Jump to content

Talk:Archaeopteryx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agcala~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 27 October 2012 (→Contradictory statements in the lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleArchaeopteryx is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 29, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted

Specimen Eleven

According to this article here an eleventh specimen has been found. Is there enough information available on the specimen to update the specimen list here?--Kevmin § 21:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough to mention it at least. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bird/Dino Debate

After scrolling through a news article, I just learned that Archaeopteryx is once again considered to be a bird and not a dinosaur (at least not a reptilian one) after all. Once we have a bit more info, the article should be updated to fit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still contentious, the new paper is a more thorough analysis but the authors state the bird outcome is still not certain. Given how close Archie is to the bird/deinonychosaur split, it will probably jump between these two branches forever and never be fully resolved. What we should do is try to reflect consensus (currently in favor of bird) while acknowledging the uncertainty. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But is that really the consensus? It seems from the media and expert dino-blogs, lists, et al, that they seem to be about evenly split. How was such consensus determined? HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that there are only two studies that have found Archie to be a non-bird, both published within the past four months or so. A new study has directly tested and somewhat refuted the hypothesis in one of them. Basically, there is not enough evidence yet for consensus to have changed. If consensus has changed, it's to one of higher uncertainty about whether or not Archie is a bird, not that it probably is or is not. Note that there is still the issue of what "bird" even means--traditionally, Aves has been defined as that group containing Archaeopteryx and everything closer to birds than that, making Archie a bird by default no matter what. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really appears that simply by looking at the physical characteristics of Archaeopteryx and comparing them with both modern & ancient birds, Archaeopteryx is plainly a bird.

"Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings. Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves. Finally, Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e., at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird." <Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution 2 Chapter 8 - Argument: The fossil record supports evolution. Greenforest AR: Master Books, 2002. (p131-132)> --Lebs27 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not base articles on fringe sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why it is still considered a transitional form? Studies by anatomists like S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and other have seen between Archæopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations. [1]Agcala (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new article for the list of specimens

I came across the discussion about branching the specimen list (found in the Archaeopteryx#History_of_discovery section) on Talk:Maxberg_specimen and I think it would be wise to proceed with a suggestion there.

I support the branching off of this article, and I'd be willing to do the bulk of the work if we can reach a consensus on how to do it. I support creating a new article, "Specimens of Archaeopteryx", where each specimen has its own section. The "history of discovery" section in the Archaeopteryx article would then be rewritten to be a much shorter and more general synopsis of the specimens and their history, using sources that talk about the totality of the specimens on the whole. I own Wellnhofer's Archaeopteryx — the icon of evolution on which I would intend to base the structure. That book has a great deal more information about each specimen than currently exists in this article, more along the lines of the completeness of the Maxberg specimen article. I support creating a new article for all of the specimens together over each specimen having its own article because there is much more source material for some specimens than others, and some, like the most recent "11th specimen", haven't yet been published fully and don't yet have the notability for a full article, yet are still important to mention in context. Thoughts? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, since in its current form, the article can't bear more information on each specimen, so the other other option would be creating an articles for each, which I at least think is a bad idea, considering that the specimens of Tyrannosaurus works pretty well, even though it is a bit incomplete. FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Archaeopteryx article is rather longish as it is. There's certainly ample material for a new article in the specimen list. Actually, Just as it is it will be longer than most palaentology articles in species or genera. I'm for splitting. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the splitting. Abyssal (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aawww, it's only 6105 words. I agree that some sort of list of all specimens is better than each specimen having an article, though as is, I am a bit iffy on splitting now. I'd be marginally happier leaving as is, but if you want to expand upon the specimens then splitting is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the main reason I wanted to suggest the split is because I think a great more information in reliable sources could be added to the specimens list - enough to probably double it, if not more. Wellnhofer's Archaeopteryx - the icon of evolution is an excellent, incredibly comprehensive secondary source and it includes a lot of information on each specimen, and goes into a lot of detail about their origins, history, and significance, citing additional sources along the way. I also think that the current state of things, where every specimen is included in this article but one of them (the Maxberg specimen) has its own article as well, is a bit unorganized. If no one objects, I'd like to go ahead with the split sometime in the next few days. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the new article in my userspace here if anyone would like to contribute! So far it's little more than an amalgamation of the current specimens list + the Maxberg article, with additional images. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it should be! FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A large portion of this article has been copied from http://archeopteryx.info .I would have said they copied it from us but they appear to be claiming copyright for the page.

