This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As it has many times before, the Dinosaur article talk page has gotten very long. To preserve the intelligibility of conversation here I have once again moved older discussions on this page to the article's talk archive (Archive 6 linked just above contains the most recent discussions). Killdevil 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Four vandalisms today so far. One yesterday. That's not a particularly high amount on Wikipedia... Weregerbil 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
When I encountered the page I checked the edit history, the protection log, and the talk page (including the most recent archive) and found no apparent justification for protection (I share Weregerbil's opinion that a handful of vandalisms like this is not an obvious or serious problem). Pages shouldn't be protected without a good reason so I went ahead and unprotected it. If it's really important to keep a page protected I'd suggest making sure the case is made prominently on the talk page. Bryan Derksen 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the history page, I can see why this is protected, but nonetheless find that slightly odd. I find it odd that it's attracting this much vandalism. Has it been featured lately? I mean, it's not like it's a particularly controversial topic (George W. Bush and religion are only semi-protected, whilst Communism isn't protected at all) and Stephen Colbert's been nowhere near it (AFAIK, anyway). RobbieG 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This suggests it is quite a popular page, getting 4,000 visitors per day, so if someone's going to add nonsense it's quite likely they'll do so here. Hut 8.5 19:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly right. It's a popular page, and particularly popular amongst school-kids. When this page isn't semi-protected, it gets a lot of IP vandalism, so I did place the page on semi-protection. A quick scan of the last 500 edits indicates there wasn't even a single good IP edit (every subsequent edit by a logged-in user was removal of IP vandalism). In other words, there's no reason to unprotect this article: no IP has added anything useful to this article in months. I could have gone back further in the history, but I didn't bother. Dinosaur is a Featured Article, representing some of Wikipedia's best content. There is no reason to open an article to continuous vandalism from multiple IPs, especially when we are calling this article some of our best content. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree--with maybe one or two exceptions, I can't think of any constructive IP edits to the dinosaur articles here... well, ever. And this article is a huge target. I vote for protection, for what it's worth. Dinoguy2 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it protected. Actually, I'd like to see a lot more articles with protection, but that's just me, and would take a change in the prevailing attitudes here. (How many good anonIP edits have ever been made on Bird, Crocodile, Fossil, or the oddly popular vandalism target Turtle, for example?) J. Spencer 03:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not raising an objection to protection of this article, since it seems necessary given the amount of vandalism, but I don't like it when pages are protected as I believe it detracts from the site's "anyone can edit" premise. I appreciate that in cases like this it's the only option, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of it. RobbieG 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It's the religious looneys you can blame. No offense to them of course, but Wikipedia is scientific & they keep on adding their creationism drivel to the article when there is a clear cut consensus against it. Just like anti-bush people edit George Bush & racists edit any muslim related article. For some reason, Christians think they can get their view point across with vandalism - go figure. We just have to accept that controversial topics like these will always be protected. This article is a centre pint for Wikipedia (everyone wants to know about dinosaurs... well mostly lol) so it has to be in tip top shape... Just my views.... :) Spawn Man 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Some Christians think they can get their view point across with vandalism. Not all Christians. Just thought I'd better point that out. RobbieG 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dinosaur relation to birds
Aves (birds) are classified under sauriscia (however you spell 'lizard hipped') not ornithschia (however you spell 'bird hipped'). As they are birds I think it's strange that they're classified like that. Any views? Dendodge 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It is confusing, agreed. But the Saurischia and Ornithischia names refer merely to a certain passing resemblance in the shape of the hip-bones of certain members of each groups to lizards on the one hand and birds on the other, rather than exact bone-for-bone similarities. Bird-hipped dinosaurs actually have hips that differ in important details from actual birds, in the same way that lizard-hip dinosaurs have hips that differ in important details from actual lizards. Thus the Ornithischia didn't give rise to birds any more than the Saurischia didn't give rise to lizards. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, & don't forget "dinosaur" means "lizard", when their legs aren't actually lizard-like at all (i.e., not splayed). Trekphiler 03:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, and the more advanced "lizard-hipped dinosaurs" like therizinosaurs and dromaeosaurs actually had "bird hips". Birds could really be called "ornithischian mimics" ;) Also, dinosaurs aren't close relatives of lizards, but they were named that because, at the time, it was thought that they were a suborder of true lizards. -saurus has kind of become traditional since then, even though it's totally incorrect. I think it's cool that a number of more recent dinosaur names use -draco ("dragon") in place of -saurus. Or even -ornis/-avis/-opteryx, where appropriate. Dinoguy2 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but it is makin' 'em harder to spell.;D Jethro Bodine 11:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Nomen quidam
I can't find phororacos. Any tips where to look? Trekphiler 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
" appears to be a misspelling."? Or phonetic...I don't recall if I read or heard it. Either way, thanks for the redirect. Trekphiler 11:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
POV statement about not withstanding "serious scientific scrutiny."
