Talk:Hula painted frog

The link to the source stating that the frog found in 2011 is indeed the Israeli painted frog

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4149120,00.html enjoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.174.93 (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=711&sid=18122243&title=extinct-frog-hops-back-into-northern-israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelsenwd (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Should it be moved from categories referring to extinction and extinct animals?--T. Anthony (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Map

The map shows the Israeli-occupied Golan as being part of Israel, this means that the map is inaccurate and it is not useful for this article as it brings inaccuracy to the article. I have no problem with someone making a new map, but this one in its present form can not be used. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be a replacement map made before it is removed (preferably uploaded on top of the existing one, so we won't get an edit war here). I doubt most people interested in frogs care much about Israeli/Syrian borders. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

FunkMonk suggestion, i.e. a replacement map made before it is removed seems reasonable to me. No doubt, people interested in frogs could care less about political borders. I would suggest that people who do care, would contact User:Night_w who was instrumental with repainting another Natural Earth map, i.e. File:Golan_Heights_relief_v2.png. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The new map seems to have the same problem as before, I can try to change the borders to exclude the Golan Heights, or maybe Supreme Deliciousness knows someone who could do it or make a better map. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Article about genus reassignment

For someone who has time to edit the article. http://www.nature.com/news/extinct-frog-is-last-survivor-of-its-lineage-1.13135 —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Will do, with the original paper, not the press coverage post. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Challenging primary source

I am challenging the primary source that claims this species is a "living fossil". For those of you that are unaware, Wikipedia allows primary sources to be used only for uncontroversial statements such as birthdays. Other material requires reliable secondary sources. Now, there are no reliable (scholarly) secondary sources that say that a species that was see alive in 1955 and then is reassigned (by a primary source) to a closely related genus that is known to have been alive in the very late Pleistocene. In fact, Wikipedia's own article on living fossil contradicts such a notion, and instead points to Lazarus taxon. So, given that I am challenging the veracity of the primary source, it falls to other editors to produce scholarly sources on either the frog in question or on the definition of living fossil that would allow this term to be continued to be used in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source. It needs to be challenged by such~. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You are WP:UNCIVIL and should be ashamed of yourself. Abductive (reasoning) 03:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not a source, you are an editor. That should be pretty obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, the authors are biased, the journal editors are either biased or lazy, and the dozens of reporters who have reported these claims have been duped? Even if that were so, which I don't think it is, Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. You haven't produced any sources that directly challenge the Hula frog as a living fossil, while it is trivial to find dozens of sources reporting the claim that it is. If it is so obviously wrong, why is no one talking about that? You might want to consider that the reason could be that your understanding of "living fossil" is too narrow. For starters, it wasn't reassigned to a "closely related genus". It was reassigned to a genus that diverged from all other frogs about 30 million years ago. That's a longer interval of evolution than all of superfamily Hominoidea (e.g. gorillas, chimps, humans, gibbons) or family Felidae (e.g. house cats, tigers, lions) or family Ursidae (e.g. bears and giant pandas). It's not a living fossil because it reappeared. It is a living fossil because it is apparently the only living remnant of a clade that broke off from all other frogs an unusually long time ago. Ultimately though, what happens here is about sources and consensus. So far, you have no sources that are directly on point, and I doubt very much that you'll find a consensus to back your personal interpretation. Dragons flight (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that this new article on Live Science avoids using either term: 'Extinct' Frog Reappears in Israel. Abductive (reasoning) 03:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Palestine/isreal naming

a lack of mentioning of the original name of that area up until the 1948 is rather questionable. Light of gold 0 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Biology articles are not for political disputes. We use the current name of the land throughout all such articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

We can't ignore the fact that it was discovered in Mandatory Palestine, and a taxonomy section (which now simply doesn't exist yet) will have to discuss this and possible alternate common names. I'm planning on expanding the article and will include any such information as it occurs in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)