Talk:Omnivore/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wikipedia, are you serious?

The fact that humans are omnivorous is not "disputed". The pro-vegetarian, highly biased and unscientific articles with their own agendas are not a reliable sources. It's like stating that evolution is disputed because some creationists fanatically don't want to believe in it. Or that holocaust is disputed because some people don't want to believe in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.89.247 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is more like saying something is disputed because there are dozens of doctors with MDs, PHDs, and other such certifications that have said that humans are herbivorious. Being that there are well respected members of the scientific community disputing a fact warrents a little "disputed" tag next to it. 50.135.250.142 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't the degrees of the authors that gives credibility to their claims, but rather their many sound arguments. --Felipe (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

I have some concerns about the lead image portraying "ants" as omnivores. The problem is caused, I think, because some of the images are of single species and therefore we can classify them clearly as omnivores, however, other images are of groups of animals where their eating habits may vary according to species. Among the zillions (scientific term) of ant species, I'm sure there are some that are herbivores, and probably obligate herbivores. I suggest we either replace the ant image with a single species that is an omnivore, or perhaps edit the caption to indicate a single species of ant as an omnivore. The same might be true of the catfish and crow. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

@AnthroBit: The latest edit you have made is absurd. How can one definition be "Behavioural" and the other "Biological". Behaviour is part of biology. You seem to be simply making up terms to fit your point of view, but this is unacceptable on Wikipedia. You must provide a reliable source which describes definitions inn this way. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy I am far more concerned with the notion that somehow the word "omnivore" can be use indiscriminately in the context of if an animal/species is eating plant and animal material, while also being used to describe if an animal/species can actually obtain energy and nutrients from plant materials. We are basically playing around with dictionaries and resources that simply specify the word is applicable if it animals eating both, and dictionaries along with resources that clearly specify that a species must be able to obtain energy and nutrients from plant and animal materials to be classified as an omnivore.

There is an enormous amount of confusion over this within the public. In the context of cats and deer, clear herbivores and carnivores respectively, engaging in behavioral activities such as eating grass and small birds respectfully in order to help out with digestion or to make up nutrition deficits makes makes for some confusing situations. These animals are in fact not omnivores, but the vagueness over what is the extent of the definition often causes quite a bit of confusion. And when Wikipedia is their first resource into investigating this, it is extremely important to make sure people understand the dilemma that actually exists.

Simply eating something and actually being able to obtain energy and nutrients from it, are extremely important to specify. The Wikipedia page over what is an omnivore has been phenomenally vague, and context is absolutely essential here. It's not biased, I'm not trying to make it out the way I wanted to be, I'm trying to make clear that people understand two different contexts surrounding the word exist.

If you would help me explain that in a better way I would be extremely thankful. I am not trying to dictate this page, I'm just trying to provide context.

Thanks very much for coming to the talk page. I think I understand what you are trying to say. Omnivores may eat both plants and animals (behavioural), even though they might not get nutrients from both (physiological). I think the way to handle this is to say something like "Some definitions emphasise the behaviour of the animals by indicating omnivores ingest both plant and animal material whereas others emphasise the physiology and the ability of omnivores to gain nutrients from both plant and animal material." I don't think there is a need to try to indicate one approach is more important than the other, unless there is a reliable source for this. Hope this helps. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy Thank you. I'm attempting to bring to light that "omnivore" does in fact fall victim to ambiguity. So I'm currently trying to establish that there is in fact two definitions that are context specific which so happen to have different qualifications that need to be met in order to be labeled as such.

The behavioral definition is often use for all contexts, and that's a huge issue. So though I wanted to make an effort to specify it, I also wanted to bring to light that when you are using the term "omnivore" the definition that fits the appropriate context is extremely important.

Using the behavioral definition for physiological* contexts causes issues with the aforementioned "cat and deer example," as well as contributing to confusion over "what label do you give people who are not participating in the behavior of eating both plant and animal material." So, many people then presume that humans are simply "frugivores." Looking through the history of the omnivore page, there have been numerous accounts of vandalism where individuals are erroneously editing that humans are physiologically "frugivores," because we don't meet the "behavioral omnivore" definition.

So I'm trying the best I can to draw attention to this situation, while trying to establish why it's important to value the physiological definition in the context of biological capability. Which the majority of the page makes an argument for too.

I completely understand how it looks having some new account going off on an editing frenzy, but please do understand all I want to do is just make sure this topic is getting the context it absolutely needs. As we see greater scrutiny over diet within our society, I feel it's extremely relevant to make sure we get basic terms correct. Wikipedia is quite a number of peoples first stop when it comes to investigating these issues, so I feel the most responsible thing this website can do is at least inform people that there are two different definitions, and the importance of understanding the difference between the physiological definition and the behavioral definition, and when to properly apply them.

