Talk:Chicken or the egg

I think that finding in 2010 was incorrectly worded

• doi:10.1002/anie.201000679
• press release in 12 July 2010 https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/1706-1.174049

Simplest explanation: it can be that "ovocleidin-17" protein was part of egg from "bird that was not a chicken" (or from "proto chicken") but "ovocleidin-17" has been produced after mutation.

We can only speculate in either direction (mutation or not).

So, "Egg came first" is not defeated by "ovocleidin-17" arguments.

"ovocleidin-17" can simplify what we understand as "chicken". D1gggg (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"The chicken is only an egg's way of making another egg"

Apparently it was expressed in Life and Habit, ch. 8 (1877) w:wikiquote:Samuel Butler (novelist)

I have troubles to find exact quote from Richard Dawkins bibliography or w:wikiquote:Richard Dawkins

For example: "This is of course the old 'a chicken is just an egg's way to breed a new egg' line of thinking, dressed up in fancy hi-tech. It is equally possible to give an account of genetics and evolution from the point of view of the organism ..." D1gggg (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

recent edits by Deacon Vorbis

[1]

• explanation from Sorensen is removed
• incorrect references about Aristotle by François Fénelon
• illustrations to "Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The egg – laid by a bird that was not a chicken" just removed

I'm not able to get explanation from @Deacon Vorbis: at their user pages... D1gggg (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

They're not my edits; they're yours, that have been reverted. I've already explained: there's a lot of bad markup (colored boxes around words, etc), poor English, removal of content that shouldn't be removed, and a little bit of stuff that looks like WP:OR. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:LISTEN to WP:BURDEN

I explained all the additions and all the removals.

It is your time to explain your deletion of correct statements and your addition of incorrect claims, wrong quotations and such. D1gggg (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: why you are re-adding wrong quotation about Aristotle repeatedly? [2] [3]

quotation was discussed 2 years ago D1gggg (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Improving or trashing this article

Hmm... let's think about what to do here. My proposal is that we look for articles in the popular press that talk about this and start gathering good sources. Let's not include self-published sources unless we think it's worth directly attributing them (e.g. NdT's twitter quote).

jps (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

We can present them separately as "Recent discussion in public" or "in Media"

about NdT: even if evolutionary biology is not his main specialization, but many people would listen to he says.

This is also about time and causality - this will affect very wide audience. D1gggg (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Notes about fertilization and "chicken egg"

@9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: [4]

@Agricolae: [5]

@Deacon Vorbis: [6]

I'm quite sure that p. 98. ISBN 0-9719162-0-9 says "semantic ambiguities" and mentions variants of "chicken egg" shortly after.

First video on youtube is better than article after all removals of correct statements. D1gggg (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not a good article, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about improving it. The wrong way is to keep making the same changes after objections have been raised. You have already violated WP:3RR, and could have your editing privileges suspended right now - that is how wrong the way you are going about this is, but talking about it here is a good step.

As to your specific removals, it would be better to replace or improve material you find insufficiently supported, rather than remove it. There has been a long body of writing on the problem, not only in the literal sense but in the broader sense of the first-cause problem, and this article is not improved by removing most historical mention of this body of discussion, but it does need to be cited to reliable sources and not be original research (i.e. we shouldn't cite Aristotle and the Hebrew Bible, we should cite modern authors discussing the chicken and egg question have said about Aristotle and the Hebrew Bible.

As to your additions, the Sorensen material is really no different than the statement that was already in the article, he is not considered a noteworthy expert, and his contribution is not considered a groundbreaking paradigm shift or the 'go-to' formulation of his answer, so he does not merit his own section. It would be better were it not WP:PRIMARY, if we had another philosopher or biologist citing and summarizing it to indicate that someone other than you thinks it has merit, but it is better than the web citations that we had cited for similar arguments (but it absolutely needs to be properly cited, not made to look like a book). Your 'semantics' section is practically opaque and clearly represents your own work, so it has no place in the article. Such a section is only justified if someone has published 'the semantics of the chicken and egg problem', and then it should be in narrative summary format, not a list. Just finding the words 'semantic ambiguities' in a source does not open the door to putting your own analysis in (and again, your text made no sense, so it is a problem regardless). Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see wisdom about "chicken egg is not ambiguous" which can be the only reason to remove correct statements. D1gggg (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Watch youtube video.

