Talk:Bengalia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 03:25, 28 January 2024

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Old discussions

French content that was removed

For the removed text, see the page history or fr:Bengalia.

Familiarity with what WP:NPOV means

I think M. Lehrer has perhaps not understood what Wikipedia is; the evidence for such a misunderstanding is in the statement above: we can intervene at each time in the texts which do not correspond to the scientific truth - which is directly in contradiction to WP's explicit policies.

Allow me to quote from WP:NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

and also:

Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.

Following this policy, (1) both viewpoints represented in the present dispute are represented and characterized (2) information is given on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. It is unfortunate and inevitable that adherents of the less popular view will object to being portrayed in this way, and often, as in the present case, insist that the more popular view should be ignored entirely - but NPOV is a policy that works. Likewise, WP:SOAP warns against the sort of editing that M. Lehrer has engaged in here:

It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself.

It is unfortunate that M. Lehrer has chosen to disregard these policies, and many others, in his attempts to promote his view of "scientific truth". The bottom line is that WP, in order to remain neutral, does not take "truth" into consideration as a criterion for material to be included/excluded here. Again, from WP:NPOV:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

That is the official policy of Wikipedia, and it serves little purpose to challenge this policy. Dyanega 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot the lead statement from WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

In that regard, it is evident that M. Lehrer's work appears not to satisy this criterion; as far as I have been able to determine, all of his publications cited here and elsewhere are either self-published directly ("Fragmenta Dipterologica"), printed by a publisher who has no peer-review requirements ("Pensoft Series Faunistica"), or printed in a journal that has no peer-review requirements ("Entom. Croat."). To include such citations here toys with the edges of WP:SPS and WP:RS; if I am incorrect in my assessment of the nature of these publication venues, I would appreciate information from a third-party source that definitively confirms my error. Dyanega 01:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Having done some research, it appears that the two journals that Lehrer has published in have a very limited editorial board, and his works were not reviewed by specialists working on Calyptratae (the group of flies to which Bengalia and other Calliphoridae belong); the reviewers were, in essence, only acting as proofreaders, and not qualified to render opinions regarding the intellectual merit of the submitted works. All of the genuine taxonomic acts appeared in the Pensoft publication, which was a publish-for-pay, and therefore qualifies as self-published. I have examined this latter publication, and read Rognes' criticisms of the work; some of the criticisms were a matter of Rognes' personal opinion, but the others pertained to the ICZN Code, which is an objective set of criteria determining the validity of taxonomic acts in Zoology. In each such case, the ICZN Code's rules were clearly violated in Lehrer's work, at many levels (including his erroneous claim to authorship of the taxon name "Bengaliidae", which - following explicit ICZN rules - resides with Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889). As such, the personal attacks on Dr. Rognes were not only uncivil, but uncalled-for; there were errors in Lehrer's work, and there can be no legitimate grievance when such errors are pointed out and corrected by a subsequent author. It is unfortunate that not only does M. Lehrer refuse to acknowledge his errors, but chose to use Wikipedia as a forum to attack the scientific community, and - most significantly - chose to do so using sockpuppetry, and has accordingly been banned from further postings to WP. Dyanega 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks removed

There seems to be little need or purpose served by allowing the numerous personal attacks posted here by User:AzLehrer and his sockpuppet accounts ("Pandur" or "Condor" or "Anlirian"; see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/AzLehrer) to remain; the bottom line is that the academic community has rejected Lehrer's proposed classification, and WP follows the mainstream - especially in matters of taxonomic classification, where WP cannot accommodate multiple competing ideas. Readers interested in seeing the exchange to this point can do so by viewing the page history prior to today's date. The message regarding how these policies apply to M. Lehrer's edits is best left here, I think, in case there are future attempts to violate these policies. Dyanega (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle IP edits

The very subtle edits, between "do not recognize" and "do not discuss" need to be discussed if they can be accepted. "Do not discuss" would be incorrect when the reference mentioned is a critique of the privately published monograph. Shyamal (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erreur in the description of the sternite VI

You wrote erroneous in the section " Description " that " the sternite VI forms an incomplete ring formed by fusion of two hemisternites ". In accordance with research of A. Lehrer (2003) this sternite VI is a single part and is not presented as formed by two hemisternites. 20.12.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.12.51 (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, please stop pretending you are someone else, Mr. Lehrer - this is why you were banned from Wikipedia initially, and you will never get the ban lifted as long as you persist in using multiple identities to post. Second, as far as I can see, the statement in the description does not indicate that sternite VI is anything other than a single part - it is a single incomplete ring. That this single incomplete ring happens to be homologous with two hemisternites (seen in related taxa, presumably) is a matter of interpretation. In what specific way do you believe this contradicts your 2003 paper? Dyanega (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biological reality and the “provision” of its recognition

