Template:Did you know nominations/Decline in insect populations

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Decline in insect populations[edit]

(

)

Flying insects sampled in German nature reserves

~~... that insect populations have declined by about 75% in the last 25 years (sample pictured)?~~
ALT1 ~~... that insect populations have declined alarmingly (sample pictured)?~~

Reviewed: Pacu jawi
Comment: See The Observer for coverage of a recent systematic review. There's lots more detail that can be added but we have enough to get this into the DYK pipeline.

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 16:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC).

Date, length, hook, age, and everything else checks out. It is a sad yet important hook. My only suggestion would be to add the punctuation after the parenthesis part about the sample, but that is a relatively minor note. Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I was going to promote this but the hook facts are not borne out by the article. One study in German nature reserves produced a decline figure of 75% but you cannot extrapolate that to the whole world! The article also mixes up three different concepts, a decline in the number of individual insects, a decline in the total biomass of insects and a decline in the number of species of insect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The hook does not say "the whole world" – these are Cwmhiraeth's words. I have been careful to avoid saying that or using the equivalent word "global". Instead, the article leads with "there appears to be a widespread decline". The main paper supporting this is not the German study but Worldwide decline of the entomofauna which is a review of 73 studies in many places. As reported by The Observer in the link above, "80% of biomass of insects has disappeared in 25-30 years" ... "The evidence all points in the same direction”. Biomass, numbers and species are all in decline. The "about 75%" in the hook is a summary of the numerous statistics and is intended to give a feel for the scale of the issue. The Observer article uses phrases like "plummeting insect numbers" and "catastrophic collapse" while it is easy to find similar coverage elsewhere. For example, NYT: "The Insect Apocalypse Is Here"; Washington Post: "‘Hyperalarming’ study shows massive insect loss"; BBC: "Global insect decline may see 'plague of pests'". If we don't use numbers in the hook then we have to use vaguer terms like "massive". What does Cwmhiraeth propose as an alternative? I'd rather stick with the hook approved by the reviewer. @Aoba47 and Cwmhiraeth:

No, I don't think this hook will do. I have commented on the article talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The article has continued to develop and Cwmhiraeth has added some content herself. To help us forward, I have provided an ALT1 hook above. This replaces a numerical statistic, with the word "alarmingly". The idea is to convey the general sense of alarm convyed by the recent reports without getting bogged down in the detail of specific statistics. Andrew D. (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is not very stable as the current version has been repeatedly edit warred in as well as WP:POVFORK problems compared to content at other pages that actually was agreed upon (e.g., last paragraph of Insect_biodiversity#Number_of_species). The main study being cited has been called into question for methodology that biases the findings upwards (or towards higher declines than there actually are), so it's probably best not to be using this as a hook as with many other DYK's that have accidentally gone through only to be criticized for being inaccurate. There's a lot of nuanced detail in this subject, so it's not really the best DYK unless some content is actually settled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that some insect populations have declined dramatically (sample pictured) over the last few decades? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That's promising but I like hooks to be brisk and short so suggest trimming it to the following ALT2b. Ok? Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ALT2b ... that some insect populations have declined dramatically (sample pictured)?

Alt2b is fine by me. Someone else will need to do a full review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We have consensus for a hook and the article is developing quite well. Please could @Aoba47: take another look to confirm their earlier approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

ALT2B works for me as well, although I am wondering if it would lead to a reader asking "when?" and itf ALT2 would be better. However, since there appears to be more of a consensus around for ALT2B, then I think that should be the one used. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
~~ALT3~~ Alt0 ~~… that the decline in insect populations – if not reversed – will also result in the extinction of many other species?~~

I'll offer this (unless the DyK has been done?) then look for ways to improve the diversity of insects in my garden. I have been noticing a bat coming by, which is a good indicator of the micro-ecology floating overhead. cygnis insignis 05:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer needed for ALT0, which is a pretty good hook IMO. Pinging @Aoba47:. Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2019 (U

While I agree ALT3 looks like a good hook, I don't see it specifically stated in the article (though I could certainly have missed it), and am wondering what source is being used for it. cygnis insignis, which part of the article had this statement and was your source? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

ALT3 is unacceptable for the reasons that BlueMoonset gives. Also, it conflates the issues of decline and extinction, which are not quite the same thing, and it makes a prediction, rather than stating what has already happened. Please can we stick to ALT2b which is kept simple to avoid such problems, has a consensus of several editors and has been approved. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The article probably does not support my assertion, and I have forsworn editing the content because I have elected to only 'moderate' the improvements to the article. What was hook 0 is just that, the inevitable consequence of insect decline: further decline in the population trajectory of other species. This is the ecologist's and realist's way of pointing out that most of the biosphere will collapse without a sort of Manhattan project² to reverse that. There are plants that are already doomed because the obligate pollinator is very likely extinct. What I'm omitting is also moderation in the hook, the "other species" includes the only species of Homo. cygnis insignis 13:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoring Aoba47's tick above; striking ALT3 per last couple of posts. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And just to put matters in order, I've restored the numbering to my aside. Good luck to all. cygnis insignis 15:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)