I don't own https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC552Sd-3nyi_tk2BudLUzA with 7 millions subscribers. D1gggg (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"After all, 'chicken' is vague." doi:10.1093/mind/101.403.541

Do you think I'm Roy A. Sorensen?

@Agricolae: WP:LISTEN what could possibly be opaque here? Or what is my "own analysis" above? D1gggg (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not YouTube, and a video there, no matter how many subscribers the poster has, should not be the basis for editorial decisions here - a YouTube contributor can say whatever they want, but a Wikipedia editor must follow rules. These editorial decisions are based on a range of factors, and material that is perfectly true, presenting a perspective the inclusion of which would improve an article, may still be removed if it is insufficiently sourced or poorly written: removal of the semantic ambiguity section does not mean there are not semantic ambiguities, just that a discussion of them needs to derive from reliable sources and be clearly expressed, neither of which was the case here. As to what is opaque, the whole section made no sense - "is a typical false dilemma: option of mutants is omitted, option of multiple species (breeds, e.t.c.) is omitted"? I have to work way to hard to figure out what concept that is supposed to be conveying, and the same is true of each of the others. And no, I don't think you are Sorensen, but I do think you lack sufficient sourcing to describe these semantic ambiguities. That Sorensen says 'chicken is ambiguous' is insufficient justification to have a section in which you, as an editor, identify all of the different ways in which 'chicken' and 'egg' might be ambiguous - that is Original Research. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

100% of academic references are added by me.

It is impossible to win WP:BUREAUCRACY when all of your edits are WP:OR or WP:COPYVIO.

I don't see wisdom about "chicken is not ambiguous". We have academic paper claiming opposite.

I regret my time on improving this article. D1gggg (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Addressing these in order:

This is not about you. The fact that you are adding academic references at one place does not mean you are free to put whatever you want somewhere else.

You can 'win' by making edits that are not WP:OR or COPYVIO - adding content that is well written in your own words and derived from reliable sources.

'Chicken is not ambiguous' is your own strawman - this content dispute is not about ambiguity, but how you have gone about addressing the ambiguity.

It may well be the case that your time was not well spent, but that has as much to do with the way you went about it. If you have taken away a better understanding of how the process works, then it was not totally wasted. Agricolae (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Agricolae: WP:LISTEN: my question was about "After all, 'chicken' is vague." and your answer is not about this... But about "chicken or egg" description.

Strange. D1gggg (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Rather than telling me to LISTEN, how about you thinking out what you want to say and expressing it in a clear complete-sentence/paragraph format rather than poorly-written bullet points. I can't even figure out what distinction you are trying to draw between 'chicken is vague' and '"chicken or egg" description', so it is hardly strange that I have not addressed correctly what you failed to communicate clearly.

All this aside, what you are trying to change in the article is certainly disputed, so you need to stop forcing the issue. You now need to propose your change here, on the Talk page, and garner consensus. Do we need a separate section about ambiguities? What is the best way to convey this information? (Wikipedia style usually avoids sections that consists entirely of a bullet-pointed list). These are valid questions that should be discussed here rather than repeatedly forcing it into the article without first garnering consensus. Agricolae (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Agricolae: I said "chicken egg" in the first message. Do you object it?

@Agricolae: WP:LISTEN I'm "forcing" answer from you about "chicken egg", not more, not less. D1gggg (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You are again failing to make yourself clear. I have no clue what you want a response to. Agricolae (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we make a statement about "chicken egg is ambiguous" at this page if it is crucial to further explanation?

Why it can't be a separate paragraph or section? D1gggg (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

But is it crucial, or is it incidental? Do you have a source that says the ambiguity issue is crucial to the question? As I mentioned elsewhere, I am not sure that answering the question is even crucial to this article, as the expression 'chicken and egg' is usually used metaphorically and not in its literal sense. What this article really needs is this context, not a granular analysis of the 'right answer'. As to having a separate section, it elevates this particular issue, the ambiguity issue, to a level of importance that is perhaps WP:UNDUE. Does the inherent ambiguity in the simple phrase prevent its understanding? More importantly, has the discussion of the chicken and egg conundrum in the scholarly literature and popular press give such focus to the ambiguity that it merits such precedence in weight? In my opinion, it is at best a sub-issue with regard to the quest for a literal answer, not meriting the level of prominence you are giving it. Agricolae (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"used metaphorically and not in its literal sense" - according to Agricolae.