The publication of "Campbell Biology" does cover this predicament to some extent. I'm currently away from my copy, so I can't get exact page numbers to properly cite. But, the biggest issue is there is very little information online that truly dives into this topic into any great detail. Either its websites that make the "behavior in the place of physiological capability" mistake themselves, it's a blog, or it's a website that does cover the physiological capability part but it's just not bringing up all the issues over the behavioral part.

It's basically one or the other. Almost all the time. It's quite astonishing really.

All that said, I will take your suggestions into consideration and I appreciate the patience. I will slowly try to improve this section to be more balanced and specific. Again, please feel free to jump in whatever. My major focus is anthropology, and when I have time I plan on placing a lot of information in over humans within this page. I plan on doing a number of more edits over the coming year so feel free to keep a close eye on it. Take care. Anthrobit- 9:10pm (EST), 2 April 2016.

AnthroBit needs to be mindful of the WP:Original research policy. In the meantime, I changed the heading for accuracy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Omnivore. 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/20070829052639/http://unitedstatesfauna.com/floridamouse.php to http://www.unitedstatesfauna.com/floridamouse.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Omnivore definition

Flyer22 Reborn, that was the first time on Wikipedia that I have ever seen a fully-cited tertiary and secondary source simply deleted and replaced with a nebulous reference. Please spare me your biology lesson. My copy of Campbell Biology tells me in the Glossary that an Omnivore is "An animal that regularly eats animals as well as plants and algae". Perhaps you might like to enlighten us by providing a page number for your "Chapter 55" reference. William Harris • (talk) • 07:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

William Harris, there is no need to ping me to this talk page since it's obviously on my watchlist. Regarding your statement about me reverting your edit that removed an accurate definition of what an omnivore is and replaced it with a behavioral definition of the term, I was clear. As seen here and here respectively, I stated, "Not how the article generally talks about what an omnivore is. A number of the sources are about the ability or what the animal has biologically evolved to eat. For example, humans eating plants does not automatically equate to humans being herbivores. See the 'Etymology and definitions' section. Per that section, we should perhaps include both the behavioral and physiological definitions in the lead. And speaking of herbivores, take note that the Herbivore lead sentence focuses on 'anatomically and physiologically adapted to eating plant material.'" Pointing you to different definitions, including how academics define the term, is not giving you a biology lesson. I fail to see why you think your "A Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics" source is more reliable and/or more acceptable than the "Campbell Biology (10th Edition). Boston: Pearson" source for this topic. But we can take this matter to WP:Biology for opinions. And I don't think anyone there would be focusing on dictionary sources that simplify the matter to the point to where it is lacking accuracy, which is what dictionary sources often do and is why we often don't use dictionary sources to define topics on Wikipedia. We use dictionary or glossary sources more so for topics that are specifically about terms. The definition you gave is too simple and can give the wrong impression. Like the "Omnivorous species" section of the article currently states, "Although cases exist of herbivores eating meat and carnivores eating plant matter, the classification 'omnivore' refers to the adaptations and main food source of the species in general, so these exceptions do not make either individual animals or the species as a whole omnivorous."

In the meantime, I point you to the following sources that are clear about what I am stating when it comes to going with the physiological definition of omnivore: Starting as far back as this 1980 "Comparative Physiology: Primitive Mammals" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 55, we can see that it's acknowledged that defining omnivore to mean "both those species that feed on animals and plants and those that feed on plant concentrates (fruit, seeds, nectar, etc.)" is "not the accepted definition of the term omnivore." Skipping years ahead, if we look at the glossary section of this 2008 "Biology" source, from McGraw-Hill, page 1326, it defines an omnivore as "An animal that has the ability to eat and survive on both plant and animal products." This 2018 "Encyclopedia of Animal Science - (Two-Volume Set) source, from CRC Press, states, "Omnivores tend to have a simple stomach, a small intestine of moderate length, and a cecum and/or colon with a structural configuration allowing some digesta retention, accommodating modest fiber digestion by microorganisms [...] Due to the variations in food availability with site and season, omnivores must be versatile in their capacity to digest carbohydrates, protein, fat, and fiber, and to metabolize the nutrients and energy of the sources absorbed." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which Wikipedia pages you have a watch on - how could I? - therefore no, that is not obvious. Once again, please spare me a biology lecture. I am not impressed with your collection of poor quality "my little pony" websites from which you have appeared to WP:SYNTHESIS a definition. My issue is the definition that you have placed in the lede - until it gets a page number it is does not meet WP:VERIFY. The issue is one of WP:POLICY and not one of debate. Do you have a page number in the reference that you cite to support the definition that you have placed in the lede or not? William Harris • (talk) • 19:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted you, didn't I? And the revert wasn't a patrolling revert, such as with the use of WP:Huggle. Common sense tells anyone that I'm watching the article. Also, it's common for editors (experienced ones) to look beyond the first few edits of the article's edit history to see who has edited the article and may be a regular editor of the article. I'm clearly in the edit history a number of times. And since I didn't revert you directly, meaning you did not get a notification via WP:ECHO that I reverted you, you either saw that I reverted you from your watchlist or by looking at the edit history. As for your terrible attitude, which has only resulted in me giving you an attitude in return, I suggest you read and study our WP:Civil policy. I'm very well aware of the site's rules. And I don't have any collection of "my little pony" websites. Whatever terminology you are trying to use to insult me is ridiculous. If you are referring to sources I pointed to above, they are not poor quality sources in the least. Your "A Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics" source is not in any way superior to the McGraw-Hill "Biology" source and the "Encyclopedia of Animal Science" CRC Press source I pointed to above. I have not significantly edited this article. I have watched it and kept it free of vandalism and other disruptive edits, and poor edits. And I have not engaged in WP:Synthesis. That lead sentence is not one I wrote, but it is more accurate than what you added and I explained why. What I did, per WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:Assume good faith, was trust an editor who added the source for the physiological definition of omnivore. As for biology lessons, you titled this section "Omnivore definition," and then you are surprised when I discuss definitions? In all of my years of editing this site, since 2007, I have never seen discussing definitions not be the main topic when someone titles the section "Definitions" or similar. Maybe you should also study WP:TALK and WP:Verifiability, because, when there is a difference in definitions among WP:Reliable sources, it is something to be discussed (just like it is discussed in the article). Like WP:Verifiability states, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." It states nothing about a lack of a page number not meeting WP:Verifiability. What it does state, in its WP:CHALLENGE section, is "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." If the page number not being there was a disqualifying issue, the policy would suggest that we remove a reference that does not provide a page number. Instead, its WP:SOURCEACCESS section states, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access."