I've removed a highly POV statement from the "religious views" section, but if someone can figure out a way to word it more neutrally, feel free to put that in instead; the section is very short either way anyways. It also doesn't seem to mention creation science perspectives, or source them in the main article (www.answersingenesis.org is a major source for YEC theories on dinosaurs, for example). So that could use some work. The original POV statement is here: "However, these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny." That would need cited to be in the article, first, and second, many people disagree with the statement, so it reads like an evolutionary-bias statement. Obviously, fine to report that, making the source clear, though. --Bonesiii 13:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree it could be worded better, but on the other hand it is true (and citeable), so I think it should be there in some form. On the problems with the main religious perspectives on dinosaurs article, the dinosaur crowd aren't going to do a good job, and neither are creationists. It needs to be approached from a sociological angle. -- John.Conway 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with that statement; by definition, religious interpretations do not withstand scientific scrutiny because they are faith propositions, not science. Science relies on testable propositions that can be evaluated with evidence. YEC, though, does not. Typically I've seen two arguments out of YEC camps, miracles and planting. Miracles: dinosaurs/mammoths/etc. existed in the years before the flood, but God worked lots of miracles and changed all sorts of natural laws to make the world the way it is today; obviously, this cannot be tested, but can accepted by faith. Planted: there were no dinosaurs/etc., but God decided to plant remains and make the Earth look very old to test faith and deceive the wicked. This cannot be tested either.
In addition, I find the wording a bit odd, too, as well as the emphasis, because historically Creationist groups have had bigger fish to fry than dinosaurs, which are safely dead and only come out as figureheads. They haven't made many dinosaur-specific interpretations at all, beyond the Paluxy stuff, and dinosaurs tend only to figure in a general sense in larger battles over evolution and prehistory. Jurassic Carl notwithstanding, a lot of the Creationists who don't follow the "planted" argument love dinosaurs (they often turn up in Creationist museums, after all); they just don't think dinosaurs are millions of years old or did any evolving. J. Spencer 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
J, there's nothing wrong with it in the opinions of evolutionists (and, apparently you), but there are things wrong with it in terms of Wikipedia policies, and of course, YEC scientists do not agree with the statement, which is why it is POV. (Let me remind you of this quote from WP:NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. [...] Types of bias include: [...] Religious bias against or for religion, faith or beliefs" [Emphasis mine].
What you said at the beginning of your comment is the evolutionist definition of "science"; the evolutionist opinion -- what you are saying is (as is usually said by evolutionists) that creationist theories do not fit within the evolutionary model (that is, YEC, at least). Nobody debates that; what is strongly debated is the idea that evolutionists alone can define what "science" is. Most creationists believe in what is known as the Scientific Method, which requires that scientists do not define rules before they look at the evidence as to what conclusions they're allowed to come to. But that is what you just did, in fact; you stated that "science" (i.e. evolutionary science) bans even considering a certain type of conclusion, regardless of the evidence. That is not consistent with the scientific method, in its purest form; that is imposing a pre-concieved belief onto science (which is why evolution is often seen simply as another religion by creationists, note).