Both are used.

We need more words to explain literal answer.

That is it.

I wish Wikipedia to have would have good articles like Mandu_(food)#Names_and_etymology

And not WP:OVERLINKed mess about crucial^source ambiguity^source D1gggg (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If the ambiguity issue is being raised as 'words to explain literal answer' then why is it its own section? If 'both are used', why does this article only discuss the literal usage, the 'right answer'? The problem with wanting a good article is that your opinion of what would make this article 'good' is not the same as others'. You seem to think that the ultimate goal of this article should be to answer the question. I would suggest that the goal should be to explain the conundrum, including historical context and its general usage. To explain it solely as a quest for the literal answer and the inherent problems in providing this answer is like describing the expression of 'can't see the forest for the trees' by explaining the distribution of arboreal specimens in woodlands, which may be perfectly accurate while entirely missing the point. Yes people publish and the press reports on the 'literal' answer but only because of the broader metaphorical usage, and this article shouldn't let the former dominate over the latter. (And please use complete sentences and paragraphs here - expressing yourself through bullet-point phrases (without the bullets) does you no favors in terms of clear communication.) Agricolae (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Agricolae: "why does this article only discuss the literal usage, the 'right answer'?" WP:LISTEN, WP:FIXIT!

I can WP:ENJOY my life after adding 100% of academic references about "literal answer". D1gggg (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I am glad you can enjoy your life, but the article is not improved by the skewed focus it has been given. I tried to FIXIT by removing poorly formatted, badly expressed, undue weight material, but you reverted again in spite of having been warned. So be it, what will come will come. Agricolae (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I WP:VOLUNTEER to expand "literal usage" because even YouTube is better.

"undue weight material" I don't think any reasonable person should support this after "used metaphorically and not in its literal sense".

But yes "metaphorical usage" needs academic references and WP:COMPETENT editor who can WP:FIXIT. D1gggg (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Separate article about Plutarch and Aristotle

This metaphorical question is not about literal question about "eggs" and "chickens".

I suggested to have Potential of thought to exist and actualization of thought during this discussion

We have small consensus to have separate articles.

I don't see how mixing them can be useful or meaningful at least not right now. D1gggg (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yet again, no clue what you are trying to say. Agricolae (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess @David Eppstein: was not aware of this talk [7]

Biological perspective is a literal answer, not what was discussed by Plutarch D1gggg (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It is only the philosophical question that has any notability. This article should focus more on that and less on actual chickens. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Current state is that it is not covered at all (actuality and potentiality) but merely mentioned.

Biological answer is still half-answered at this article. I prefer Youtube over this article. D1gggg (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

latest edit by Agricolae

[8]

I will give them second chance to WP:WRITE about "metaphorical usage" and not to remove well WP:SOURCED details about "literal explanation".

"an egg laid by chicken (trivial and "chicken" is always first in this case)":

1. not explained after removals
2. factually correct

I consider edit as worthless to Wikipedia INCOMPETENT WP:NINJA D1gggg (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is insane: "metaphorical usage" has 0 academic references and this person wants to bring rest of the article to "the same level" of details?.. Hell no. D1gggg (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Why I removed that text: 1) even after removing the bullet points, it is still a list, while sentences and paragraphs are the preferred format for Wikipedia articles; 2) it was devoid of context, with no explanation of what the list represents except as supplied by the subheading, which may work for a PowerPoint presentation but not for an encyclopedia article; 3) the individual ambiguities are presented in such abbreviated prose that they are unclear - complete, well-formed sentences that explain the concept are essential; 4) it is given way too much priority in the article - when explaining the concept of chicken and egg, the first thing that should be highlighted past the lead is certainly not the ambiguities of individual words in the phrase; 5) it was poorly cited, for example, giving a citation for the word chicken, but not for the explanation of the claimed ambiguity, a style giving it 6) at least the appearance of original research/the editor's own opinion; 7) it was done in the face of repeated reversion, without consensus on the Talk page. When something has been this contentious, when its insertion has been reversed multiple times, it needs to be worked out on the Talk page first, and accusations of insanity and incompetence don't help. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Agricolae:

4 - do you know how to convert text to WP:FOOTNOTES?