These pages clearly state Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved. Archaeopteryx. Hence have asked for CCI investigation. The website http://archeopteryx.info claim to own the copyright hence asked for an investigation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Copy-pasting what I said elsewhere to explain the situation to people watching this page) I think it's obvious that http://archeopteryx.info copied text from this article, and not the other way around, and the copyright flag only popped up after I made the new article (Specimens of Archaeopteryx) with the same text. The other sections on that website (Paleobiology, Controversies) etc. also appear to be directly copied from Wikipedia, which can be confirmed by looking at an older revision (earlier than 2011) of the page. This is true even of much older revisions of the page: here's one from 2007. If you look at the edit history from around this time, you can see the "History of discovery" section being added piecemeal by different editors, so it was clearly not copied in its entirety from another source. Though I don't think additional verification is necessary, I have just looked up the domain registration information for archeopteryx.info and you can see that the site was created in 2011, long after the original text was added to this article by Wikipedia editors. Unfortunately I think the external site is probably violating their host's TOS by willfully claiming copyright for borrowed text. Hopefully this can be sorted out quickly, as it is clearly an open and shut case. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this site has clearly copied our content (which they're free to do *if* they attribute us correctly and follow the license agreements,). There's no reason to blank out our article however, their claim of copyright is quite nonsensical since the content of the article predates the site by several years. In the mean time, let's not create unnecessary disruption for our readers (almost 30 000 in the last month) henrik•talk 21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

Is the authenticity section of the controversies really necessary or relevant to this page. It was nothing more than a desperate attempt to bring back creationism. It was obviously a failed theory. The single feather specimen, as it says in the article, shows evidence of melanin which wouldn't be there if it were made of cement, that alone is overwhelming proof that those two astronomers were mere morons who wanted to believe it was a fake, so they did. The piece of silicone rubber they found on the specimen doesn't support the theory, either. It is completely irrelevant to the article, and most likely a misunderstanding of the neutrality concept of this encyclopedia. If somebody doesn't delete the section, then I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you delete the section, I will reinstate it. While Hoyle and Spetner were clearly wrong in claiming forgery, they attracted considerable attention with their claims - and whatever else Hoyle was, he was neither a 'moron' nor a 'creationist'. The subject deserves discussion in the article. If creationists are ill-informed enough to try to cite Hoyle as support for their claims, the best refutation is that provided by the article - a scientific disproof. Omitting this would allow the article to be dismissed as 'censored' to avoid mention of scientific questioning regarding authenticity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with AndyTheGrump. The multiple specimens of Archaeopteryx have stood up to intense scrutiny which was prompted by ill-informed criticism of a few of the main specimens, and this is worthy of note for various reasons. Although the suspicion of tampering was ill-founded, the attention given to demonstrating that the specimens are entire (ie not composite) and unaltered is an important aspect of the recent history of these wonderful specimens.Orbitalforam (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BAWHAHAHAHAH Hoyle and Spetner morons? HAHAHAHAHAHA. I agree with Andythegrump. Just because the atheism/neodarwinian myth religions 'evidence' is so weak it cant tolerate even minor criticism doesnt mean truth should be censored.

Jinx69 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Jinx69, in your frantic rush to prostitute your inane anti-evolution agenda here in Wikipedia, you deliberately and completely ignore why Hoyle and Spetner were called "morons" in the first place: i.e., 1) that after repeated thorough examinations, the Archaeopteryx fossils clearly are not forgeries, 2) that all of the alleged reasons for propagating a conspiracy to create fake fossils are silly and nonsensical, and 3) Hoyle only accused the Archaeopteryx fossils of being forgeries in the first place because he was trying to wave away a terribly inconvenient datum that contradicted his own pet panspermia hypothesis of how birds and mammals evolved into their modern forms due to a space virus that rode in on the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Not that you give a damn, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory statements in the lead