Now, the point is that that section is linking to an article that includes YEC scientific beliefs, as well as OEC and other religious beliefs. NPOV requires that the beliefs of those groups be reported, as a minority, and that the majority belief be reported as well. This means that that sentence would be fine, basically, if it said "According to evolutionary scientists" or the like, and then cited a source. Also, it is worded derogatorily towards the minority view; by implying that creationist scientists are not "serious".
In other words, that is not a "true statement" but rather a statement of opinion from evolutionists (the majority view; it is true in their eyes, but keep this in mind: WP:TIGER). It should be given preference, making clear the source of the opinion and that it is an opinion, not a fact or truth universally agreed upon, and source cited, as I understand Wikipedia policy. (See WP:NPOV and WP:V. It should also use a neutral tone, which it does not. Also, please realize that in the opinions of many YECs (myself included, though to be clear, I am not a scientist myself; I'm a logician), evolutionist beliefs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny. The examples are too numerous to count of the evidence contradicting evolution, yet evolutionists do not consider the basic concept of evolution to be subject to the normal scientific method rules; for example, this quote from the WP article: "Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy." Just two quick examples so as not to drag this out or turn it into a POV debate; the non-fossilized organic tissue recently found in a T-Rex bone, which shocked evolutionists, and of course missing links, which Darwin had predicted should have been found but have not been. (Just a few examples from Answers in Genesis; go there to learn more if you wish. I bring these up only because they are directly relevant to the dinosaur article/issues in question.) According to the scientific method, these and many other failures of the evolutionary hypothesis should cause scientists to abandon the hypothesis, but they have not.
Anyways, here's my attempt at an improvement, for review: "However, the majority of the scientific community does not accept these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs." Agree/disagree, and please correct me if I've missed some aspect of WP policy? :-) Of course, we would still need a citation for that. Anyone have one? (BTW, someone put the line back in; for now, I'm just going to add a citation needed tag rather than risk an edit war.) --Bonesiii 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's going to do -- it's a little weasel-wordish. I'm going to try to find a citation for that statement as it is. Cite your sources that YEC does stand up to scientific scrutiny and we'll take it from there. -- John.Conway 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; and feel free to reword. As for citing YEC standing up to scientific scrutiny, before I answer, let me make clear that I was not suggesting that anything about that be in the article. Since you requested them, though, here's a few. Beginning with AIG articles: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias, Creation: 'where's the proof?', Bias and faith, and others in this Q&A section: AIG Science Q&A. From other groups: ICR: Evolution is Religion--Not Science, and CMI: "What we believe; Statement of Faith" (Basics, number 3). Also, the RATE project is very relevant; see the AIG announcement here. I don't think these belong in the dinosaur article, though, because it's still the minority view and not directly on the subject of dinosaurs. Maybe they could be incorporated into the linked article, though... --Bonesiii 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they will do for this article, because they are not in peer-reviewed journals. If you can't find any in the science journals -- which I don't think you'll be ale to to do -- respected peer-reviewed philosophical journals would be fine. -- John.Conway 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I am not proposing them for this article; the one linked to, however, is focusing on religious belief, for which these would qualify (but that's another article...). I don't think that amount of detail is needed in this article. Either way, peer review would only be relevant if the focus was only on the mainstream scientific community's views of this, but it is on religious belief. (Also, it's pretty common knowledge that there's an anti-creationist bias in the journals that are usually meant when described as "peer reviewed", which makes that a circular reasoning argument.) --Bonesiii 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the line you suggest is decent, but a bit weaselly as John Conway notes.
Second, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about the nature of science, but I do note that I've never seen a YEC who would seriously consider the biblical account being wrong. They are not trying to find the best model for data, they are trying to prove their view. If a creationist model explained the facts better than evolution, evolution would be abandoned, just as various models of the earth were abandoned in the 1960s/1970s for plate tectonics. Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, attempting to scientifically explain things like Noah's Flood is impossible, which fits a reasonable definition of a miracle and falls under faith. You either believe it happened or you don't. Frankly, I think it works better that way, too, since the spheres of science and religion are kept separate.