To see the depth of the thought of the impostor’s specialists, who contribute to the size of this encyclopedia, I reproduced a small passage in “BioSystematic Database of World Diptera (BDWD)” [1] mentioned by the scribe C. Thompson, in which you can recognize that the only absurd norwegian voice of taxonomy is Knut Rognes. Professor at a school of handicapped of Stavanger, it “is not been willing” to raise the taxonomic row of the Bengalia kind, by obscure causes, but very appreciated in particular by the single world specialist on Bengaliidae - Mr. Dyanega:

« The Calliphoridae are marked as a polyphyletic group of convenience as at the present we are unwilling to reduce the Oestridae to a subordinated group within a monophyletic Calliphoridae nor to elevate a number of other groups (Polleniidae, Helicoboscidae, and Bengaliidae) so as to properly delimit both [family- n.n.] Calliphoridae and Oestridae. This follows from the analysis of Rognes (1997) ».

And now, I think that it remains only to applaud indisposed Rognes. 30.12.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.104.67 (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has explicit policies regarding what constitutes "authority" - Thompson and Rognes have published numerous works in recognized, peer-reviewed journals, and this makes THEM authorities on fly taxonomy. You have not published any of your work on Bengalia in recognized, peer-reviewed journals, so you cannot claim to be an authority (at least as WIkipedia defines it) - nor can any of your self-published works (e.g., Fragmenta Dipterologica) be cited in Wikipedia without explicit indication that they are self-published sources. I am hopeful that the next edition of the ICZN Code will prohibit self-publication of nomenclatural acts. Dyanega (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- To answer Mr. Douglas Yanega, which believes a large specialist in dipterology, because it is " commissioner [ temporary ] of the ICZN " like impostor mafiosi Pape and collaborated (not like first author) in some contributions on the dipterous ones, in its total of 35 " entomological " contributions, I must mention that Prof Dr. A. Lehrer gave up of proper initiative to collaborate in Wikipedia, for a 20 years interval. The cause is that it was convinced that this Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in bankruptcy because of its admins self-conceited, megalomaniac and being unaware of like Mr. Dyanega. You can erase this message, by pretexting that it is an attack with the person, but it is the truth and Mr. Yanega behaves exactly like a slanderer being unaware of and hooligan in front of the users of this false encyclopaedia. He believes an authority, because he claim themselves a large artist, a large musician, vocalist, skeptic, with slovak and german ancestry, a large data processing specialist etc. as one can see in his card of wikifolly. - 04.01.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.171.46 (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I must note that the language of Dyanega is a method to make soap balloons, because it is addressed to me as for Dr. Lehrer and it manufactures whimsical notions on the value of the " authorities " and on the " self-published " works.

- - Thompson can be regarded as " authority " only for the Syrphidae family [2]and not for the families Bengaliidae, Calliphoridae or Sarcophagidae, on which he never wrote only one row and never sought their species. As realizer of catalogue BDWD, it does not have any authority, because the catalogues are not taken into account by the specialists. Rognes wrote only silly things in the reviews with " supervisors ", but who are not specialists on the families mentioned. On Bengaliidae Rognes wrote in last time, after the works of Lehrer, only three articles of calumnies, without any value taxonomic and similar with its works on Calliphoridae (s. lat.). If Mr. Dyanega is a serious critic of Calliphoridae (with personal research on this group), it can see its aberrations on Polleniinae and the fictitious species described by this Rognes. For stupidities of Rognes, it cannot be regarded as a dipterologic " authority " in general and especially on Bengaliidae. Only Lehrer is the true authority on Bengaliidae, being the first which seriously revised a great number of species of this family, which proved that it is completely different, by her original characters, of the polyphyletic group of Calliphorids and forced a scientific manner to present the characters of their genitalia. In the same way, I do not believe that Mr. Dyanega itself can be considered a scientific " authority ", being given his qualification of " custode ", without research on Bengaliidae, even for wikipedia. It proves only one friend of the band " Rognes species-group " to use the expression preferred by Rognes.