The first sentence in the lead says that Archaeopteryx was a genus of "early bird". The paragraph then goes on to say "Since the late 19th century, it has been generally accepted by palaeontologists, and celebrated in lay reference works, as being the oldest known bird, though some more recent studies have cast doubt on this assessment, finding that it might instead be a non-avialan dinosaur closely related to the origin of birds." This is contradictory: How can we definitively state that it is an "early bird" and then go on to say that we aren't sure? Nevermind the fact that it is unsourced, and old accounts from the 1800s don't really count. Can someone rationalize this? Cadiomals (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations please per WP:RS. Your opinions holds no credence on Wikipedia. Thanks. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't my opinion. It's an observation. There is a contradiction in the lead and someone needs to fix it. Is Archaeopteryx a bird as stated in the beginning of the paragraph, or are we not sure, as stated towards the end of the paragraph? Cadiomals (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And do you have reputable sources to confirm your observations? Current scientific consensus holds that Archaeopteryx is an extremely primitive, if not the most primitive known bird/avian dinosaur, representing a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs like the maniraptorans, and avian dinosaurs. Please be aware that one of the defining qualities of a "transitional form" is that said form has enough qualities of both the ancestral and derived groups that it is hard to tell at first (or second, or third) glance which group it properly belongs to.
And having that, if Archaeopteryx truly is not a bird, then please provide reputable sources to support it.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that Archaeopteryx was not a bird, I made a previous edit saying that modern studies have found that it may be more closely related to feathered theropod dinosaurs than modern birds. I am aware that it is a transitional form and therefore shares features of both groups. I am currently just pointing out the contradiction in the lead paragraph and that it needs to be fixed. Cadiomals (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So where are these modern studies that say Archaeopteryx is a non-avian feathered theropod dinosaur?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said this in my original reply to the OP. According to WP:RS, opinion is irrelevant, only sources. Every response seems to be based on opinion, rather than a few peer reviewed articles. I think after three responses, we aren't going get it, and we've got to the point of a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you would call these "reliable sources" but I found a number of news articles which say doubt has been cast on the traditional view of Archaeopteryx as the first bird: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. All those articles say that Archaeopteryx was probably more closely related to feathered dinosaurs than modern birds. I don't have access to professional research papers, only these secondary sources. But you guys have dodged my main point several times: We have a contradiction in the lead and that is entirely relevant to the improvement of the article and not a forum discussion. Either the first statement needs to be removed or the second one does. Cadiomals (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that you chose a series of articles that report essentially one source. Good job there. And you're still missing the point of WP:RS.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, I'm not going to get worked up over this, especially considering the fact that you have absolutely failed to even address my main point. There are plenty of other articles which will appreciate my well thought out improvements. Cadiomals (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun and remember to cite reliable sources.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've noticed your "well thought out improvements." Interesting self-assessment. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, all Cadiomals is saying here is that if there is published papers doubting the classification as a bird, some equivocation is necessary. "probable early bird" or something. One study that came out last year found it to be a non-avialan dinosaur, but other studies repeating the analysis with better resolution seem to have shot this idea down. So, if anything, I'd recommend not mentioning the non-avialan hypothesis near the lead but just as an anecdote in the classification section. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Dinoguy for finally addressing my main point. I wasn't aware that this was a minority view and later studies shot it down. Unlike some people on here, I am not afraid to be proven wrong as long as I am shown why. All the two people above seemed to do was mock me which is no way to behave on Wikipedia. I have been editing Wikipedia for over two years and only rarely have I run into people like that. Thank you for removing the contradiction in the lead. Cadiomals (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And not to take sides, but the sources Cadiomals offered up are reliable sources. The question is are they reliable for the information he wanted to add. The answer is also yes, although peer-reviewed, secondary scholarly sources are preferred and news articles should only be used sparingly, if used at all, for a topic like this. But the sources Cadiomals offered up are not just news sources. Nature.com, for example, is an online counterpart to the Nature journal, which is an accepted science source and is already used in this article. 2001:43E8:8:100:0:0:0:2 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it's all our fault and not Cadiomals' that he apparently could not be bothered to doublecheck the veracity of the sources of his claims, or check and see if they represented the majority consensus?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. His lack of interest in WP:RS, and ability to understand WP:WEIGHT between various sources seems to cause this misunderstanding. The fact is that the Nature new article could have been brought forward initially, but still it was a primary source, and we deprecate primary sources because they can, and often, are later disputed. As this one was. A good science researcher knows how to not cherry pick research that confirms their bias, instead, looking at the broad consensus. An amateur generally utilizes confirmation bias to pick and choose the science articles that meet whatever they want. That's what happened here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I obviously was not stating that his mistakes are you guys' faults. Only that there was some validity to his argument. SkepticalRaptor is certainly correct about not relying too heavily on primary sources, which is why I stressed "secondary" above, but primary sources can be used as long as they follow WP:PRIMARY. All in all, Cadiomals's suggestion was WP:UNDUE. But so was any mention of this dispute in the lead, which is why it was removed. If it hadn't been there to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten confused about the topic. His actions are still his, but that text led to them. 2001:43E8:8:100:0:0:0:2 (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The change made by Dinoguy, a perfectly fine and appropriate one, ended up being completely different that the one edit-warred by Cadiomal. Otherwise, I'm perfectly in agreement with all of your points. Archaeopteryx is a bird seems to be the consensus of real scientists in the real world, and we Wikipedians seem to respect that point of view in this article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war? I made no more than two edits and then went to the talk page. Looks like this experienced user needs to look up the definition of edit warring. Thanks. Cadiomals (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, Vol 69, 1985, p. 178; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine,Vol 177, 1980, p. 595.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archaeopteryx&oldid=520116327"