"Absent missing links" is a tired joke, since "evolutionists" do have missinglinks, only when one is found, Creationists ask about the others that are "missing", until they've managed to convince those who aren't interested in biology that there are none. Every "missing link" found just makes two more "missing links", according to so many YEC arguments I've heard, and I've never seen the missing link that YEC proponents would accept. As for the organic tissue, it's more a case of nobody having bothered to look. I'm an "evolutionist", I wasn't particularly shocked, and none of the "evolutionists" I know was, either. Schweitzer's team has been working on this for years now, and the reaction I've seen has more been "cool!", with some "could there have been contamination", and not a single "protein fragments cannot have been preserved for millions of years! Evolution must be wrong!" In baseball, everyone thought you couldn't make a living uppercutting the ball, until Babe Ruth came along. Everyone thought you couldn't drive an outside pitch, until a generation of hitters raised on aluminum bats showed the opposite. All you need to preserve anything is a lack of something to destroy it. J. Spencer 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
In order: 1) Thanks--any suggestions as per the weasel words? Which words did you mean?
Yes, YECs believe that there are no conflicts between the Bible and reality, but they do concede that there are conflicts between the Bible and current popular human ideas (this is covered in a few of the sources added above; your posting went through before that did); the idea being that since they believe God did create the world, it's not surprising that they would not find conflicts in the former respect. Also, AIG at least has stated that they are not trying to prove the view, by the way. That may apply to other YECS though, not sure. As to this statement: "If a creationist model explained the facts better than evolution, evolution would be abandoned", you forget that evolutionists, as you yourself said, ban any creationist conclusions before they even look at the evidence. I agree that some scientists have abandoned the evolutionary model for the reason you stated, but many do not. Again something clearly shown in the sources in my above response to John Conway. Your statement is understandable; it's a statement of trust in the objectivity of most scientists. In my opinion, though, it's a naive trust that has been proven false countless times (no offense; this is not about my opinion and I would not presume to tell you what to believe).
Actually, a recent scientific model for the Flood has been proposed, and it also replaced a past one (canopy theory). See here and here for that, and see here for many other related topics. And if you just think about it--if the Flood did occur, it would be possible to see geological evidence of it. YECs believe we do see it. :-) Your belief that it can't be explained probably comes from the fact that you disagree with it already because you have, as you put it, decided not to believe it. That's fine for your opinion, of course, but that is not scientific.
As for the missing links debate, you might want to check out here, and especially Archaeopteryx. AIG regularly deals with the alleged missing links. I could simply tell you that the idea of Archaeopteryx as a missing link is a "tired joke" as you did (it has been shown to be simply a bird), but I'm not interested in back-and-forths like that; if you're open to looking into it, you are free to study it on your own time. :-) ( Regardless of how old the argument is, the fact still stands that evolution predicts that fossils should be dispersed randomly enough that we should find as many links as we find complete species, and that has not been the case. Evolutionists are left to try to come up with increasingly faith-requiring ideas to explain this away, rather than admit that the hypothesis was wrong. By the way, you might be interested in the recent trend by evolutionists to concede that even species they once considered in "trees" are actually examples of convergent evolution, a move predicted by creationist theory. Even the famous "Lucy" has fallen to this new view, as have many other "missing links" (see here, here, and here).
(Quote:) I'm an "evolutionist", I wasn't particularly shocked, and none of the "evolutionists" I know was, either. Schweitzer's team has been working on this for years now, and the reaction I've seen has more been "cool!", with some "could there have been contamination", and not a single "protein fragments cannot have been preserved for millions of years! Evolution must be wrong!"
