Conservation biology received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment: Sustainability Top‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sustainability task force. Biology High‑importance Conservation biology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Philosophy of science Extinction High‑importance This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Ecology High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Forestry (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry

This article was previously a Science Collaboration of the Month.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Conservation biology was copied or moved into Life sciences with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jajc1128.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this page be merged with Conservation ecology? There is no real difference between the two. Guettarda 00:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• There is a slight difference. If there is a merge then merge conservation ecology into this. Conservation biology is the more commonly used term amonst conservation proffesionals, and covers areas of conservation science outside of ecology (such as conservation genetics and conservation economics) This page is in my watchlist as I plan to do something with it. Sabine's Sunbird 01:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you're right - conservation biology is a broader category than conservation ecology. I still think that a good case could be made for merging conservation ecology into this page, since both articles are so thin. I suppose the better phrasing of this question would be: "Is there enough of a field of Conservation Ecology that is outside of the field of Conservation Biology that is should stand as a separate article". My feeling is no, I would like to know what other people think Guettarda 01:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• My feeling is that this page covers "biodiversity conservation", not "conservation biology". Conservation biology is the scientific discipline that informs the actual practice of biodiversity conservation. I speak as someone with an MSc in Conservation. Flit 15:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Flit's above observation. Conservation biology is a multidisciplinary science that draws from contributions as diverse as landscape ecology, molecular genetics to conservation policymaking and economics to address the issue of biological conservation. There are some interesting basic fundamental insights in conservation biology such as the species-area relationship, habitat fragmentation etc. and there are analytical tools often used in conservation biology such as the population viability analysis and the valuation of biodiversity. Details such as these need to be sketched out to adequately describe the field of conservation biology. Cheers, Splashprince 12:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The material I reverted was a copyvio (it was cited as such even in the insertion).
2. I am not sure I like where this page is going - "conservation biology" is not synonymous with "environmental conservation". Guettarda 29 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)

I agree. The page deals very little with conservation biology. The whole "Importance of Conservation" section doesn't belong here - perhaps it belongs in a broader page on conservation. This whole article probably needs to be re-written to address the discipline of Conservation Biology.--Margareta 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full agreement here. It should deal with things like SLOSS debates, metapopulation theory, genetic bottlenecks, invasives, succession etc. Shyamal 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. There's a lot here on general conservation or maybe sustainability, but very little science. Is anyone working on overhauling this page? If not, I may take a crack at it. Wingaling 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is. It's awfully quiet in here. Have at it!--Margareta 03:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree with some of the above comments. certainly the recitation of prizes is filler. i think there is a place for "importance of CONSERVATION BIOLOGY" but not just importance of conservation. this article is on my list of "to do" s but go ahead and start on it. lets go slowly and try to build a consensus. i will try to contribute to the editing. cheers. Anlace 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the "Expert" tag to associate this page with Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. The reasons for this have been more or less laid out in the discussions above. The "Expert" tag was originally added three months ago, but so far no experts have turned up to help us out.

Only the lead in this article actually has to do with Conservation Biology. The entire "Importance of Conservation Biology" section is really about the importance of conservation, and as such probably doesn't belong in this article. However, it is the only section that is consistently updated. The "Conservation Threats" section could be made relevant if more context was given on how Conservation Biology attempts to address those threats, but as currently written it is also not very relevant to the topic. Apart from the lead, there is no specific information about Conservation Biology per se. At minimum, this page should have:

A history of Conservation Biology

Important figures in Conservation biology

Short descriptions of the different disciplines involved in Conservation Biology, with wiki-links to full pages about them.

Information on important publications and organizations in Conservation Biology would also be helpful.--Margareta 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.

See Wildlife of India for reference.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading over this page, I think that most of the material is irrelevant to Conservation Biology and may contain a lot of spam. I think this article would be better off having most of this removed, and giving the article a "Stub" tag. I don't want to draw anyone's wrath, but it also seems at this point that there isn't a whole lot of interest in this page. So I am going to "be bold" and start pruning extensively. If you don't like my edits, don't get mad, just put back what you think should be put back, and try and post here saying why it belongs here.--Margareta 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have done a major cleanup of the page. Mostly I have tried to go one paragraph at a time. For my rationale for each edit, please see the History page.--Margareta 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quickly getting emasculated. Pruning should be more judicious and allow others to participate. At this point we have lost over half of the article. Many mass text blocks deleted contained important threads that will take someone a lot of time to restore. I would recommend placing cite needed tags in many places where text blocks were deleted, instead of blanket deletions.Anlace 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the expression, but you can't "emasculate" something that doesn't have any balls to begin with. I was aiming at more of a haircut (of long, shaggy hair, to be sure, but a haircut nevertheless)

Very little that was deleted was of any value or relevance to the topic. Of the few paragraphs that were uncited but actually had to do with Conservation Biology, I did add "citeneeded" tags rather than delete them. We "lost" over half the article because less than half of the article dealt with the topic of Conservation Biology.

The growing inclusion of material irrelevant to Conservation Biology, and the need to bring it back into focus, has been a topic mentioned on this page for over 18 months now, but no one has done anything about it. In addition, leaving in the irrelevant sections served as an invitation for people to add to those sections rather than improving the sections that dealt with Conservation Biology.

At least from here, the page can be expanded and improved within the framework of material that has a relationship to Conservation Biology, rather than having to work around the large quantities of irrelevant material.

Regardless, if you think there was something cut that was on-topic and belonged here, by all means restore it--hopefully improving it when you do! I edited in a way that I hoped would make it easy for people to restore paragraphs if necessary.--Margareta 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some text that I deleted that actually may have some relevance to Conservation Biology, but needs to get cleaned up, have citations added, and be placed in better context before being returned to the page:

Current thinking favors the protection of entire ecological regions by the creation of “biosphere reserves.” Examples of such conservation areas include the Great Barrier Reef off Australia and Adirondack State Park in the United States. The importance of reconciling human use and conservation beyond the boundaries of parks has become another important issue.

• Needs citations; does not belong in lead; could go in a section dealing with effects of habitat loss on biodiversity and the role of Conservation Biology in informing reserve design. Biosphere reserves are not defined here.

Fynbos example

While it is difficult to establish the net value of a species, a financial value often can be estimated.

In Cape Province, South Africa the native vegetation of the area is the fynbos, a type of shrub. The fynbos are able to survive long periods of drought, periodic fires, and poor soil conditions; the plants are harvested annually with annual a yield of about $19 billion. Recently exotic plants have threatened the endemic fynbos. The new plants grow larger; increasing the severity of periodic fires. More importantly they transpire more water; reducing the local streams to half their normal water flow.