7 - do you have approval to remove text completely? Did you discuss this on the discussion page first?

D1gggg (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

4 - yes. Is there any reason you ask, or are you just generally a curious person?

7 - puts the burden on the wrong side - when something added is challenged, the burden is on the person wanting to add material to achieve consensus. That being said, the more important question is why bother coming back here just to be combative. If you want to propose a change, propose it. Given that your previous contributions have been misformatted and unclear, preferably you should suggest the change here first for optimization before going live. I am not going to respond to further unproductive 'discussion' here like the above, which don't appear to be directed at improving the page. Agricolae (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

4 - why you never placed "After all, 'chicken' is vague." in footnotes?

7 - "After all, 'chicken' is vague." doi:10.1093/mind/101.403.541

Will you contest "After all, 'chicken' is vague." text in footnotes?

D1gggg (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. I have told you before, and I will say it again. Your method of communication-by-bullet-point is not effective in getting your point across. You need to express yourself in complete thoughts - whole sentences, paragraphs even. Agricolae (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC).

Do you have an approval to remove "After all, 'chicken' is vague." text with doi:10.1093/mind/101.403.541 reference? Can you see this text in this source?

Do you have an approval to remove "Chicken egg" ambiguity with 0-9719162-0-9 reference? [9]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chicken or the egg. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Text "After all, 'chicken' is vague." was removed as WP:OR [10], but in fact can be seen in doi:10.1093/mind/101.403.541. Try to adapt linguistic question instead of repeatedly removing them without replacement. You were told multiple times that "Etymology" and "Ambiguity" sections are present in other articles. D1gggg (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Agricolae: can you answer 3 questions above? Your statements about bullet-point is not answer to them. D1gggg (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

7 - yes, according to WP:BURDEN I was able to find doi:10.1093/mind/101.403.541 source for "After all, 'chicken' is vague."

7 - I see comments about "chicken" but not precise explanation why such ambiguity cannot explained as footnote in "Scientific resolution" or why it was needed to edit war this page 3-7 times and remove content Wikipedia:Vandalism. D1gggg (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I had a longer response all typed, but let's get right to the point. The best way to move things forward is for you to state clearly, specifically and explicitly what change you want made. I will not waste my time responding to anything else. Agricolae (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Explanation about "chicken" word ambiguity in any form you would accept.

You had month to answer: [11] D1gggg (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

latest edit by User:Agricolae 2

Common descent was here since 5 October 2017.

Nobody of latest editors contested this particular link...

Their comments doesn't make any sense at least to me [12] [13] D1gggg (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Common descent was here since 5 October" - so what? There is no 'grandfather clause' where irrelevant material gets a free pass if nobody notices it for a month. 'It has been there for a while' does nothing to explain why it is relevant, the only pertinent question. So, why is it relevant? Perhaps your efforts would be better focused on providing a coherent rationale, rather than on template-bombing my Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: I want to thank you for inserting this link in 1

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chicken or the egg, you may be blocked from editing. We can listen to your reason to remove appropriate encyclopedic content such as Common descent link at page about evolution. What urgency to remove it twice? Nobody seem to have serious questions about it since 22 December 2016 D1gggg (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps your efforts would be better focused on providing a coherent rationale, rather than on template-bombing this Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that nobody should explain that top-importance article about Evolutionary biology such as Common descent can be linked from low importance article such as Chicken or the egg

This link aids Help:Navigation.

