Talk:Bengalia

message: I think M. Lehrer has perhaps not understood what Wikipedia is; the evidence for such a misunderstanding is in the statement above: we can intervene at each time in the texts which do not correspond to the scientific truth - which is directly in contradiction to WP's explicit policies.
Allow me to quote from WP:NPOV:
:The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
and also:
:Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.
Following this policy, (1) both viewpoints represented in the present dispute are represented and characterized (2) information is given on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. It is unfortunate and inevitable that adherents of the less popular view will object to being portrayed in this way, and often, as in the present case, insist that the more popular view should be ignored entirely - but NPOV is a policy that works. Likewise, WP:SOAP warns against the sort of editing that M. Lehrer has engaged in here:
:It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself.
It is unfortunate that M. Lehrer has chosen to disregard these policies, and many others, in his attempts to promote his view of "scientific truth". The bottom line is that WP, in order to remain neutral, does not take "truth" into consideration as a criterion for material to be included/excluded here. Again, from WP:NPOV:
:If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
That is the official policy of Wikipedia, and it serves little purpose to challenge this policy. Dyanega 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
In that regard, it is evident that M. Lehrer's work appears not to satisy this criterion; as far as I have been able to determine, all of his publications cited here and elsewhere are either self-published directly ("Fragmenta Dipterologica"), printed by a publisher who has no peer-review requirements ("Pensoft Series Faunistica"), or printed in a journal that has no peer-review requirements ("Entom. Croat."). To include such citations here toys with the edges of WP:SPS and WP:RS; if I am incorrect in my assessment of the nature of these publication venues, I would appreciate information from a third-party source that definitively confirms my error. Dyanega 01:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Having done some research, it appears that the two journals that Lehrer has published in have a very limited editorial board, and his works were not reviewed by specialists working on Calyptratae (the group of flies to which Bengalia and other Calliphoridae belong); the reviewers were, in essence, only acting as proofreaders, and not qualified to render opinions regarding the intellectual merit of the submitted works. All of the genuine taxonomic acts appeared in the Pensoft publication, which was a publish-for-pay, and therefore qualifies as self-published. I have examined this latter publication, and read Rognes' criticisms of the work; some of the criticisms were a matter of Rognes' personal opinion, but the others pertained to the ICZN Code, which is an objective set of criteria determining the validity of taxonomic acts in Zoology. In each such case, the ICZN Code's rules were clearly violated in Lehrer's work, at many levels (including his erroneous claim to authorship of the taxon name "Bengaliidae", which - following explicit ICZN rules - resides with Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889). As such, the personal attacks on Dr. Rognes were not only uncivil, but uncalled-for; there were errors in Lehrer's work, and there can be no legitimate grievance when such errors are pointed out and corrected by a subsequent author. It is unfortunate that not only does M. Lehrer refuse to acknowledge his errors, but chose to use Wikipedia as a forum to attack the scientific community, and - most significantly - chose to do so using sockpuppetry, and has accordingly been banned from further postings to WP. Dyanega 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Familiarity with what [[WP:NPOV]] means

message: There seems to be little need or purpose served by allowing the numerous personal attacks posted here by User:AzLehrer and his sockpuppet accounts ("Pandur" or "Condor" or "Anlirian"; see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/AzLehrer) to remain; the bottom line is that the academic community has rejected Lehrer's proposed classification, and WP follows the mainstream - especially in matters of taxonomic classification, where WP cannot accommodate multiple competing ideas. Readers interested in seeing the exchange to this point can do so by viewing the page history prior to today's date. The message regarding how these policies apply to M. Lehrer's edits is best left here, I think, in case there are future attempts to violate these policies. Dyanega (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks removed 

message: The very subtle edits, between "do not recognize" and "do not discuss" need to be discussed if they can be accepted. "Do not discuss" would be incorrect when the reference mentioned is a critique of the privately published monograph. Shyamal (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtle IP edits

message: You wrote erroneous in the section " Description " that " the sternite VI forms an incomplete ring formed by fusion of two hemisternites  ".  In accordance with research of A. Lehrer (2003) this sternite VI is a single part and is not presented as formed by two hemisternites. 20.12.2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.12.51 (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erreur in the description of the sternite VI 