Removing the exotic species will cost between $140 US and $830 US per hectare and $8 US per hectare to maintain every year after. Alternatively, a sewage purification plant would cost $135 million US to build and $2.6 million US per year to maintain. Desalination of surrounding coastal waters would cost four times as much.

• This may have a place, but it's relationship to conservation biology isn't demonstrated and it needs a source. More likely it belongs in an article on ecological economics.

--Margareta 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know Anlace didn't agree with all the edits I made, but I sure am glad I got her attention, because she's done a lot to improve the article.

I'd like to suggest now that the "Importance of biological diversity" and "Threats to biological diversity" are good now, and are as long as they should be for an article whose focus is Conservation Biology. While they both provide important cornerstones for discussing ConBio, neither should come to dominate the article.

What really needs work now is the "History Section," which also probably should not be more than 2-3 paragraphs long (and a lot of what is there about the history of conservation could be shortened to make room for information about the history of Conservation Biology).

Hopefully someone can add a section about the actual theory and practice of Conservation Biology. Maybe start by expanding upon what is already in the lead (not expanding the lead itself, but using the lead as a guide for additional sections). Specifically, this: "The term "conservation biology" refers to the application of science to the conservation of genes, populations, species, and ecosystems. Conservation biology is the scientific study of the phenomena that affect the maintenance, loss, and restoration of biological diversity."

There is basically no additional information in the article about this, although I think this should really be the meat and potatoes of the article.--Margareta 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the following sentence from the "Threats to Biological Diversity" section: "This figure is presumed additive to the 10 to 40 percent estimates of species loss, without global warming."

The use of the words "is presumed" (presumed by whom?) is a major red flag that this is POV. And when I followed the reference to the article abstract, I found information to suggest that the statement was not true. According to the abstract, the researchers estimated total species loss under different climate change scenarios; they did not separate out species loss from climate change from species loss due to other causes.

I cannot myself access the full article from home, so it's possible there is more to this than I can see. If you have access to the full article and it backs up the "additive" statement, please share with the rest of us!--Margareta 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the expert tag go away? This article is still in major need of expert help--it still contains nearly nothing about the science of Conservation Biology, only background. All I could find in the edit summary was "This tag is rather tired." Well, I'm tired of it, too--but only because no expert has come to help improve the article yet! Plus, I only yesterday linked the tag to the Ecology project, so I think we should allow the article to be part of that project for a little while before deleting the tag--plus it can't be "tired" after only a day. I'm putting it back.--Margareta 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

95 percent of wikipedia articles are in need of the expert tag by your standard then. The average article on wikipedia is poorly sourced and not nearly as far along as this article. the expert tag should be reserved for articles that need lots of cleanup and contain significant mis-information. Anlace 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'm not sure what you mean by "far along." Apart from the lead, there is almost nothing here about Conservation Biology. Honestly, the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia on biological topics are way beyond this one. Take away the filler, and the article would qualify as a stub. What we have here may be well-sourced now, but it is the equivalent of an article on medicine that only talks about the most prevalent diseases and why disease is bad.

Anyway, all I'm saying is, it just got added to the Ecology project a day ago. Let's give it a month, at least, to see if anyone takes an interest. I've also just posted a call for editors to the Society for Conservation Biology bulletin board, so maybe someone there will come and help add some substance here.--Margareta 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've deleted the tag again. I don't agree that the major work on this page is done. While I appreciate the work you've done on improving the article, it is only the beginning: the background. There is still no information on the actual science and practice of conservation biology. Admittedly, because conservation biology is such a broad, muti-disciplianry field, and encompasses so much of the values and history of the wider conservation movement, it can be difficult to define where the boundaries should be, and what exactly should be included. And the field is constantly expanding. But this is exactly why the expert tag was needed.

We've seen some really great work done here by someone who clearly has a lot of knowledge of a couple of aspects of conservation biology. What we need now is to get all the rest of it covered.

I'm sorry Anlace couldn't bring him/herself to honor my simple requesst to leave the tag up for just one month. I'm not going to replace it, to avoid a revert war. But perhaps, in the interest of good faith, they might consider restoring it?--Margareta 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Presently the Earth is undergoing the Holocene Mass Extinction, an era of unprecedented species extinctions" - what, greater than the Permian extinction, where 95% of all species died?
• The whole thing is somewhat weak and choppy, and needs copyediting.
• Evolutionary and Ecological Genetics, the course I took last term, will come in handy here. The key science is that in small populations, genetic drift dominates, and the effect of natural selection is weakened: disadvantageous mutations can gather and become fixed in the population, and temporarily neutral variations - even slightly advantageous ones - can easily be lost. In captive breeding programs, this can be helped with careful management and transfers between zoos, to increase the effective population size. Crashes also makke the founder effect come into play, long after they recover. The population can be rescued by gene flow from other populations. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Holocene mass extinction. I read an article about this recently; I wish I could remember where. They were comparing current extinction rates to the Permian, and saying that even though a greater percent of species went extinct then, a greater number are going extinct now, simply because there are so many more species now. So "unprecedented" is relative in this sense. Perhaps whoever added the source (was it Anlace?) could verify it and see exactly what it says about the "unprecedented" nature of the current extinction. If it is in number, the sentence could read "an era of species extinctions unprecedented in number" or simply omit "era" and say "an unprecedented number of species extinctions."--Margareta 21:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in this section seem to be a little outdated, consider adding more recent references to better understand how the rate of extinction was and is still a major issue. The most current source I saw was from 2008 which isn't forever ago yet a more recent one would contribute better. Also could be put together a little better, a lot of editing going on it seems without tying things together.Moeweece (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Margaretafor the invitation to help with this article. I'm currently super busy, but a brief glance at the article suggested to me that one uncontroversial area that the article could be dramatically improved is an examination of the various fields that comprise conservation biology - conservation genetics, habitat management, reserve design, endangered species management, environemental economics, legal aspects, population ecology etc. Basically, it needs to deal with some of the science and how particular branches of other disciplines (such as population biology) affect conservation biology.