See, this is exactly the point. Obviously with just one example like that, nobody's saying scientists should jump to the conclusion that evolution is wrong. But the point is that the conclusion is not even considered, because it is banned regardless of the evidence, as you said. Notice what you said over and over in the conclusion; what "everyone thought" turned out to be wrong. That's exactly the point YEC have been making; evolutionists choose to trust in what most humans think, over what God thinks (or what the Bible claims God thinks), and so often they end up being wrong, and lately almost every example of that has moved their views closer to aspects predicted by creationist models long ago.
Anyways, this is getting to into the details as a debate, so let me again just recommend that you take the time to look into this on your own. :-) Every point you've raised has been debunked by creationists. But we are not here to debate. Here we need to focus on the article. I'm happy to answer questions like those, but I'd suggest that discussion continue elsewhere such as at my talk page perhaps, rather than here. (If someone else continues that discussion, that's what I'll do. :-))
The standing issue: We need to improve the wording of this line, to avoid Weasel Words. Anyone have any suggestions? Perhaps "The mainsteam scientific community" or "Mainstream scientists", etc? --Bonesiii 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This is getting pointless, and this isn't the place to debate it. I suggest we stick with my plan and cite our sources (peer reviewed journals preferred). -- John.Conway 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion does not even properly belong here. Further commentary can go to Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, until links to a peer-reviewed journal (on philosophy or whatever) are provided. Citations from serious rigorously-reviewed papers can certainly be considered for inclusion. Creationist propaganda from the Answers in Genesis website cannot. It was a compromise at all to include a section in this article on religious perspectives, and the section can be removed entirely if the result is that it only causes controversy on the article talk page. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see no need for controversy as long as the section can be changed to fit NPOV. :-) Nothing needs added to the rest of what you said, I think, except of course that "propoganda" is a POV statement as well... --Bonesiii 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll knock off too, since it certainly is getting tangential. J. Spencer 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of "frivolous" scientific scrutiny, so I've removed the word "serious", which should remove some of the POV feel. TimVickers 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it's been quite some time now, and there've been no further suggestions, other than TimVickers' above (more on that in a second), so I've added in the version suggested earlier, with one modification: "However, the mainstream scientific community does not accept these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs." The only objection that was raised was that it seemed to contain Weasel Words--though nobody has yet explained which words are the problem, I've modified it a little to hopefully sound better, as also suggested above. I said "mainstream" instead of "majority of the". Mainstream is a term evolutionists often use to describe themselves, so theoretically there would be no objection to that term. This wording appears also to neither "soften[...] the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement" as it's clearly an accurate statement, nor "avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue"; it's reporting the opinion and the source as per NPOV requirements. Let me know if I've missed some aspect. :)
TimVickers, that does sound less emotionally loaded, yes, but it actually worsens the POV problem, because that updated statement is completely dismissing the existence of any "scientific scrutiny" that disagrees with the evolutionist POV, despite the fact that it is a statement about a group of views that include "scientific scrutiny" views that clearly do disagree with the evolutionist POV. With "serious" included it at least allowed for the idea that the dissenting views were at least scientific. Again, WP:NPOV is clear that in cases of dispute, no view should be asserted to be the truth, including the most popular view, but should be presented as a view of the group or individual who holds the view. :) Also, I'm not sure how "frivolous" is on-topic, as that word was not mentioned, that I saw.
Also, I've wikilinked "scientific" to the same article that was previously wikilinked from "scientific scrutiny", in order to keep the same sense of the previous statement. The sources provided earlier have been kept as well. I believe that concludes any previous issue with the statement as per NPOV. --Bonesiii 21:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree with this change, and I don't think I see any actual support for it here in the talkpage. Frankly the entire section seems out of place in an encyclopedic article and I would strongly support removing it entirely. I will restore the original text until I see actual concensus for the change; in the meantime I'd like to pursue a discussion focused on deleting the section entirely. Doc Tropics 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Doc Tropics, that isn't really helpful--the statement was proposed and arrived at in discussion. As I said above, the only objection that was raised seems to have been dealt with, and the other person discussing it agreed it was better than the original statement. What reasons do you have to revert the statement, which fits with Wikipedia's policies, to one that clearly does not?
