Talk:Competitive exclusion principle

message: The article needs some images. A graph showing population changes over time for two competing species grown together experimentally would be good, though anything appropriate would be better than nothing. Richard001 04:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: "(or the diversity paradox)"
Can someone provide citations for this alternate name? A quick googling found only sources derived from this article. Paradoctor (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity paradox 

message: It was written by the author of the core source being cited.  It also does not reflect any substantial consensus, nor novel principle on the subject.  I think that it does not belong in this article, and should be removed. 141.214.17.228 (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Redefinition" Section 

message: In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Competitive_exclusion_principle&type=revision&diff=573818452&oldid=569559257 this dif, the author of the source added content based on the source.  I have reverted and am copying here for others to review.  
As the contradiction between the principle and natural species richness still remains, the principle was verified. A mechanism of competitive coexistence which violates all known formulations of the competitive exclusion principle was found. As a consequence, a fully mechanistic and most stringent formulation of the principle was proposed:
Implementation of this extremely strict formulation of the competitive exclusion principle is rather a very rare case in nature. Therefore, this new formulation eliminates old contradictions between the competitive exclusion principle and observed biodiversity.
Is this appropriate content and WP:WEIGHT? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. the source is a minor article in a very controversial journal. This would be considered a fringe view in science and to seems to be based on a misinterpretation. Fzbristol (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNDUE question re [[WP:SELFCITE]] 

message: What is on the page is correct but some key insights that came from this principle are lost between the lines. The standard textbook version of the story comes in five steps
# The competitive exclusion principle seems mathematically inevitable 
# In the modern formulation (number of species does not exceed the number of niches) the principle is tautological and therefore guaranteed to be true. 
# The principle is apparently violated almost everywhere in nature as near-identical are seen to coexists (MacArthur's Warblers) and some systems seem to harbor an abundance of species based on very limited resources (Hutchinson's Paradox of Plankton and more generally his Santa Rosalia paper)
# Gause's experiments became famous because the first demonstration of the principle, but were seen by many as a "laboratory curiosity" (Pearl, other sources reviewed by Gentleman) 
# The modern understanding (building on MacArthur) is that the principle is valuable, precisely because it must be logically true but apparently violated in nature. It is to identify previously undetected niches.  
I somehow find this flow of arguments is lost in the present text, thus that the bigger picture is lost. Fzbristol (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some key points missing?