I have to many real world commitments over the next three weeks (I'm just begining a PhD in a realetd field) but I'd ba happy to contribute after that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through most of the suggestions in here and took it upon myself to update sections of this page. I didn't read well and it was lacking reference material. I did my undergraduate in wildlife biology, my masters degree at the University of Calgary in Zoology and run a non-profit conservation society. I hope that my edits will help. I will return and tinker on this page to help it capture the notion of conservation biology. It is missing a lot of history. Please let me know if my edits are appreciated!! I think the goal here is to make certain that this become a great page - because the issue is so important. The journal 'Conservation Biology' - has in its 'Aims and Scope' "...the study and preservation of species and habitats." This is perhaps a good start toward understanding what this science is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompsma (talk • contribs) 09:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Thompsma (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I have much less experience in the field, but I'll copy-edit when you're done.Mailseth (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I was thinking it would be good to add more images to the article. Thoughts on that? You could leave place holders with a description of the image you think would be appropriate, and I could fill or delete each as photos are available in the commons. Or I could just add images I think are appropriate and you can feel free to delete if you don't think it adds anything.Mailseth (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mailseth!! Great edits! I had planned to go back to revise the first paragraph - it was messy in sections and you really improved upon it. I would love to put lots of images in here - but don't really have that many figures at my disposal. I'll see what I can do. Conservation Biology is such a huge field. I was really surprised to see that very few people had written anything in here - then again, I just joined wiki so don't have much experience with it yet. I've been studying and thinking about conservation biology for well over a decade now - so I will tinker away at this. I have no idea when it will be 'done'. Thompsma (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking a little break from this little project, but will return. Conservation Biology is such an immense field - I am really surprised at how little work had been done here. It is difficult to decide on what parts of Conservation Biology are most important to include. I was thinking of a section on case examples might be useful - highlighting the International Whaling Commission, a bit of history on the Ivory Trade and elephant conservation, and there needs to be a section on conserving the worlds oceans - our oceans are in the most serious trouble. Perhaps people could place their suggestions here on what topics they feel is most important to include. Thompsma (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work that you've done on this article! I really need to find some time to go through it. I'm a little worried that you're going to be hitting problems with the article size, though. Maybe you should look into splitting off sections which you think deserve their own article. What do you think? Mailseth (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the article and have a few more suggestions on how to make this a high-end wikipedia page. First, I've moved the links out of a section header, see WP:HEAD.

Also, you might want to look at the wikipedia citation presentation suggestions. It looks like you're using both parenthetical and inline citations, but it would probably be best to limit to inline citations. Be careful not to start duplicating citations in the different footer sections. See WP:ALSO for some more info. I prefer the citation template for consistency. You could try the Universal Reference Formatter.

Lastly, I should probably state a disclaimer that I'm relatively new to this, so feel free to call my on it if you think I'm wrong about something. Mailseth (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments!! I can't seem to stop editing - I read on this stuff all the time and enjoy the subject, so I'm enjoying doing this. The reason why I use both parenthetical and inline citations is more to save time - with the intent to return and cite the articles properly. Thanks for the link on how to improve on this! I am really done with this now - have to get back to work on some of my other projects. I think I have covered much of the basics - a section on conservation genetics could be included or hold its own page, since it is such a huge field in its own right. Thompsma (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if a paragraph on the SLOSS Debate would be appropriate somewhere in there? Mailseth (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone - as you can see I have put a significant effort forward on getting this page up to speed. I just learned how to put up an article to be peer-reviewed and would like to do the same for this page. There are still a lot of edits that need to be done and I was hoping for some assistance and feedback in this regard. As for Mailseth's comment that this might be too long - I don't think so. I've checked out other sites, such as Evolution - which have been featured articles and they are much longer than this page. Conservation Biology is a huge topic. I decided, however, not to discuss Evolution or Conservation genetics - because these have their own articles started, albeit Conservation Genetics is as rough as this one was when I arrived here. I might move onto Conservation Genetics - since this is where my real area of expertise rests. Thompsma (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job Mailseth!! Thanks for helping to whip this into shape. I'm learning lots as I review your edits to see how things are done. Teamwork! I will be moving onto the Conservation genetics article this week - it is in desperate need of repair. If you feel like tagging along - please do. Thompsma (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Editing is one of those jobs that seems like it takes a order of magnitude longer than it should. And it's one of those jobs where if you're doing it well, no one notices (kind of like IT). I wanted to mention that some of your edits use some loaded language and may even be sensationalist, such as the section title "Living the Sixth Great Extinction". I just wanted to point you to wikipedia's neutral point of view article. I would find a way to present the info while still sounding "encyclopedic".

You might be correct on the 'sensationalist' viewpoint - however, most of the comments that I included are found directly in peer-reviewed scientific literature. If such comments are peer-reviewed scientific - can they be considered sensationalist - or just a reality of the situation? I think it is the latter - but this could be open for debate. I look forward to hearing what others have to say about this. Thompsma (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My tendonitis (like Tennis Elbow, but from years of computer usage) limits my time on the computer, and school is starting back up so we'll see what else I'm able to accomplish (no promises). Mailseth (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to mention that the rquote template isn't intended to be used like we're using it, so it should probably be used this way at a minimum. It is awfully tempting though, especially for the Leopold quote. Mailseth (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More advice: You've been using embedded links, but they haven't been formatted correctly for citations. You might want to take a look at the short article Wikipedia:Embedded citations. Also, I've noticed that you put punctuation after inline citations. That's not the normal way of doing it. Hope this helps, Mailseth (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone care to comment on this point of discussion raised by Mailseth above?? Thompsma (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the Wiki article on neutral point of view and believe that all the sections included in this article, including 'Living the Sixth Extinction' abide by the code of conduct. I have not used any new terms that go beyond what has already been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. If you do see some specific examples where this might not be true - please let me know. Thompsma (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern isn't if it's sensationalist, I'm just noticing that the language seems to be taking a position on issues (loaded language). Mailseth (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the loaded language article - don't believe I am doing this, but hard to be objective on my own work - which is where the peer-review process comes in useful. However, all the concepts I present in this article are backed-up by citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature. I read through the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and revisited the neutral point of view article. All wiki articles must "...be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (Wikipedia:NPOV). All my statements borrow language from peer-reviewed scientific literature, but have been expressed through my own neutral language (as far as possible) to avoid plagiarism. I have no benefit or motive to mislead on these issues through loaded language. If I have done so - please point out the specifics so that the article can be improved, but I also ask that the primary literature sources be reviewed in the same context.