message: To see the depth of the thought of the impostor’s specialists, who contribute to the size of this encyclopedia, I reproduced a small passage in “BioSystematic Database of World Diptera (BDWD)”  mentioned by the scribe C. Thompson, in which you can recognize that the only absurd norwegian voice of taxonomy is Knut Rognes. Professor at a school of handicapped of Stavanger, it “is not been willing” to raise the taxonomic row of the Bengalia kind, by obscure causes, but very appreciated in particular by the single world specialist on Bengaliidae - Mr. Dyanega: 
« The Calliphoridae are marked as a polyphyletic group of convenience as at the present we are unwilling to reduce the Oestridae to a subordinated group within a monophyletic Calliphoridae nor to elevate a number of other groups (Polleniidae, Helicoboscidae, and Bengaliidae) so as to properly delimit both [family- n.n.] Calliphoridae and Oestridae. This follows from the analysis of Rognes (1997) ».
And now, I think that it remains only to applaud indisposed Rognes. 30.12.2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.104.67 (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Biological reality and the “provision” of its recognition

message: You must understand that your process to eliminate the scientific truths, published and spread in the world of the specialists, does not constitute attacks against the " personalities ". It is only your means of "protecting" one from your friends or known, without being informed of its capacities like man of science, which deserves this protection opposite science.  Because, we found, in the current literature (because work of Lehrer is best work of taxonomy nowadays on the families Sarcophagidae, Calliphoridae and Bengaliidae - even if you do not want to recognize), the strongest arguments which show that Rognes is objectively an incompetent to seek the dipterous ones in general, that it does not have qualities of a scientific man of research, that it does not have histological knowledge and especially which it cannot understand the morphology of the microscopic structures of the genitalia, which are the strongest evidence for the taxonomy of Bengaliidae.  By its position out-of-date in the systematic one of Cyclorrhapha it is placed in first half of century XX and remains in the group of the retrograde faunists, fixist and incompetent to understand the advance in knowledge.  In work which was eliminated by your ignorance, you deprived the readers to see exactly and judge with their brain the errors, the mystifications and the abductions in recent work of Rognes and, in particular, its attitudes anti- International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which gives him a strange image in the history of the impromptu faunists.  
Moreover, you eliminated work (PDF files) in which one be exposed all the morphological arguments which separate Bengaliidae from the former Calliphoridae family, only described by Lehrer (in the description of the group), by allotting them in a form veiled to the Rognes. Thus, you became the collaborators of the Bad tempers in the lies and abductions intellectual.  
Cabalist  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.34.91 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggressive obsessions of the ignoramuses against the scientific truth 

message: Because in the monograph of Senior-White, Aubertin & Smart, 1940, Diptera, vol. VI, Family Calliphoridae - Fauna of British India : 83, it is mentioned:  
 « Bengalia R.D., Myodaiores, p. 425, 1830 / Genotype, B. labiata R.D. ». 
This fact is confirmed per much author, among the large specialists of the world: Pont (1980:790) Kurahashi, Benjaphong & Omar (1997:39), Yu. Verves (2005:238).  
Not Bengalia testacea R.P. designée by Duponchel (1842), which is a nomen nudum.  
Burmanos  
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.146.184 (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fauna of British India designation is here however, a recent paper (2010) with Pont as a coauthor specifically mentions the following:
Evenhuis NL, J E O'Hara, T Pape & AC Pont (2010) Nomenclatural Studies Toward a World List of Diptera Genus-Group Names. Part I: André-Jean-Baptiste Robineau-Desvoidy. Zootaxa 2373: 1–265
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/zt02373p265.pdf
57. Bengalia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830: 425.
ORIGINALLY INCLUDED SPECIES: Bengalia testacea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830; Bengalia labiata Robineau-
     Desvoidy, 1830; Bengalia pallens Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830; Bengalia melanocera Robineau-Desvoidy,
     1830.
TYPE SPECIES: Bengalia testacea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 [= Musca torosa Wiedemann, 1819], by
     subsequent designation (Duponchel in d’Orbigny, 1842a: 542).
CURRENT STATUS: Valid genus [teste Rognes (2006: 467)].
FAMILY: CALLIPHORIDAE.
While I can see a point in noting the dispute, this is not the place for pushing this specific point of view. The place to challenge the viewpoint is surely Zootaxa. Shyamal (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic error 

