Talk:Sea cucumber
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sea cucumber article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| There is a request, submitted by Catfurball (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: Important. Before starting the task, please check here. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danilacy. Peer reviewers: Cgabriele, LHauptman.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Sea Cucumber War
[edit]Surely the article deserves a mention of the riots in the Galapagos Islands over annoyance at limits to fishermens' quotas for sea cucumber harvesting. — LlywelynII 11:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Could you point to a few reliable sources? Donald Albury 13:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Sea Cumbers in Popular Culture (formerly Art and Literature)
[edit]Hello: I returned to this article today to revisit three of the examples I'd read earlier there of sea cucumbers' appearance in literature, music, and art. But the majority of the content under the heading "In Popular Culture" had been deleted.
It's notable and curious that sea cucumbers have inspired diverse and wide-ranging artist responses. One of the examples deleted did seem fairly obscure, but the others were either central to the work noted (Poe and Satie) or provided a vivid demonstration of a popular and well-known creator's literary style (Cormac McCarthy). Their inclusion enriched the overall article, adding more cultural context to a mostly scientific entry.
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I believe this is the history of the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_cucumber&diff=1219610637&oldid=1218022500
The editor's reason for the deletion was to remove "unsourced trivia". Again, I'm new to Wiki's editing terms, but that confused me because the examples were themselves sources. Does Plantdrew mean they needed citations?
Thanks for any help or guidance. Northseth007 (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes they need citations from reliable sources. The works alone are not appropriate sources. The need a secondary source describing the role of sea cucumbers in these works. See WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia sourcing can take a bit of getting used to. — Jts1882 | talk 12:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Use of Ezhova & Malakhov (2022) as a source
[edit]"Origin of Echinodermata" (Ezhova & Malakhov, 2022) is cited for the phrase:
- These are called the primary tentacles and were present in the common ancestor of echinoderms, but have been lost in all the other classes of the phylum,
This is not a common view, and the paper is not claiming that it is. From the introduction to the paper:
- All this allows us to once again consider the problem of the origin of echinoderms. In this work, we provide an original concept, .... Our concept does not answer all the questions and is open for criticism, but by publishing this material, we would like to offer it up to open a new stage of the discussion of the problem of the origin of echinoderms.
So basically the paper is a highly speculative narrative of echinoderm origins woven from disparate sources, and mostly involves recasting the dexiothetism part of the otherwise-discredited calcichordate hypothesis as central to the evolution of echinoderms. And as noted above, the authors provide it more to provoke discussion than as an assertion of its correctness.
As noted elsewhere in the page, the prevailing (and, as far as I am aware, not otherwise-contested) view is that the oral tentacles are modified podia ("tube feet"). I'm going to remove this citation, or at least move it to a minor aside on alternative views.
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class Food and drink articles
- Low-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- C-Class Fishing articles
- High-importance Fishing articles
- WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing articles
- C-Class Japan-related articles
- Low-importance Japan-related articles
- C-Class Japanese flora and fauna articles
- WikiProject Japan Flora and fauna task force
- WikiProject Japan articles
- C-Class Indonesia articles
- Low-importance Indonesia articles
- WikiProject Indonesia articles
- C-Class animal articles
- Low-importance animal articles
- WikiProject Animals articles
- Spoken Wikipedia requests

