merge of emerald ash borer infestation with emerald ash borer kingofaces the formation of a separate page was necessary at this time because many of the subject facts covered in second page regarding human actions induced by eab does not fit the first eventually both might be merged into a streamlined example such as one completed about dutch elm disease i think you would agree one of the most prevalent items making up today event is the unbelievable amount of misinformation continually supplied to the public consciousness about this subject including unproven theory from the best of tree experts so my goal is to utilize scientific peer review and field studies along with other proven facts to correctly educate including successes and failures along with details about control through treatment also or are we supposed to produce a unique wiki page covering facts of how scientists properly apply insecticides yes even some facts seperatly belong within their specific wiki pages like possible extinction of american fraxinus placed on fraxinus page or each page for individual arthropods co extinction caused by loss of ash separate infestation page would have been central location where temporally collected items regarding main subject could be kept lets work together thanks hi first off please remember to put new sections on a talk page at the bottom this is done automatically by using new section that and other things are outlined at wp tpg and help make sure things stay ordered for content on the eab page there's a bit behind all those edits i made awhile back so stick with me i realize a lot of stuff i condensed was your previous work but right now everything seems to fit together well the merging was mainly based on parsing things down but also how we deal with scientific content at wikipedia it's definitely the ideal for wikipedia articles in general that we summarize what the scientific consensus is on topics such as this if you haven't already i highly suggest reading wp scirs which gives a good outline on what we should be trying to do with scientific content essentially we're striving to summarize what other reliable sources say for an encyclopedia that means pulling from review articles since they do that for us however part of that is because we don't generally regard primary sources i e research articles as reliable because those are communications within the scientific community that's because those articles are intended for other researchers to evaluate and the general public e g wikipedia editors are not qualified to assess whether the study was valid for us as wikipedia editors we cannot assign what we call due wp weight to an idea or specific study until it's put in context through other researchers commenting on it or giving it validity e g review articles now an introduction section can count as a mini review article but we generally don't need that in this topic since we have a few review articles to pull from with all that said it is not our goal to describe what the primary research is that's why i cut down a lot of the content as it was reading more like a journal than an encyclopedia see wp notjournal it's very different writing content for say an academic paper than it is for a wikipedia article from what i've gathered about your edits you're very interested in generating very detailed information which is perfectly normal for someone just getting their feet wet on scientific content here however the general goal of an encyclopedia is to have summarized information with references that lead to the more detailed information a lot of the edits you're probably interested in including still largely fall under that question of due weight such as whether we even include the content or how much detail does it get it's a learned skill so i'm happy to explain things further at the eab page is it's directly related or here if it's more general i e wikipedia's policies and guidelines if you have questions or something isn't clear