- - Then, Mr. Dyanega must recognize that the Mafia of the inefficient " supervisors ", which prevents the publication of good work, determined the publication of the books and the reviews without these idiotic sharks. The demonstrations of this Mister prove that it is well attached to such a Mafia. And then, it must also recognize that a great number of the work, published in the reviews with these supervisors, are not retained by truths specialists and science. A good example is also the production of the stupidities on Sarcophagidae, worked out by Thomas Pape who is completely depreciated, in spite of the fact that it is a forgery " commissioner of the ICZN ". By contrast, Lehrer wrote 10 monographs and more than 400 dipterologic contributions in the reviews with " supervisors " and without these paranoiacs, who are not known by the brilliant Dyanega specialist.

- - On its aberrations, concerning the prohibition of the acts of nomenclature, published in personal work, we are obliged to see that they are the product of a completely uncultivated man, who eliminates the taxonomic values from the researchers because they were not censured by the inefficient ones and the Mafia. Such a prohibition is only in the mentality of a hen. 31.12.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.138.175 (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive obsessions of the ignoramuses against the scientific truth

You must understand that your process to eliminate the scientific truths, published and spread in the world of the specialists, does not constitute attacks against the " personalities ". It is only your means of "protecting" one from your friends or known, without being informed of its capacities like man of science, which deserves this protection opposite science. Because, we found, in the current literature (because work of Lehrer is best work of taxonomy nowadays on the families Sarcophagidae, Calliphoridae and Bengaliidae - even if you do not want to recognize), the strongest arguments which show that Rognes is objectively an incompetent to seek the dipterous ones in general, that it does not have qualities of a scientific man of research, that it does not have histological knowledge and especially which it cannot understand the morphology of the microscopic structures of the genitalia, which are the strongest evidence for the taxonomy of Bengaliidae. By its position out-of-date in the systematic one of Cyclorrhapha it is placed in first half of century XX and remains in the group of the retrograde faunists, fixist and incompetent to understand the advance in knowledge. In work which was eliminated by your ignorance, you deprived the readers to see exactly and judge with their brain the errors, the mystifications [3]and the abductions in recent work of Rognes [4]and, in particular, its attitudes anti- International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which gives him a strange image in the history of the impromptu faunists.

Moreover, you eliminated work (PDF files) in which one be exposed all the morphological arguments which separate Bengaliidae from the former Calliphoridae family, only described by Lehrer (in the description of the group), by allotting them in a form veiled to the Rognes. Thus, you became the collaborators of the Bad tempers in the lies and abductions intellectual.

Cabalist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.34.91 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

It is necessary to mention you that your method to think on this article is really stupid. Because, how please widen this article, which has a great biological importance, if you are put on the conservatory position absurdity to keep only the silly things and calumnies of the ignoramus Rognes, adopted automatic by certain catalogues of names without any taxonomic or scientific value, and to eliminate the new scientific results, only published by Dr. A. Lehrer ? By your label, you have confirmed either that you do not know anything on this scientific problem, or that you (including Dyanega impostor) are the friends of Rognes and that you activate in a contrary direction of the goal of wikipedia.

Cabalist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.34.91 (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me

Please excuse me, because I caused, without will, this error and I do not know how reparer this error. Moreover, I do not know your data-processing technique.

Anlirian

P.S.

I thank you much for your corrections and, in particular, for the introduction of normal informations for the knowledge of the readers. Because, I believe that only by this information objectify in your encyclopedia, their author implicitly receives the notoriety requested by you and determine to better think on the true taxonomy of this family.

Anlirian

Taxonomic error

Because in the monograph of Senior-White, Aubertin & Smart, 1940, Diptera, vol. VI, Family Calliphoridae - Fauna of British India : 83, it is mentioned:

« Bengalia R.D., Myodaiores, p. 425, 1830 / Genotype, B. labiata R.D. ».

This fact is confirmed per much author, among the large specialists of the world: Pont (1980:790) Kurahashi, Benjaphong & Omar (1997:39), Yu. Verves (2005:238).

Not Bengalia testacea R.P. designée by Duponchel (1842), which is a nomen nudum.

Burmanos

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.146.184 (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fauna of British India designation is here however, a recent paper (2010) with Pont as a coauthor specifically mentions the following:

Evenhuis NL, J E O'Hara, T Pape & AC Pont (2010) Nomenclatural Studies Toward a World List of Diptera Genus-Group Names. Part I: André-Jean-Baptiste Robineau-Desvoidy. Zootaxa 2373: 1–265 http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/zt02373p265.pdf

57. ''Bengalia'' Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830: 425.
ORIGINALLY INCLUDED SPECIES: ''Bengalia testacea'' Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830; ''Bengalia labiata'' Robineau-
     Desvoidy, 1830; ''Bengalia pallens'' Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830; ''Bengalia melanocera'' Robineau-Desvoidy,
     1830.
TYPE SPECIES: ''Bengalia testacea'' Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 [= ''Musca torosa'' Wiedemann, 1819], by
     subsequent designation (Duponchel in d’Orbigny, 1842a: 542).
CURRENT STATUS: Valid genus [teste Rognes (2006: 467)].
FAMILY: CALLIPHORIDAE.