message: In your answer, one notices very well that you still made an error, because you fix yourselves on the imaginary scientific value of Rognes or of the americains, by hating the objective value of the other authors and in particular of Lehrer.  To better explain you the taxonomic situation of the kind Bengalia s. str., I request from you do not consider that I insult certain characters of current taxonomy and to see reality exactly exposed by me. 
No author who occupied himself more or less tangentially with Bengaliidae, admits that Bengalia testacea  R.D. is the species-type of the Bengalia kind.  Only Rognes, which copied Sabrosky (1999:62), which knew this group of dipterous in same measurement as Rognes, wrote (with the collaboration of bibliographical and nonscientific impostors:  Neal L Evenhuis and F.C. Thompson) that this type is the nomen nudum  B. testacea  indicated by Duponchel (1842)(?!).  Thus, which makes N.L Evenhuis, J. E. O' Hara, T. Pape and A. C. Pont are only of copy and to transcribe exactly the silly things of Sabrosky, without any proof or analyze scientific.  Moreover, because these authors are good friends with Rognes, it also added " Valid genus [ tests  Rognes (2006:467) ] ", but not validates species-type.  But, can you say which tests was made by Rognes?,  who knows nothing on Bengaliidae, which made the most stupid silly things in its work, which does not know the morphological terminology of their genitalia male, which mixes the drawings of the authors for the different species to make its new taxa, which makes the photography of the microscopic preparations of the species studied by Lehrer and deposited in the Natural history museum of London and which affirms that those are clean taxonomic imaginations?  Don't you believe my assertions?  Then I recommend to you to read, for a good documentation of your encyclopaedia, work of Lehrer of his review Fragmenta Dipterologica:  2008(18):1-4;  2010(23):1-22 and 22-25; 2010(24):20-24 and 24-30;  2010(25):1-4 and work:  LEHRER & WEI, 2010, a new Eastern kind of the family Bengaliidae (Diptera) - Bull. Ploughshare ent.  Mulhouse, 66(2)21-25.  
Thus you can understand that Rognes is incomparable being unaware of, which wanted to make taxonomic " revolutions " with the language devoted to its handicapped pupils of the school of Stavanger (Norway) where it works and with the mystifications of literature and information.  Moreover, you can consider only the work of Evenhuis &Comp.  of Zootaxa an authority in the taxonomy of Bengaliidae constitutes, because they never studied the species of the group and in particular ?, because all the authors, of Zumpt (1956) and until Lehrer (2010) consider that Bengalia labiata  R.D. is the species-type of the Bengalia kind.  If you want to mislead the readers, you are free to depreciate your Wikipedia.  
Burmanos, 10 seven.  2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.163.124 (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that Wikipedia is not for one-on-one communication between editors, the discussions on the talk page are meant to improve the article using secondary sources. Given that Lehrer is a super-taxonomist, there should be no problem for him/her to publish a rebuttal of the recent publications in Zootaxa so that ordinary Wikipedia editors can make the neccessary corrections. Shyamal (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More a fault of interpretation 

message: ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 20:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: POTD

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bengalia. 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/20140629054318/http://upload.wikimedia.org:80/wikipedia/ro/e/ef/Bengaliidae_Lehrer_n._fam..pdf to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ro/e/ef/Bengaliidae_Lehrer_n._fam..pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303203618/http://data.gbif.org/species/browse/taxon/13168968 to http://data.gbif.org/species/browse/taxon/13168968
*Added  tag to http://www.catalogueoflife.org/browse_taxa.php?selected_taxon=33712
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bengalia. 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/20071102105717/http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov:80/Diptera/ to http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303090953/http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov:80/Diptera/names/FamClass.htm to http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/names/FamClass.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ideas for experiments:
To demonstrate the fly is using sight, not smell, grains of white rice may be placed near the trail.
The ants will carry them off, and the fly will swoop down thinking it they are ant eggs. But at the last moment
the fly will veer off, realizing its mistake. However it forgets easily, and the same behavior happens when the
next grain passes by.  PERSONAL OBSERVATION OF Jidanni (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The fly also doesn't know a grain of rice is worth much more than an ant egg on the black market. Not a very smart highwayman. :-) Jidanni (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fly is using visual clues