Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon citizendium.svg

This Citizendium related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, (new)

Note: the current follies are being reported at WIGO CZ and discussed at its talk page.

What law exactly are we expected to presume Citizendium broke?[edit]

The article makes some references to some violations of citizendium copyright policy, and then from that fact presupposes some sort of "law" was broken without telling us what law or how it was broken ( accusing others of a crime or civil wrong/tort in a "hit piece" without evidence can get one sued for libel ) Only major flaw in this article I have found.LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The details can be found in the citations: keep in mind this is amateur lawyering on behalf of a third party, which isn't a formula for legal rectitude. I don't think there's any direct assertions of breaking the law in the article, just that they aren't big on maintaining their images properly. Reads like a tempest in a teapot to me, and I could personally do without the whole section. Ikanreed (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, this whole section tends to undermine the credibility of the article more than it does to support its general thrust in my opinion. It uses pretty questionable and subjective sources and is basically an opinion presented as fact a la Alex Jones/Fox News.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not quite that bad, either. Citing our own talk page as a source is tacky, though. Ikanreed (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Forum links 404[edit]

With the death of the forum, a pile of the links are 404, including un-captured ones. Anything in archives? - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The internet archive has a copy of the forums. Can that be used? (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
By all means! - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on this article by new user concerning acceptable vs unacceptable humor[edit]

See User_talk:Stigmatella_aurantiaca#Citizendium

Why close CZ?[edit]

I’m sure people here have many answers. Now CZ has a thread for you:

Why close CZ?

(there's also Has the project failed? for more existential musings)

-- (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Felis silvestris catus[edit]

I suggest to delete this entirely:

Felis silvestris catus is not redundant, it is a trinomen referring to a subspecies. Domestic cats were classified as a species by Linnaeus, but today it is also common to view them as a subspecies of the wildcat. Quoting from Wikipedia:

The domestic cat was first classified as Felis catus by Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae published in 1758.[1][2] Because of modern phylogenetics, domestic cats are usually regarded as another subspecies of the wildcat, F. silvestris.[1][3][4] This has resulted in mixed usage of the terms, as the domestic cat can be called by its subspecies name, Felis silvestris catus.[1][3][4] Wildcats have also been referred to as various subspecies of F. catus,[4] but in 2003, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature fixed the name for wildcats as F. silvestris.[5] The most common name in use for the domestic cat remains F. catus, following a convention for domesticated animals of using the earliest (the senior) synonym proposed.[5] Sometimes, the domestic cat has been called Felis domesticus[6] or Felis domestica,[1] as proposed by German naturalist J. C. P. Erxleben in 1777, but these are not valid taxonomic names and have been used only rarely in scientific literature,[7] because Linnaeus's binomial takes precedence.[8] A population of Transcaucasian black feral cats was once classified as Felis daemon (Satunin 1904) but now this population is considered to be a part of domestic cat.[9]
  1. Thanks to us: RationalWiki edit; Citizendium correction.
  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named MSW3fc
  2. Linnaeus, Carolus (1766) [1758] (in la). Systema naturae per regna tria naturae: secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. 1 (12th ed.). Holmiae (Laurentii Salvii). p. 62. Retrieved 2 April 2008. 
  3. 3.0 3.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Driscoll
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Template:MSW3 Carnivora
  5. 5.0 5.1 "Opinion 2027". Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)) 60. 2003. Archived from the original on 9 June 2011. 
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named MacDonald
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Baron
  8. Vella, Carolyn M.; Shelton, Lorraine M.; McGonagle, John J.; Stanglein, Terry W. (1999). Robinson's Genetics for Cat Breeders and Veterinarians (4th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 3. ISBN 0-7506-4069-3. 
  9. "Catalogue of the Specimens of Caucasian Large Mammalian Fauna in the Collection of The National Museum of Georgia". Retrieved 4 July 2013. 

-- Ivan (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Larry Sanger article on Wikipedia in The Sunday Times[edit]

Anyone care to add a reference to the article in The ST (though a paywall may be in operation)?

Key flags in the article - LS complains about Wikipedia's 'liberal/left wing bias' (though an element of sour grapes may apply) and is home-schooling his sons. Anna Livia (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)