Here is some sample wording from Nature (nature.com), Science (sciencemag.org), and PNAS - three of the most premier scientific journals where language should be most neutral and acceptable for an encyclopedia:

"But this diversity is being destroyed by farming and industrial developments at an alarming rate. Conservation is therefore a matter of urgency, but to be taken seriously it needs a scientific basis and must attract the brightest scientists." Nature 428, 213 - 214 (11 Mar 2004), doi: 10.1038/428213a

"If insects elsewhere are similarly sensitive, we tentatively agree with the suggestion that the known global extinction rates of vertebrate and plant species may have an unrecorded parallel among the insects, strengthening the hypothesis, derived from plant, vertebrate, and certain mollusk declines, that the biological world is approaching the sixth major extinction event in its history." Science, 303 (2004) 1879-1881. [1]

"Rapid population declines and extinctions of species following the widespread destruction of natural habitats have been reported across the natural world. Up to 50% of species are predicted to be lost in the next 50 years." 10 SEPTEMBER 2004 VOL 305 SCIENCE [2]

"The current massive degradation of habitat and extinction of species is taking place on a catastrophically short timescale, and their effects will fundamentally reset the future evolution of the planet's biota." PNAS The current biodiversity extinction event: Scenarios for mitigation and recovery. PNAS 2001 98:5466-5470; doi:10.1073/pnas.091093698 [3]

The preceding quotes sound what could be described as sensational and with loaded language - yet they are comparable to what I have written. In short, I believe that if my language and concepts are backed-up by peer-reviewed literature, it qualifies and adheres to the Wikipedia code of conduct. Thompsma (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to mention that I don't disagree with the points in your articles. I don't want to come across as denying that these things are happening globally. I just want to save myself some editing work in the future. ;)

I don't think that I would call peer-reviewed scientific literature the gold-standard of neutral. In fact, one could say that most articles are simple position papers where they argue that they have rejected the null hypothesis (with supporting evidence (most of the time)). It would be hard to say that the peer-reviewed discrete versus continuous plant communities debate (McIntosh 1958, Gleason 1939) was completely neutral, or the more recent SLOSS Debate. Just because it's of similar tone as (or quotes) a peer-reviewed article doesn't mean it fairly covers all sides of any given debate.

Hell, many well published and respected scientists are a few sentences away from having a knock-down drag-out argument over a dictionary entry, much less an encyclopedia article. What's the correct method of measuring biodiversity? What is biodiversity? Is 'utilize' a word? I personally know scientists who find these questions ... difficult.

With all this said, I still need to go back and re-read the article to see what actually needs changing (if anything). It's just a point I wanted to bring up. Mailseth (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great discussion Mailseth!! Part of the reason for this discussion is not because I have hard set values or opinions on the matter, but rather I'm trying to learn for myself what a neutral point of view is -> we are all susceptible to some degree to our cognitive psychology. I agree that scientific literature isn't the gold standard of neutrality - e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7] - however, I wonder if citing original literature with full disclosure is a neutral point of view. In other words, I am not making the claim - rather I am disclosing what others (peer-reviewed) have already stated. I'm fully aware that scientific papers are full of rhetoric, emotion and psychological bias - hence, a purist neutral view is unlikely. This being said - Conservation biology is one of those subject areas where emotive language and loaded language is sure to creep in. So thanks for keeping me on my toes and thinking critically about this. Thompsma (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sounds appropriate. The trick is presenting biased information in a non-biased manner; while still keeping it interesting enough that people want to read it. I know many people read wikipedia specifically because they (we?) present controversial topics without the spin. Also, I want to make sure you notice my comments in the appropriate sections above (namely "Editorial" and "Major Revisions and update"). I don't want them to get lost. The linking/citation comment also applies to much in the Long-toed Salamander page. Mailseth (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the point back to the previous sections - I'm still reading and learning how to edit/cite properly. One of the things about this topic that makes it difficult is that I'm trying to give a factual portrayal of what a scientific discipline in crisis is about. Some of the quotes may appear non-factual - but they are factual in the sense that they convey the kinds of social messages that conservation biology presents. It is a difficult balance. Thompsma (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It is, after all, a discipline with a deadline. ;) Mailseth (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the second lead paragraph of the article, which included a summary of the historical information, and incorporated it into the history section. I hope to work on the history section and bring some of this into the preamble at a later date. The paragraph didn't fit with the flow of the current article format. Thompsma (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As a part of my biology class I am hoping to make edits to the history of the conservation movement section of this page. So far I have seen a source that is not properly cited, a source that leads to nowhere, and a source backed in a website. I hope to bring the perspective of this history section back to a more neutral standpoint by adding more international perspectives in hopes of taking the focus away from just the U.S. and European Countries.--Melmacd94 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gathered references and have started reading about the history of conservation biology in greater detail. I will be updating this section and thought it might be more appropriate to split the article by moving the history section to its own article. Thoughts? Debate? Thompsma (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Sierra Club.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:WWF logo.svg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should there also be a "Methods section"? For example, what do Conservation Biologists do all day (besides grant writing)? The Biodiversity#Management article has a section on conservation with info like that. Mailseth (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just went and read the section in Biodiversity#Management and it was terrible. There are no citations. Other parts of the article are great - but this section was particularly bad. I'm going in to make some changes, insert references, and make some comments.