Your deletions aren't helpful to reach more important topics from less important ones. D1gggg (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Still no coherent rationale. Why is that particular topic (the descent of multiple species from a common ancestor) one of the most relevant links for this page (which does not deal with the descent of multiple species from a common ancestor)? Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Because Ancestor is not appropriate and you were removing this link without replacement. D1gggg (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

'It is better than an even less relevant article' is no kind of justification. There is no set number of See Also links, such that one can only be removed if replaced by another (though it does work the other way - if there are better ones there, the less relevant ones are not needed). This article is vaguely, peripherally, partially, somewhat about evolutionary biology and speciation, but not in any way about common descent, not even vaguely, peripherally, partially, somewhat. Agricolae (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is that particular topic (the descent of multiple species from a common ancestor) one of the most relevant links for this page (which does not deal with the descent of multiple species from a common ancestor)?

— User:Agricolae

The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

— MOS:SEEALSO

Severe WP:COMPETENCE issues (as I said multiple times above)

Both Catch-22 (logic) and Supply and demand explain causality problems in real life. D1gggg (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

To continue the MOS quote "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." Judgment and common sense. Relevant. Reasonable number. That does not mean, 'anything that pops into my head'. Agricolae (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Great you can quote MOS. Sorry that you cannot start discussions yourself WP:WAR.

Next time try to find a better replacement for anything "irrelevant", your "common sense" failed you with Evolutionary biology. D1gggg (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Link Evolutionary biology was removed in [14] without explanation D1gggg (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there seem to be WP:COMPETENCE issues here. But it is not Agricolae who is showing them. D1gggg, you are edit-warring to include off-topic Wikilinks in a see-also section. Besides being WP:LAME, it's not constructive and you should stop. Agricolae is right: those links do not belong here. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Evolutionary biology is on topic link. D1gggg (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Agricolae stopped these pointless removals [15] D1gggg (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Chicken and Egg could be construed as indirectly related to evolutionary biology, but that doesn't mean we give and indiscriminate list of every aspect of evolutionary biology, no matter how indirect the connection - natural selection, genetic drift, common descent, ring species, biological clocks, etc. Common descent relates to a scenario in which multiple species have a common ancestor. That is different entirely from the evolutionary synthesis of the chicken egg answer, which is that one species descends from a different species - that is speciation, not common descent. 'Related to something related to the topic' isn't the same as being 'related to the topic'.

You seem to be really upset about the removal of Evolutionary biology in my latest edit. You may want to give it another look, since I DIDN'T REMOVE Evolutionary biology IN MY LATEST EDIT! If you can't even be bothered to look at the page before beating the war drums, it gives the impression you are more interested in the fight than the outcome.

As to causality problems, there are all kinds of causality problems, and we link to causality problem right at the start. That is no reason to include in a See Also section either 1) every type of causality problem nor 2) an arbitrary selection of causality problems that happen to pop into your mind. See Also lists need to be selective, not games of free-association. I have never, ever seen Chicken and Egg related to Supply and Demand. I have seen Chicken and Egg related to Catch-22, so if we are going to give a causality problem, it should be the one that people sometimes link to Chicken/Egg and not one chosen on a whim. Agricolae (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone should be aware of possible vandalism; you are not exception to WP:VD and WP:BRD.

All on-topic discussions at this page are started by me and @9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS:

You were accusing me 2 last months without any breaks, even in above message "it gives the impression you are more interested in the fight" and in thread above "the more important question is why bother coming back here just to be combative"

WP:DROP!

Feel free to replace "Catch-22" and "Supply and demand" with Causality (yes, duplicate link, but useful one)

Don't make edits if all you have to do is 1. deletions 2. statements about "no consensus" (Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus") D1gggg (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

D1gggg, your edit to add causality to the "see also" section is a blatant violation of WP:SEEALSO's "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". Causality is the first wikilink in the article. It does not need to go into "see also" as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein thanks for reminding, I was looking for a solution to link Supply and demand somehow (supply and demand is often confused with "Chicken or the egg" - based on other Wikipedia articles)

Should we use WP:HAT in this case? D1gggg (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hatnotes are for links to articles on unrelated topics whose titles might be confused with the title of the given article. Which articles do you think are unrelated to the actual content of "chicken and egg" but might be confused by its title? The only one that comes to mind for me would be oyakodon. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

> articles do you think are unrelated to the actual content of "chicken and egg" but might be confused by its title?