As for the section being out of place, I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV, as it makes clear that minority views do need to be presented, and bias against religious views is specifically listed as to be avoided. That is how Wikipedia policy defines what is "encyclopedic". However, if you wish to suggest removing the section, it would be better to discuss that seperately, rather than along with your reversion, which is not related to the existence of the section. My edit was suggested many days ago on this talk page and discussed, so a spur-of-the-moment revert does not seem appropriate. I'll give a brief time to reply, but then will revert back--the talk page is here to be used, rather than edit warring. :)
Also, please take note of WP:REVERT, especially these parts: "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof." [Bold emphasis mine.] Your revert may come because you agree with the opinion of the mainstream community on this issue--agreeing with that is fine, but NPOV makes it clear that Wikipedia pages are to present both sides fairly. --Bonesiii 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to save some time by discontinuing the discussion in this section and starting a new section at the bottom of the page. The wording is irrelevant; the section should be removed. Doc Tropics 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Reverting, then, for now. --Bonesiii 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact that religiously inspired interpretation of dinosaurs "do not stand up to scientific scrutiny" is not "evolutionary-biased" or a POV. It's simply true. As such there is, and should be, no problem pointing this out in the article. Creationist science has yet to scientifically (and this is the important bit) prove their views and disprove the current theories. We're talking about equating science with belief here by putting creationist science and real science on equal footing. Having a pre-formed theory which you refuse to change and then trying to shoe-horn the evidence and data into this theory is NOT science, which means creationism cannot be considered science in any circumstance. Investigating our world with an agenda which is more important than finding the truth is simply not science, and that's basically what creationism is. And this is coming from a Christian scientist, who finds creationist "science" and affront to both. This is not the place to discuss creationism and evolution. This is an article about dinosaurs. Having a section with creationist views is fine so long as the disclaimer says that they are not supported by science and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny because, as much as those with creationist views might not like it, that is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.57.86 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Existence
This article should be reworded to say that dinosaurs didn't exist, and that they were actually just giant birds. Scorpionman 20:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not all of them, just the ones people like, with teeth and claws, and the ripping and the biting and the *hurting* glayvin! :) Actually, it's the other way around. Let's rewrite birds to say they don't exist, but are just tiny dinosaurs. J. Spencer 20:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh. The Simpsons rule(s). Actually, obviously not even all theropods were feathered, and even though they're probably the most popular dinosaurs, I'm sure the sauropods enjoy some measure of popularity. I'm partial to the ceratopsians, personally, but no one likes them... Firsfron of Ronchester 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, back when the first dino footprints were found, they were attributed to giant birds until their bones were found. And then, if I recall correctly, one or two scientists STILL thought they should be classified as birds. But Owen named them as a suborder of lizards, and the rest is history. The thing with cladistics is maskes the fact that the whole relationship with birds goes both ways. Birds are dinosaurs, everybody hre seems to accept that. Why they can't accept that some dinosaurs were also "birds" in the traditional sense is harder to understand. I think it's because it makes them less montrous. *Good.* They are not and were never monsters. They were sometimes big, sometimes mundane, regular animals that sometimes did boring stuff just like birds are. They weren't any more or less "fearsome" than modern bears or eagles (the former may be a bad example, because culture has a history of making them into monsters too...).