I didn't really see anything in there that talked in great detail about Conservation Biologists do all day from how I understand things. The discipline has so many players that there are many different types of roles that Conservation Biologist play in their activities. Education, research, and public outreach are the three ares that I try to focus on. The research that Conservation Biologists do is what gives us the sort of stats and figures reported in the article. Outdoor natural education, Ecological literacy or activities like Pond Watch, Frog Watch, Ice Watch, Bloom Watch (see http://www.naturewatch.ca/) is one of the ways in which Conservation Biologists teach and inspire the youth and community to learn about nature and ways they can support and sustain local ecosystems. E. O. Wilson is perhaps the most influential conservation biologists of all time and is starting up his biodiversity foundation with a lot of influential thinkers (http://www.eowilson.org/). Advising policy in municipal management, working for government, universities, non-profit, NGO's, and industry through scientific assessment and monitoring of biodiversity is another way conservation biologists are engaging society. Executing recovery plans and action plans - which usually include research goals, methods and public outreach. I can talk about this sort of stuff - because I have the experience, but I would have to do some research to find references for this sort of stuff. Thanks for the pointer to Biodiversity#Management. Thompsma (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes and inserted references in Biodiversity#Management. I will work on this tomorrow. I think a priority of this article right now is to get a second paragraph at the lead to give an overview/preamble of the rest of the article.Thompsma (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the lead section following some of the guidelines from Wikipedia:Lead section. Just need to go back and put in some strategic references. I read somewhere that the lead doesn't need citations - but found out that this is incorrect. I'll repair this. Thompsma (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working away at the history section - please note that this section needs organization and does not read well at this point in time. If you have contributions - please feel free to help out. I'm doing some more research and organization before I post the final revisions.Thompsma (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at that section one of these days. Probably after you post your 'final' updates. I've been 'studying' general ecology by editing articles in the natural sciences. I shouldn't spend much time on the computer or my arms start hurting. Generally I spend too much time on the computer anyway. Mailseth (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new image in the history section Mailseth!! It is a great image and really captures the history. Theodore Roosevelt was such an interesting person. This adds greatly to the context. Will have time to contribute after a little break from wiki.Thompsma (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can biodiversity animal databases be mentioned as a tool to conserve the biodiversity ? For axample the freshwater animal diversity assessment (http://fada.biodiversity.be/) is a database to help conserve fresh water animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.169.78 (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the encyclopedia of life is also a useful tool ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.163.201 (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In The Sixth Extinction, it says "Conservation biologists are dealing with and have published evidence from all corners of the planet indicating that humanity is living the sixth and greatest planetary extinction event of all time." I would strongly recommend this be modified or removed. 1) It has an over-dramatic, un-encyclopedic tone. 2) What is the evidence the statement is correct? The given source does argue that the present time may be regarded as a 6th mass extinction event, but I didn't see anything suggesting that it was the greatest of all time. Much better would be the first sentence in the sourced paper: "Many scientists argue that we are either entering or in the midst of the sixth great mass extinction." Kier07 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Kier07...however, there are other references stating that this extinction crisis is indeed monumental. I have a few references in mind and will post them shortly. A re-wording, however, might help this out a bit.Thompsma (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the exact reference I had in mind, but here is something close: "There is consensus in the scientific community that the current massive degradation of habitat and extinction of many of the Earth’s biota is unprecedented and is taking place on a catastrophically short timescale. (Novacek and Cleland 2001: PNAS 2001 98:5466-5470; doi:10.1073/pnas.091093698).

This is taken from a peer-reviewed scientific publication. 'Unprecedented' & 'catastrophically' sound dramatic - but they are a true reflection of the scientific view on the current extinction crisis. There are many other scientific papers that have said as much. Perhaps the following is better:

"...humanity is living the sixth planetary extinction event that is unprecedented in size and timescale."

??Thompsma (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found what I was looking for:

"However, given that most peer-reviewed studies estimate impending losses at between 103 and 104 times background [7–9,18,34], considerations of uncertainty seem unlikely to alter the broad picture. Although there is still disagreement over whether human-caused losses will in due course parallel the Big Five mass extinction events [35–37], there is little doubt among recent commentators that what is unfolding is indeed exceptional [11,12,22–24,33,35–39]. (Balmford et al., 2003: TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.18 No.7 July 2003)"

There are other papers that look directly at extinction rates and have noted that the current rates are unparalleled - e.g., https://www.herpconbio.org/~herpconb/McCallum/amphibian%20extinctions.pdf

See also: http://web.archive.org/web/20070607101209/http://www.amnh.org/museum/press/feature/biofact.html Thompsma (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still have some NPOV concerns about this passage. Here's the sentence that concerns me the most:

Conservation biologists are dealing with and have published evidence from all corners of the planet indicating that humanity is living the sixth and greatest planetary extinction event. (see also [8][9]).

For the article to assert, as it currently does, that it is a fact that the Holocene extinction event is greater than all previous mass extinctions sounds unencyclopedic to me. That there is peer-reviewed literature that makes that case is not the same thing as there being a scientific consensus on the question, and absent a scientific consensus, I think the current language goes too far.

It's perfectly appropriate for the article to state that that position has been argued in peer-reviewed literature, to the extent it has been. The part that concerns me is the way the article's current language implicitly endorses that view as an established fact. Reading through the three references adduced to the statement, I note that the first one (the Wake and Vredenburg paper) uses more nuanced language when talking about this:

"Many scientists argue that we are either entering or in the midst of the sixth great mass extinction... The possibility that a sixth mass extinction spasm is upon us has received much attention (9). Substantial evidence suggests that an extinction event is underway... Many scientists think that we are just now entering a profound spasm of extinction and that one of its main causes is global climate change (14–16)." (emphasis added)

The American Museum of Natural History survey offered in support of the statement also raises doubts in my mind about the current language. It says in part:

Seven out of ten biologists believe that we are in the midst of a mass extinction of living things, and that this dramatic loss of species poses a major threat to human existence in the next century. (emphasis added)

It seems possible, at least, that the three out of ten biologists surveyed who do not believe we are in the midst of a mass extinction and that it poses a major threat would question the characterization of the Holocene extinction as the greatest of all time.

I'm not trying to be tendentious. I really appreciate the effort that Thompsma (and others) have put into the article, and think they've done a great job. I just think the article would be stronger if this language could be cleaned up to more scrupulously conform to NPOV. -- John Callender (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all great points. I've been working over on ecology recently and I'm glad to see that people are in here reading through this. I have every intent to come back and go over this article again - to try and get it up to feature article status. I was aware that David Wake and some of the other authors had been more reserved in some of their language in referring to the extinction crisis. I had also read the American Museum of Natural History Survey.

Here is another quote on this - but taken from Action Bioscience[10]:

"There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past." (emphasis added)

This does sound a little more reserved. However, the rates of extinction that McCallum put forward for amphibans seems pretty significant to me:

"These calculations suggest that the current extinction rate of amphibians could be 211 times the background amphibian extinction rate. If current estimates of amphibian species in imminent danger of extinction are included in these calculations, then the current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. It is difficult to explain this unprecedented and accelerating rate of extinction as a natural phenomenon."[11] (emphasis added)

The latter example is from a peer-reviewed journal and sounds less reserved. The amphibian extinction crisis is part of the biodiversity crisis. By extention it is "unprecedented and accelerating" or as I worded it "is greater than all previous mass extinctions". It also depends on the level of organization that is being considered. These assessments are based on species extinction rates - which isn't a complete measure of biodiversity. For example, population extinctions (another dimension to biodivesrity) are happening at an even faster rate.

