" 

 === Overhunting === 
 Why does it read like overhunting hypothesis advocates wrote the ""objections to overhunting"" section?  Every single point, except the last one mentioning that the Clovis hunter as the first North American humans is controversial, has a long (most cases, longer) section rebutting the objection.  There's a huge POV bias.  Couldn't the objection-handling statements be given their own list under it (and maybe shortened a little?).  It's annoyingly didactic to read the way it is.    

    

  
 ::::The so-called Clovis people were not, in fact, the first humans in North America.  There is incontrovertible evidence that humans were here long before 11,500 BP.  Evidence has been found from Pennsylvania (see: Meadowcroft Rockshelter article) to Brazil.  Since we lack the necessary genetic evidence (at least, so far) to determine if the Clovis people were new immigrants or developed in North America from existing paleo-indian] populations. 

 ::::Besides, the idea that the Clovis folks walked into N. America and then spread throughout the New World in 500 years is ludicrous.  Almost as ludicrous as the idea that a few thousand paleo-indians slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mammoths! 
 :::::   

 I added the refimprovesect template to the ""Ongoing Holocene Extinction"" section.  As a specific example, the statement, ""Most biologists believe that we are at this moment at the beginning of a tremendously accelerated anthropogenic mass extinctions,"" is overly broad.  However, if is true, it needs a reference.   

  
 Should that list be sticking to genera (rather than specific species)? 
 Also - is that ""39 genera of mammalian megafauna"" accurate?  Or is this number possibly just for North America? 

 Also, why are we including only mammals?  The teratorn birds appeared to be Holocene extinction victims also, even if they're also described in extinct birds. 

  

 Copied from extinction event: 

 Some people claim that we are living in the middle of another, man-made extinction event right now.  However, humanity's effects are trivia compared with the extinction events shown in the fossil record. 

 Is that a fact?  I've seen estimates on damage that are comparable to the smaller or intermediate sized mass extinctions, if nothing like the boundaries that end the Mesozoic and Palaeozoic eras. 

 :If those are the same estimates that I've seen  that something like 50,000 species a year are dying out  they are not particularly reliable.  The ones I've seen have all been created by organizations like the Sierra Club and people like Al Gore and Paul Ehrlich who have large, flaming political agenda that such figures are constructed to support.  Over the past 500 years, almost 90 per cent of the forest along the Atlantic coast of Brazil has been cleared. However, no one has found a single known species that could be declared extinct. According to the ""mass extinction"" figures, about half the known species in that Brazilian forest should have been lost. 

 :But if you can cite figures commonly accepted by paleontologists  figures that, say, appeared in a peer-reviewed journal  feel free to enter them!   

 Do a search for something like ""current mass extinction"" in google, and you will find a great number of hits, including articles in Nature and Science.  It looks to me like the mass extinction view is closer to a consensus than to a minority of politically motivated views.  At the very least there is enough here to remove the sentence from the article, which I'm doing. 

 ::::Mass extinction is defined as the loss of 20% or more of species.  The Permian-Triassic extinction event saw well-over 90% of all species disappear.  The K-T event saw over 70% disappear (to quote one paleontologist: ""If you were bigger than a cat and lived on land you simply disappeared."" 

 ::::While I have no doubt that we are responsible for the disappearance of many species, to call what's happening now a ""mass extinction"" is at, best, premature.  Besides the bugs and rodents seem to be doing just fine. 
 ::::   

  

 This is obviously a controversial topic  there is nothing like ""consensus"" in the scientific community  and  am s