Anyway, I am not going to sit here and take your abuse. I've gone ahead and replaced the source I moved up, and moved the source back down; I replaced it with the 2008 "Biology" source from McGraw-Hill, page 1326, which defines an omnivore by ability. I also reworded the text to be more in line with the source. I used the "Encyclopedia of Animal Science" source to add on to what an omnivore must be able to do. What it states aligns with what the current lead sentence states, but I used wording that is close to what the source states. Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing, we should use our own wording unless the content both lacks creativity and the facts and ideas being offered are common knowledge. An editor using their own wording is what some editors mistake as a WP:Synthesis violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Well no, I visit articles from time to time and make edits to them without having a watch over them. This above is your assumption.

I have requested that you comply with WP:POL, which you now have done. What attitude you choose to adopt is not my concern.

I criticized no secondary sources, nor compared their merits.

You reinstated it; you therefore took ownership of it.

I know how the metabolism of an omnivore functions. Offering cited information on metabolism does not equate to a cited definition of what an omnivore is.

In this case, a page number is appropriate, especially for the lede. This article would not pass WP:GAC without it. This article has been around since 2002 and is still at quality=START class. It needs to raise its standards. Given that no other editor has offered any comment on this critical topic, and there appears to be only 7 dedicated watchers, I will assume that there is little interest in the Talk page.

Thank you; that was all I wanted for this article. William Harris • (talk) • 19:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, I ask that you don't break up any of comments again. I put my comment back to together to make this reply. For reference for this talk page, this is what the section looked like after you broke up my comment.

You stated, "Well no, I visit articles from time to time and make edits to them without having a watch over them. This above is your assumption." It's not an assumption that I didn't directly revert you, meaning you did not get a notification via WP:ECHO that I reverted you. It is not an assumption that you checked back despite that fact.

You argued that you "have requested that [I] comply with WP:POL, which {I] now have done. What attitude [I] choose to adopt is not [your] concern." I complied with WP:POL by moving that source up for that first sentence. As for my attitude, whether or not you are concerned with it, you should be concerned with your own per WP:Civil and WP:Personal attacks.

You stated that you "criticized no secondary sources, nor compared their merits." First, you stated that you "have ever seen a fully-cited tertiary and secondary source simply deleted and replaced with a nebulous reference." Then you stated you are not "impressed with [my] collection of poor quality 'my little pony' websites from which [I] have appeared to WP:SYNTHESIS a definition." The first piece is clearly a comparison. The second piece is you calling "my sources" (even if you were referring to the article's sources) poor, which is clearly meant to indicate that any source you would added would be better.

You stated, "[I] reinstated it; you therefore took ownership of it." I don't view myself as owning anyone's writing. And per WP:OWN, we can't even own our own writing on this site. I did support the lead sentence, for reasons I noted above.

You argued that you "know how the metabolism of an omnivore functions. Offering cited information on metabolism does not equate to a cited definition of what an omnivore is." I focused on more than metabolism in my edit summaries and above.

You argued, "In this case, a page number is appropriate, especially for the lede. This article would not pass WP:GAC without it. This article has been around since 2002 and is still at quality=START class. It needs to raise its standards. Given that no other editor has offered any comment on this critical topic, and there appears to be only 7 dedicated watchers, I will assume that there is little interest in the Talk page." I'm not stating that a page number is not appropriate. I'm only stating that the absence of the page number does not discount the source. And, well, I agree that the article is not of WP:GA quality. It obviously isn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)