Quote from Science article in 2000:

"If insects elsewhere are similarly sensitive, we tentatively agree with the suggestion that the known global extinction rates of vertebrate and plant species may have an unrecorded parallel among the insects, strengthening the hypothesis, derived from plant, vertebrate, and certain mollusk declines, that the biological world is approaching the sixth major extinction event in its history."[12]

But here is one from 2006:

"Human actions are causing a biodiversity crisis, with species extinction rates up to 1000 times higher than background. Moreover, the processes driving extinction are eroding the environmental services on which humanity depends. People care most about what is close to them, so most responses to this crisis will be local or national."[13]

The science has advanced and this extinction crisis is greater than all the others in two ways. First, it can be argued (not only by me) that humans are unique and we have brought something unique to the extinction crisis since we are responsible:

"Human activities are associated directly or indirectly with nearly every aspect of the current extinction spasm." (Wake and Vredenberg, 2008)[14]

Hence, we are the only species that ever existed that evolved the conscious awareness that such an event was even occuring; published accounts suggest 50% of the worlds species will be gone in 50 years[15]. In my conscious human mind - this sounds like the greatest extinction of all time because we are living it. Second, it is greater than all the others because the recorded rates of extinction through the fossil record indicate that holocene rates are higher. There are other aspects to the current extinction that are unique - such as the pollution made of many foreign materials that never occurred in any of the other previous extinctions - plastics or nano-materials did not exist in any of the previous extinctions, but these materials can and do cause harm to biodiversity in the current extinction wave. Other authors have highlighed other things that are unique about the current extinction period (e.g., [16]). I will leave this up for others to debate, but I think that the wording might not be a scientific consensus wording - but is this what we are after? It is also important to remember that the science is evolving and opinions are changing. The language used in the article is comparable to that used in the recent peer-reviewed literature, but perhaps it needs to be elaborated upon? I am certain that I can find many other references and we could compare the language. Just read this abstract if you want a scientific assessment that sounds even more ominous than what I wrote: [17] When I return to work on this article - I would like to cut many of the sections down to size and spin of other smaller articles.Thompsma (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a scientific consensus anyway and who gets to determine it?[18] This is being thrown around so much lately and it is more of a social construct than a scientific one. Very few are out counting votes on complex ideas; but see: [19] It is kinda a silly notion and unless it is backed up by a study, it unscientific as a form of persuation or rhetoric:

"...social factors, such as the professional standing of the cited author, play a significant role in citation decisions in ecology. Furthermore, the dependence of the citation rates of ecological papers on the direction of study outcome with respect to the hypothesis tested suggests that citations in ecological papers are used as rhetorical devices to convince the readers of the validity of the study claims rather than as simple acknowledgements of the sources of background information."[20]

I doubt that the ecological literature is unique in this respect - which is why I put this quote here. Hence, even a review of consensus on the literature is complicated. Consensus might be likened to empiricism, but the later is a more elaborate branch of philosophy. I don't think wikipedia is looking for a scientific consensus - otherwise we would only be able to write about things that were being surveyed.Thompsma (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm not going over this too much, but I like to read up on this stuff. Here is another quote:

"There is consensus in the scientific community that the current massive degradation of habitat and extinction of many of the Earth's biota is unprecedented and is taking place on a catastrophically short timescale."[21]

It is interesting picking this stuff apart because it is making me rethink some of my own assumptions. For example, we are seeing the 'scientific consensus' rhetoric being used again in this quote and a repeat of 'unprecedented'. Here is a quote from an article that even gives a definition for measuring greatness:

"A quantitative scale for measuring greatness, G, of mass extinctions is proposed on the basis of rate of biodiversity diminution expressed as the product of the loss of biodiversity, called magnitude (M), and the inverse of time in which that loss occurs, designated as intensity (I)...By contrast, the current extinction resembles none of the earlier ones and may end up being the greatest of all."[22]

and further on:

"Of the classes of mass extinction listed above, only those with extraterrestrial origin are known to be triggered literally with lightening speed, and their deadly repercussions are felt within a time frame of 104 to 105 years. All others take hundreds of thousands to millions of years, except, so far, the current extinction."[23]

Hence, this extinction even is the exception - but it may be too early to tell if it is the greatest (however, it seems more than likely that it is the greatest). I think with all this information combined that we can rephrase the sentence to something that we can all agree upon. How about:

Conservation biologists are dealing with and have published evidence from all corners of the planet indicating that humanity is living a sixth and unprecidented planetary extinction event. The present Holocene to Anthropocene extinction event, otherwise known as the sixth extinction event, may be the greatest of all time due to accellerating rates of biodiversity loss and the unique combination of threats that humanity presents.[24] (see also [25][26]).

Thompsma (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was away from Wikipedia for a while, and didn't get back to this discussion until now. Speaking just for myself, I don't think the proposed language above really helps with the neutrality concern I was raising, though an anonymous user's edit back on April 15 actually did help somewhat (albeit at the cost of introducing some weasel-y language). On balance, I think the current version is an improvement, at least from a neutrality standpoint, and should probably stay. In general, though, I wasn't looking for you to find more sources to support the position you were arguing for. It was more that I was trying to suggest that the very act of trying to support that position takes us down a path that leads away from NPOV. Anyway, I'm glad it worked out. Thanks. -- John Callender (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 I working on soil &water conservation activities /specially on sustainable land management program ,but after three years effort we got nothing because of the nature of the soil/which has high cracking effect our biological activities were not effective ,so what good spices can I use for this soil type?

Some of the current wording seems a bit extreme, definitely do not mean to step on any toes here but it seems to read as a biased opinion than more factual. I think some minor edits in phrasing could fix that though Aeg4053 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably many ways in which scientists and medicine can help endangered species. One way that could possibly help is artificial insemination. It is known that larger animals have been artifically inseminated, especially on farms where a farmer choses what kind of offspring they would like and chose a sperm donor to inseminate a female with. What if today's animals had sperm collected and froze so that it can be used in the future. That may help in reducing the amount of animals that have the chance of becoming inbred. Medford.6 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Conservation biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205110648/http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rrdunn/InsectExtinctionPDF.pdf to http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rrdunn/InsectExtinctionPDF.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nau.edu/~envsci/sisk/courses/env440/readings/Kareiva+et+al+2003+Am+Sci.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nau.edu/~envsci/sisk/courses/env440/readings/Kareiva+et+al+2003+Am+Sci.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that conservation traditions can be explained a little bit more. Can you explain the traditions like Buddhist and Islamic (etc.)in a little more detail.