"chicken or egg" is used with other topics [16]

incorrectly or colloquially

Literal phrases instead of metaphorical can be more useful for navigation, but I'm not completely sure about best solution. D1gggg (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish by replacing correct uses of metaphorical language by dry and vague wording. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Same problem as in above

actuality and potentiality

chicken and egg (evolutionary)

Third meaning of "chicken or egg" is a colloquial phrase "what was first?" "what should be first?"

Nobody said why we need to mix under same title D1gggg (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Opposite solution

Another reason to be wary of making this solely about THE solution - a very recent RS story saying it is the other way around:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg/#.WiG_30pKtPZ

I think this is playing a shell-game (if you will pardon the pun) to trick the media into reporting a generic primordial bird eggshell development story by making it sound like it is specific to the chicken, but I can't tell for certain. Agricolae (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I decided this is too broadly reported to be ignored. Agricolae (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ignored by whom?

Talk:Chicken_or_the_egg#I_think_that_finding_in_2010_was_incorrectly_worded D1gggg (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ignored by a Wikipedia article,when it received significant coverage, and our article shouldn't just pretend it doesn't exist because individual editors don't like it. Yes, there is something wrong with it, but it is there and the article needs to deal with it. Plus it makes no sense whatsoever to create a Further Reading section to point to an article about a protein you have just completely purged from the article. It makes no sense. Agricolae (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: WP:TERTIARY nonsense replaced with link to WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY for user convenience. D1gggg (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You are again playing IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You can't have it both ways. Either OC-17 is relevant to the chicken-egg question, and should be mentioned in the text of the article, or it is irrelevant and shouldn't be. It is completely illogical to conclude that it is irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but it is relevant so it should have a Further Reading pointer. Your inclusion of the Further Reading mention indicates you think it is relevant. So be it. Agricolae (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY, not on shitty WP:TERTIARY news. D1gggg (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And it was cited to secondary sources (NBC and New Republic). If you think NBC News or New Republic are not reliable secondary sources, take it to WP:RSN. And while we are at it, a press release is not independent so it is of inherent lesser quality.Agricolae (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY

Unaffiliated news are WP:TERTIARY, not WP:SECONDARY.

bbc.com or any news would be tertiary to doi:10.1002/anie.201000679

sheffield.ac.uk is in grey area between secondary and tertiary D1gggg (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is just wrong. NBC summarizing the primary publication and interviewing the author is not tertiary. A press release, independent of what class of source you choose to label it, is entirely non-independent, inherently biased, and likely to have the goal of hyping the finding, so it is of limited real value as a reliable source. Agricolae (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

sheffield.ac.uk do not claim "chicken or egg" is solved.

But NBC "British scientists claim to have solved the mystery" is "unbiased" independent source.

We should refer to it as "... but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first," - Dr. Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University's Department of Engineering Materials D1gggg (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I never removed shitty NBCnews.com

It is you who removes sheffield.ac.uk [17] [18] D1gggg (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Aristotle quote

Is cited to a WP:RS. It is relevant, and it is not UNDUE. That is sufficient reason to include it. AND you broke the Fabry reference. Agricolae (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You still don't get that Aristotle never had it in works?

You still don't get that it was decided 2 years ago? [19] and second time?

D1gggg (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Verifiability it a pillar of Wikipedia, not Truth. You claim Aristotle never said this, but Fabry, a Reliable Source based on Wikipedia's criteria, said that he did. To support your position, you point me to an old Talk message in which another editor said he couldn't find it, whatever that means, and your own arguments that loudly misconstrue policy on primary sources. A reliable secondary source is all that is necessary for verifiability, and we have that, unless you have another reliable secondary source (not just your own assertion) that he didn't. Agricolae (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY

WP:PRIMARY sources cannot confirm this quote WP:V

Bazillions of shitty WP:TERTIARY sources belong to other projects. D1gggg (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We have a reliable secondary source (as defined by Wikipedia, one you are perfectly happy to use at various other places in the article, that provides this quote. You can.t just keep typing WP:PRIMARY as if it was some magic talisman that makes the secondary source go away. It is entirely meaningless in this context. We have a source for the quote. You apparently have no source for your personal belief that it is wrong, or you would have provided it by now. IDONTLIKEIT isn't good enough. Agricolae (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDONTHEARYOU: if they are "secondary" then 1. what do they cite 2. why nobody (except you) can WP:Verify it? D1gggg (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can verify it by consulting the WP:RS that the statement cited, Fabry. They will find the same thing there that I did. It is not our job to fact-check Fabry. That was his editor's job. Agricolae (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Editor of Times? François Fénelon?

