standard "40,000". It may have been a typo or a convention I'm unfamiliar with, but in any case needed changing to use a comma. I've changed the text to "1.5 species to 40,000 species" to reduce chance of confusion. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't "1,500 to 40,000 species" be more likely to reduce chance of confusion? Or am I confused? Is there a reliable source that estimates "1.5 species" have been extinguished? One species and half the sub-species of another? Jackaroodave (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to rename this page "End-Phanerozoic hyperextinction"

As a an atmospheric carbon dioxide increase to 2200 PPM is inevitable at this point, which most multicellular life cannot adapt to, can we change the name to match the severity? MerscratianAce (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Not without demonstrating that a majority of reliable sources consistently uses it. Shorter answer: no. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I have never seen this used in any reliable sources on the topic. A quick google search turned up zero results.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Almost all the scholarly sources call it the "Holocene extinction". The name can be changed only when the academic scholars reach a consensus globally to do so. And the Wiki article cannot be renamed until then. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent contributions to lead by new account DTA329374

I have reverted the contributions from this account twice as I see them as poorly written with redundancies such as "The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is the sixth mass extinction event..." in the lead sentence and increased and unnecessary bloat with the number of paragraphs ballooning from 4 to 7. Not only that but many of the new citations are poorly formatted with numerous errors indicated by red text, inappropriate spacing between citations and even the names of the authors misspelled on occasion (see citation 30 for example). There might be some good material here, but given the shoddiness of these contributions by a new and inexperienced user I feel the more concise status quo version is superior to the current version and should be restored until the issues I raised can be fixed by the user seeking to include them.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the editor should not have just reinstated their edits. DTA329374, please be aware that if an edit of yours is challenged, usually your worst avenue is to just insert it again while stating that is is obviously correct/suprior to the previous version. See WP:BRD. If you are convinced of the quality of your material, then you are expected to be able to argue for its inclusion while the previous version is still in place. - Having said that, it seems to me that the issues with the material are mostly of a copy-editing and rephrasing nature and can be sorted out in situ. The content is generally fine, although I don't think all of that belongs in the lede. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that DTA329374 restored these edits without discussion or consensus, and has yet to either discuss them here or attempt to fix the issues raised, I'm contemplating BOLDLY restoring the status quo version in the next few days, allowing time for DTA329374 or others to give their opinion. The version that exists now, IMO, undermines the credibility of an otherwise good article with numerous errors, spelling mistakes and myriad formatting issues. Like you said there is some good content here and solid sources (although some are pretty old - from the early 2000s) which can be incrementally restored in the appropriate sections, as not all of this new material belongs in the lead. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the time to "fix the issues raised" and work collaboratively. Help regarding citations and formatting is appreciated. I disagree with the notion that the contributions made undermine the credibility of an otherwise good article, were poorly written, and created unnecessary bloat. I look forward to addressing specific concerns. The highlighted redundancy in the first sentence is intended and makes sense once the full sentence is read and taken into consideration. Please identify other redundancies as well as particular content-related problems so they can be addressed. A misspelled name or incorrect spacing can easily be amended. DTA329374 (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits by user-duck, myself and others have significantly improved the section. Given this, I'll refrain from restoring the older version.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed the edits DTA329374 has made to the lead, and I think they should be reverted. I think the old version from 25 October is a lot better. I think the "mass extinction" statement/claim needs more clarification and context than just stating baldly in wikivoice in the opening sentence. Also it says that the Anthropocene is "widely accepted" which in my view is a weasel word. The Anthropocene remains informal and unrecognised by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. (Full disclosure: I don't like and am strongly biased against the anthropocene concept, as I feel it ignores the human impact on the planet prior to 1950). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Also "multicelluar life" originated a lot earlier than 600 million years ago, see the Francevillian biota for instance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)