WMcDo111 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am Pradeep Yadav....and I am trying to create a page about me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.151.199 (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section Threats of Biodiversity needs some updating: •Some of the sources used in this section are dated back to the 1981, and the most recent one in this section referenced was from 2009. There is nothing from recent years, when there have been many changes to the climate, and many natural disasters that could possibly be linked to threats of biodiversity and to global warming. •With updating the references and information to more relevant information today, one might find more examples that could be used for climate change, extinction of species, carbon dioxide changes, and global warming. In particular the information connected to Yellowstone National Park. The source connected to Yellowstone is dated from 2009. An update is important because just recently this year Yellowstone faced a potential threat to biodiversity when a parasite killed thousands of fish in Yellowstone River, this river runs through Yellowstone National Park. Other important information that could be added to expand the concept of threats to biodiversity could be to discuss the most recent temperature changes accross the US, in regards to lack of rain, and the impact the recent storms, and draughts have had on our environment. Tbmcintosh (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Tiffanie[reply]

Good morning. The content in the History of the Early Naturalist is non biased and is no sources used are biased toward one specific early finding. I find this extremely helpful to discern factual information. I think where this section could be improved is adding more information about more of the early naturalist. Charles Darwin is arguably the most important naturalist and was the first to discover evolution by Natural selection. However, I think that some of his mentors should also be mentioned in this section and some of his predecessors. I think it would be extremely important to show where Darwin got his initial ideas of evolution from since evolution was not widely accepted during his time. For example: Cuvier's work with fossils and Lamarck's thought that all species had developed from one simple ancestor (Edinburgh Lamarckians: Robert Jameson and Robert E. Grant. (1991). Journal of the History of Biology, 24(1), 1-18. doi:10.1007/bf00130472) Most people still believed in special creation. I believe that it is also important to show how he later influenced the thinking of other naturalist during his time in to possibly changing their opinions. This section of the article has great initial thoughts and ground work. I just believe that it could have a lot more detail added to it.

Mmericle27 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the subsection was okay. For me, there could have been more citations, it was seemingly just telling a story, however there was no way to go ahead and fact check a few things. The article was written to coincide with its topic "global conservations efforts," although it did tell more of the history than anything. The authors did well on remaining neutral and not writing from a perspective that would be one sided. For me the piece of writing will be more interesting and focused if it were to mention what other countries outside of the US have done, or what they are doing in support of conservation ecology. Darby509 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the section in general was mediocre. It did not appear biased, not confusing. Although, I did feel as if it lacked a bit of depth though and could have used a few more citations and/ or sources. As for the information presented, the original author could certainly add more detail on the groups alone, as it seems to be skipped through a bit. Furthermore, a small content gap appears in the second paragraph: insects are jumped into, specifically honey bees. A more thorough introduction would have been nice. Overall, not bad! Leeza.decheubel (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the referenced material I found most of the information and sources would lead to a book or an ISBN. Nothing concrete that I could read about, this was for most of the reference sources, but the ones that linked out would link to wiki pages with information relating to what they have linked as. The first paragraph was confusing for me, it had topics that would relate with measuring extinction rate, but not concrete enough to understand and verify. Also, the author used the phrase "the most" when talking about what contribution of a particular book. This would lead me to believe that the article isn't really neutral. Plus, the two-paragraph didn't contribute to the topic. The author talked about limiting factors that scientist had in not documenting all the living species on earth. When it came to the citations, some worked but would lead you to wiki pages, or a web page that was down, and links that wouldn't work (links for 56, 57, and 62). Finally, I copied a few of the sentences to the search bar and found that it was plagiarized about 70-90% worth. My two question would be 1) What are some of the tools for measuring the extinct rate and could fossil location alter the information to documenting this? 2) With advances in technology will we ever acquire information on all species?

--21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgirmay0634 (talk • contribs)  

Overall this section on approaches to conservation is unbiased and is well cited for how short it is; however it could be expanded on with more detail as well as more information in general. It specifies what in-situ focuses its efforts on however does not specify what ex-situ efforts focus on. Additionally since these forms of conservation are the basic subdivisions of conservation approaches, examples could be provided in order to paint a full picture and establish a deeper understanding on par with the detail of the other sections. Examples of conservation approaches in-situ and ex-situ would also clear up the discrepancy brought up by the next paragraph regarding the difference between conservationists and preservationists. It claims that preservationists protect ecosystems by blocking interference while conservationists engage societies and ecosystems. The definition provided for conservationist approaches does not clarify this aspect of conservation. Overall this section lacks a developed narrative and leaves readers unfulfilled on the topic of approaches to conservation biology. Vmkeam (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think this section of the article was very well developed. The information discussed in the article is quite relevant to the topic of conservation biology.The composition was amazingly thorough while the transitions from one subtopic to another were smooth.I feel as if the article provided both useful and relevant information about the status of oceans ad reefs.There was no strong voicing of opinion, simply a presentation of well referenced facts, which resulted in an informative, neutral article. Yamarie22 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Biology basically highlights on how to sustain natural healthy world by conserving its natural resource that is available for the living and non-living organisms. Biodiversity could be defined as varieties of plants and animals and microbes that interacts in a given systems of habitat environment. Biodiversity provides a varieties of environmental services to species and ecosystems that are essential in the global region and local level. This shared variety word species are disappearing in masses that is unacceptable to ecosystem, biodiversity has decreased drastically since decade with many species haven gone extinct. Conservation biologists are team of researchers that practice ethics in the biological and social science according to Chan in the article read. Ethically, all living thing have right to livelihood for instance is it unethical for any of us to eat food that courses the extinction of other species if we don't need to? It is unethical for verse majority of us humans to contribute to climate change, loss of our ecosystems and resource depletion while about a few percent of conservation biologist are living their lives to protect it? When the issue of ethics and values arise in any subject it's usually a dilemma. To some degree we used our human advantage over other species.Ettahtaje (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Action for conservation has been around for a long time now from individuals, governments and non profit organization advocating for this course. These resource are at risk as we talk and the references provided in the article about conservation are reliable, however short of some important reference which can not be left out when we talk about conservation in these days "International Union for Conservation of Nature".International Union for Conservation of Nature. The topic has been well discuss and presented in a way to give information firstly about the topic. In discussing the aspect of personal interest on conservation it was not clear as to who does it, how it arise, and any past situation of such occurrence. From a general view the information sounds totally unbiased and while checking the references the information are also true in its presentation specifically in talking about how the subject has evolve to today and affect us. The sources of this piece are from book writers, journals, organization, religious bodies. This bodies presented their material according to their views the article just did not infer with their opinion. The point of view of personal interest in conservation is under-presented since it should be part of the history on how evolution of conservation is taking place. Some of the links do not work especially link 7 and 22. --Idrissou9cm (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section of the article focuses on the significance of conservation biology by defining its purpose, which is to investigate the hypothesis ( and /or prevent )concerning the extinction of half the species in the universe within the future. Conservation biology is a " mission oriented crisis discipline"(The nature of education) .Conserving something biological or ecological is its main concern .It targets the decline of biological diversity. Biodiversity is significant because it provides goods and services for humans and the ecosystem. It maintains interactions between the living and non living part of the environment. For example biodiversity has provided plants for crops that feed a multitudinous amount of people, while also decomposing organisms that release nutrients into soil and water(Sylvia S. Mader|Michael W. BIOLOGY).