While I can see a point in noting the dispute, this is not the place for pushing this specific point of view. The place to challenge the viewpoint is surely Zootaxa. Shyamal (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More a fault of interpretation

In your answer, one notices very well that you still made an error, because you fix yourselves on the imaginary scientific value of Rognes or of the americains, by hating the objective value of the other authors and in particular of Lehrer. To better explain you the taxonomic situation of the kind Bengalia s. str., I request from you do not consider that I insult certain characters of current taxonomy and to see reality exactly exposed by me.

No author who occupied himself more or less tangentially with Bengaliidae, admits that Bengalia testacea R.D. is the species-type of the Bengalia kind. Only Rognes, which copied Sabrosky (1999:62), which knew this group of dipterous in same measurement as Rognes, wrote (with the collaboration of bibliographical and nonscientific impostors: Neal L Evenhuis and F.C. Thompson) that this type is the nomen nudum B. testacea indicated by Duponchel (1842)(?!). Thus, which makes N.L Evenhuis, J. E. O' Hara, T. Pape and A. C. Pont are only of copy and to transcribe exactly the silly things of Sabrosky, without any proof or analyze scientific. Moreover, because these authors are good friends with Rognes, it also added " Valid genus [ tests Rognes (2006:467) ] ", but not validates species-type. But, can you say which tests was made by Rognes?, who knows nothing on Bengaliidae, which made the most stupid silly things in its work, which does not know the morphological terminology of their genitalia male, which mixes the drawings of the authors for the different species to make its new taxa, which makes the photography of the microscopic preparations of the species studied by Lehrer and deposited in the Natural history museum of London and which affirms that those are clean taxonomic imaginations? Don't you believe my assertions? Then I recommend to you to read, for a good documentation of your encyclopaedia, work of Lehrer of his review Fragmenta Dipterologica: 2008(18):1-4; 2010(23):1-22 and 22-25; 2010(24):20-24 and 24-30; 2010(25):1-4 and work: LEHRER & WEI, 2010, a new Eastern kind of the family Bengaliidae (Diptera) - Bull. Ploughshare ent. Mulhouse, 66(2)21-25. Thus you can understand that Rognes is incomparable being unaware of, which wanted to make taxonomic " revolutions " with the language devoted to its handicapped pupils of the school of Stavanger (Norway) where it works and with the mystifications of literature and information. Moreover, you can consider only the work of Evenhuis &Comp. of Zootaxa an authority in the taxonomy of Bengaliidae constitutes, because they never studied the species of the group and in particular ?, because all the authors, of Zumpt (1956) and until Lehrer (2010) consider that Bengalia labiata R.D. is the species-type of the Bengalia kind. If you want to mislead the readers, you are free to depreciate your Wikipedia.

Burmanos, 10 seven. 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.163.124 (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is not for one-on-one communication between editors, the discussions on the talk page are meant to improve the article using secondary sources. Given that Lehrer is a super-taxonomist, there should be no problem for him/her to publish a rebuttal of the recent publications in Zootaxa so that ordinary Wikipedia editors can make the neccessary corrections. Shyamal (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTD

Picture of the day

A species of blow-fly belonging to the Bengalia genus (species unidentified). Unlike the bright green or blue of most blow-flies, members of Bengalia tend to have dull colours. They are noted as kleptoparasites of ants and will snatch food and pupae being carried by ants, or feed on winged termites.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Archive – More featured pictures...

۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 20:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bengalia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bengalia. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fly is using visual clues

Ideas for experiments:

To demonstrate the fly is using sight, not smell, grains of white rice may be placed near the trail. The ants will carry them off, and the fly will swoop down thinking it they are ant eggs. But at the last moment the fly will veer off, realizing its mistake. However it forgets easily, and the same behavior happens when the next grain passes by. PERSONAL OBSERVATION OF Jidanni (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC) .[reply]

So though the fly may be using smell to find where ants are marching, for locating eggs they are using sight. Jidanni (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fly also doesn't know a grain of rice is worth much more than an ant egg on the black market. Not a very smart highwayman. :-) Jidanni (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]