Ahahaha. D1gggg (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I'm happy with current Moralia#Origins dilemma. D1gggg (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Good for you, but that is not the article we are discussing here. Agricolae (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

http://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/ Merrill Fabry quotes ... François Fénelon !!!

WP:IDONTHEARYOU D1gggg (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Disputed see also entry

@Paradoctor: The idea of bootstrapping in compilers is relevant to include as a See also link. The problem of how to write the first compiler before you have a compiler is a similar idea here. It doesn't have to be exactly the same. It doesn't require a citation. I'm usually one for trimming down See also sections, but this is an interesting and relevant one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"It doesn't require a citation." That is false. WP:PROVEIT: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]" The inline bit is not relevant, just provide the source here.

The following is not an invitation to debate the article subject, just an explanation why I disagree with you. If it doesn't convince you, that's fine. Just provide a reliable source stating the connection, and I'm satisfied.

Chicken and egg is about resolving an infinite regress: To get an egg, you need a chicken. To get a chicken, you need an egg. The only way out of this dilemma is relaxing one of the requirements.

Bootstrapping, OTOH, is merely a question of properly sequencing a development process. At its simplest, it looks like this (M is the machine language of your target system):

1. Specify a formal language L
2. Create file MLM, a compiler in language M which translates from language L to language M
3. Create file LLM, a compiler in language L which translates from language L to language M
4. Run LLM through MLM, and you get a file MLM2, a compiler in language M which translates from language L to language M

LLM does not require MLM to first exist, and certainly MLM does not require LLM. No causal loop, no chicken and egg, no regress.

Paradoctor (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing references in a see-also section. Also your logic is faulty: the existence of a compiler in a different language that compiles a compiler in the given language is not different in principle from the existence of an ancestral creature to chickens that produces an egg whose offspring is a chicken. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AAARRHG! Would somebody please read what I wrote?!?

The inline bit is not relevant, just provide the source here. So no, I was not asking for an inline ref.

The following is not an invitation to debate the article subject, just an explanation why I disagree with you. If it doesn't convince you, that's fine. Just provide a reliable source stating the connection, and I'm satisfied. What do I get? Discussion!

It really pisses me off that I try my best to state my case by providing the relevant facts, link to the relevant policy, state clearly what I'm on about, and it gets promptly ignored! Taking a break for now. Grmbl... Paradoctor (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Your attitude of "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me and tries to discuss it is wrong and needs to do what I say" is ... not exactly how Wikipedia works. See WP:BRD. Particularly the third letter, D, in the BRD sequence. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" (MOS:SEEALSO). Yes, there are things that go beyond binary right vs. wrong (even complex arguments, if sound, depend on 2ⁿ rights and wrongs), and also beyond the verifiabilty principle. Because "See also" isn't content. It's what you, I and any other sensible editor (boldly assuming without WP:PROOF for the moment that you and I belong to this category) think might be in the range of interest of readers who came here for the chicken-or-the-egg-dilemma. Personally, I wouldn't add Bootstrapping (compilers) here, because it lacks the linear causality of the chicken-or-the-egg-dilemma (which actually isn't linear either—it needs a rooster!), but I don't feel strongly about it, and am content to see that other editors think Bootstrapping (compilers) is a good entry in the "see also"-section. –Austronesier (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep invoking WP:PROVEIT, but as Austronesier noted, what's most applicable is the guideline from MOS:SEEALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." If there's consensus that the entry for Bootstrapping is too tenuous of a connection, then I'd be happy to let it go, but your demand for a source is nonsense. I'm happy to admit that it's not exactly the same idea. But it is similar, and that's good enough for what might interest a reader. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RfC Verifiability in See also sections Paradoctor (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

In any case, since Paradoctor has proclaimed themself to be satisfiable merely by the presentation of references somewhere other than in the article itself, here are two, both of which are worded to indicate that the connection between these concepts is old, well-known, and standard:

From Reynolds, John H. (December 2003), "Bootstrapping a self-compiling compiler from machine X to machine Y", CCSC: Eastern Conference, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19 (2): 175–181, we have the quote "The idea of a compiler written in the language it compiles stirs up the old "chicken-or-the-egg" conundrum: Where does the first one come from?"