The loss of biodiversity can impact negatively. Destruction of ecosystems results in excessive rates of extinction . This field contains drawings on sciences, economics, and the practice of managing natural resources . This helps to fully justify the concerns of conservation biologists in their struggle to preserve biodiversity. Scientists are working towards a global framework with nationwide alliances to form a master plan to counter the loss.

• Everything in this section of the article is relative to conservation biology, It wasn't hard to grasp the concept.
• Clicking on the links in this section do work, It helps you connect everything being said to form a better understand .

• Gerber, Leah. "conservation biology". The Natureeducation, knowledge project.</ref>
• Biology (eleventh ed.). Michael S. Hackett. ISBN 978-0-07-352550-1.

Dowusu6654 (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked on the article Ethics and Values for citation but I found out that the first citation number 69 by Chan has two citations. The very first part to it says article not found the second web page opened. While the number 24 also opened up the web page. The information seems outdated most dated publishing that I came across there were in the 1800 and 1900s, the most resent date I saw was 2008. My though was I will be seeing more ethical dilemma for example; organisms right etc. Ettahtaje (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Conversation Priorities" section of the Conservation Biology wiki is an excellent example of objective POV. It discusses the different areas of focus for conservation and the benefits and limiting factors of each. It introduces the idea that rare, endangered species should not be the only concern and then discusses the concepts for prioritizing "hotspots" vs "coldspots." It includes links to different organizations and their priorities and discusses the reasoning behind their primary concerns. That being said, there are several areas that can be improved upon.

One area of concern is the linked articles. For example, link [75] to the CREO's Why Care About Species That Have Gone Extinct? seems to be informal. Although it is from a reputable source (American Museum of Natural History), the linked article is more of a personal commentary than a research article. Furthermore, the site has spelling errors and has not been updated in many years. That being said, some linking is done well: the direct link to IUCN's Red List is a great relevant, and professional, resource.

Additionally, and in my opinion more importantly, this "Conservation Priorities" only focuses on one aspect: what should be prioritized. Adding more information regarding how it is prioritized and which acts are being done is highly relevant to the article. In later sections, specific activities are discussed; but when discussing the priorities of conservation, it is important to focus not only on what should be prioritized but how it is being done. What role does money play in conservation? How do these organizations focus their hotspot or coldspot conservation efforts? By addressing these concerns, this section can elevate it's relevance and informational quality.

Mcolgan01 (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Conservation biology. 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/20110719175825/http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/lectures/population/Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons.pdf to http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/lectures/population/Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/Rethinking
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630000000/http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/tables/table1 to http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/tables/table1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627000000/http://www.iucnredlist.org to http://www.iucnredlist.org
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091226124242/http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf to http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706005010/http://www.iucnredlist.org/amphibians to http://www.iucnredlist.org/amphibians
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.herpconbio.org/~herpconb/McCallum/amphibian%20extinctions.pdf

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) 22:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservation biology. 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/20120313144333/http://www.asiaticsociety.org.bd/journals/Golden_jubilee_vol/articles/H_468%20%28Brett%20M%20Benet%29.htm to http://www.asiaticsociety.org.bd/journals/Golden_jubilee_vol/articles/H_468%20%28Brett%20M%20Benet%29.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iucnredlist.org/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files%5C8392%5Carticles%5C9961%5CTheSumIsGreaterthantheParts.pdf

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) 08:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Conservation biology. 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/20090225013400/http://www.ser.org/iprn/pdf/Elaine_Abraham.pdf to http://www.ser.org/iprn/pdf/Elaine_Abraham.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227072411/http://www.biodiv.org/convention/default.shtml to http://www.biodiv.org/convention/default.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225013400/http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/docs/SoC_Brazil_2005/Papers/Margules_and_Pressey_2000.pdf to http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/docs/SoC_Brazil_2005/Papers/Margules_and_Pressey_2000.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116135224/http://web.conservation.org/xp/gcf to http://web.conservation.org/xp/gcf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222043456/http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/Pages/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081130114053/http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/feature/eco_fea_value.pdf to http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/feature/eco_fea_value.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505071048/http://ecotrust.org/press/katoomba_backgrounder.html to http://www.ecotrust.org/press/katoomba_backgrounder.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070407114751/http://essp.csumb.edu/esse/ to http://essp.csumb.edu/esse/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202162316/http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis92/apnov92.htm to http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis92/apnov92.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719234229/http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/environmental-information/About-the-Waikato-region/Our-economy/The-hidden-economy/ to http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/environmental-information/About-the-Waikato-region/Our-economy/The-hidden-economy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927164904/http://www.bioversityinternational.org/training/training_materials/gis_manual.html to http://www.bioversityinternational.org/training/training_materials/gis_manual.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909070826/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-59 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-59

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) 20:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this can be mentioned: A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets Genetics4good (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Conservation (ethic) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note in consvertio biodiversity 2409:4042:2EA1:B646:83CF:7046:4368:E11F (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A) All references appear to be reliable as they are referenced to a lot of scientific journals and big international organizations that specialize on the topic of conservation biology. There were many examples from different studies of different scientists. A lot of pictures and graphs with relevant captions. B) The article seems to be very well relevant and on topic throughout. There were no distracting side comments or any unnecessary details. It was easy to find information that was needed and the headers were all concise. C) There were no biases detected in the article. The author(s) remained neutral throughout and provided viable information.

Esysebe0321 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexcrocker12345 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Madunn99, 1947143432C, CWbiology, Iscucchi, Hbrowny5.

— Assignment last updated by Hbrowny5 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pisumsativumcoarse (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]