From Glück, Robert (2012), "Bootstrapping compiler generators from partial evaluators", in Clarke, Edmund; Virbitskaite, Irina; Voronkov, Andrei (eds.), Perspectives of Systems Informatics: 8th International Andrei Ershov Memorial Conference, PSI 2011, Novosibirsk, Russia, June 27-July 1, 2011, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7162, Springer, pp. 125–141, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29709-0_13, we have the quote "Getting started presents the chicken-and-egg problem familiar from compiler construction: one needs a compiler to bootstrap a compiler, and bootstrapping compiler generators is no exception."

—David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I see too different questions here. One is whether anyone besides Wikipedia editors have made the comparison, and the quote given above seems to satisfy that. The other is whether this application of the chicken-egg analogy is significant enough to merit specific mention. Were we to list every scenario where the chicken-egg has been invoked, then the See Also section would be longer than the rest of the article, so some discrimination is required. I need to be convinced that this is a significant application of chicken-egg, rather than just another of the numerous cases where it has been invoked by someone about something. That is my application of 'common sense' at least. Agricolae (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A principle similar to WP:DABMENTION seems to be reasonable: a reader should be able to go to the linked article and see why it has been linked. On that basis, I added the two references above to Bootstrapping (compilers), so that on going to that page the reason for linking it from here becomes clear. I think the relevance of the other two current see-also entries, Catch-22 (logic) and Sorites paradox, is much less clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You have the right idea. Now just add those two quotes to this article. The other two see-also entries should also be explained in the body of the article. I suggest adding a catch-all section called something like The chicken-or-egg problem in logic, philosophy, science, technology, literature. --50.53.43.124 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No, don't put the quotes in this article. If a See Also section is not for free association, as you said in your edit summary, the main article space surely isn't, and there is no way we can cover all of the thousands of different ways that the chicken-egg analogy has been applied. If we try to make a section that just collects random examples where the analogy has been used, it will lack coherence and focus, and be subject to the whim and interests of the individual editors who add them, and if similar sections in other articles are any indication, it will balloon completely out of proportion. If we have a source about the the Chicken-egg philosophical conundrum that gives specific examples where it has been applied, then including those examples would be defensible because they were considered noteworthy by someone writing about the general phenomenon, but it shouldn't be selected by wherever editors happened to see the analogy used. Agricolae (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The relevance of Catch-22 (logic) and Sorites paradox is that they are both examples of paradoxes, in which article, you will find a navbox template at the end listing paradoxes. In addition to adding a catch-all section, I suggest adding the paradoxes template to the end of this article:

Template:Decision theory paradoxes

--50.53.43.124 (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

50.53.43.124: Your suggestion that see-also entries should be explained in the body of the article is in near-perfect contradiction to WP:SEEALSO, which says to avoid including links in the see-also section when they are explained in the body of the article. It's a paradox! Maybe the resolution is that there should be no see-also section. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant to remove the see-also link and add a sentence to the body of the article that explains the relevance. The sources you added to Bootstrapping (compilers) would be superb additions to this article. --50.53.43.124 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Solved

Apparently. But this is still usable, right? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Literal answers?

While Darwin’s Evolution is cited as a literal answer, it should be pointed out that it is a theory; thus, citing it as a “literal” answer is not actually accurate. 24.112.135.216 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of the "Scientific" answer, "chicken egg" is ambiguous. Most probably it means either a chicken-producing egg or an egg from a chicken. I suppose it could also mean either a chicken-producing egg from a chicken or an egg either from a chicken or producing a chicken. From the rest of the paragraph, I could not tell. Selecting any of the four would pretty much resolve the problem.

If one does not assume a finite number of chickens and eggs, there remains the possibility of chickens and chicken eggs all the way down with neither being first. In that case, the precise definition of chicken egg does not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:3004:2CE:0:0:0:584E (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)