And no, the article sohuldn't be changed, because we're clearly using an arbitrary cutoff point between Dinosauria and Aves. That cutoff is based on phylogenetic taxonomy, not traditional taxonomy, and the result is that some things that would have been re-classified in the old days gets to stay in Dinosauria rather than Aves. If we knew in the 1960s what we know now, all of Maniraptora (at least) would have probably been made into one or more bird orders and removed from Dinosauria. But we live in 2007, so some dinosaurs are *also* birds. They can be both now. Which is better in a way, because it better illustrates how evolution works. Dinoguy2 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how serious we're being about this, but reptiles are considered a seperate group from birds by most, as I understand it, at least (speaking of the evolutionary theory; though evolutionists are divided as to the bird-reptile connection -- worth raising the question of which view is the majority). The article currently reports this view in the first paragraph, so I'd say that covers it pretty well, though it could use citation (and probably a little rewording with "known", especially since not even all evolutionists agree with the view; WP:NPOV). Thus, that view is relevant in terms of the origin of dinosaurs, but not classification of the article, since birds are not actually still reptiles according to that view. --Bonesiii 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No, reptiles really aren't considered separate. In modern biology, at least since the "cladistic revolution" of the 70s, reptiles are simply treated as a grab-all collection of lineages that don't belong to anything more obviously distinct, i.e., mammals or birds, each of which quite clearly are a clade. So you end up with crocodiles, anatomically and behaviourally far more like birds than anything else, lumped with lizards simply because the both are scaly! I'm not sure any biologists defend the concept of "reptile" as it stands in the layman's perception except as a useful shorthand term. From a cladistic perspective, birds are a particular clade within the dinosaur clade, itself a clade within the archosaur clade. The archosaurs represent one major lineage from the early "reptiles" of the Permian/Triassic; mammals are another lineage, lizards, snakes, and tuataras a third, and chelonians a fourth. (I hope I got that right -- I'm an invert palaeontologist, not a vert palaeontologist!) Why we consider some archosaurs reptiles and others birds is purely subjective. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not much to add, except scales are not the only distinction; birds are warm-blooded (like mammals) while reptiles are cold-blooded. Not that we know that for extinct dinosaurs, of course. --Bonesiii 23:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't even know that fur sure in extinct birds. I've heard a few proposals that Archaeopteryx and even enantiornithes were cold blooded, or at least not as fully warm blooded as modern birds. And even some modern mammals (monotremes, sloths) are not "fully" warm-blooded, though it might be a reversal in sloths due to sedantary lifestyle. Dinoguy2 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's also important to understand that the lack of something doesn't unite two taxa. In other words, while warm-bloodedness may be a characteristic that distinguishes birds from other archosaurs, cold-bloodedness doesn't unit archosaurs with, say, lizards. Cold-bloodedness is obviously the "default" position in animals, what biologists call the primitive state, and warm-bloodedness the derived state. It's derived states that are used to define groups, not primitive ones, since the primitive ones hold less (if any) information. Really, there's not much crocodiles have in common with modern reptiles that both modern reptiles and crocodiles have in common with the ancestral reptiles. And those ancestral reptiles have rise to mammals and birds (directly or indirectly) and hence such characteristics aren't unique or informative enough to define some clade Reptilia that would exclude mammals and birds. Seriously, trying to defend the Class Reptilia is a waste of time. Any clade that includes all the modern reptiles defined on objective, derived characters will also include the birds. Reptiles are the classic paraphyletic group. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
...which is only a problem under strict phylogenetic taxonomy. The decision to only use monophyletic groups and not recognize paraphyletic groups or grades is completely arbitrary. It may be useful in some situations to talk about "egg laying mammals", but for an arbitrary reason, under this system we are not allowed to formally name such a group. Dinoguy2 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Non-Avian dinosaurs
Would it be okay (or even accurate) to put a link at the top of the article that read to the effect:
This article discusses the Non-Avian Dinosaurs. For the Avian Dinosaurs, see Aves --Philo 03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It might be accurate, but it's not appropriate, in my opinion. When people look outside and see a bird, they do not say, "Oh, look! A dinosaur!" Those who are searching for Bird will know what to type to get the correct page, and I cannot imagine anyone searching for "avian dinosaur" as a way of trying to reach Wikipedia's bird article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, if they come across the term "avian dinosaur" in another article or some other source of information like (gasp!) a book, then perhaps at least having a Wiki article Avian dinosaur that disambiguates (word?) to this article and Aves makes sense, no? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
New dinosaur novel
I noticed that the dinosaur page mentions Jurassic Park, an exciting popular adventure that is, frankly, not very informative about dinosaurs. I just read a new novel, Hell Creek, that is recommended by a lot of paleontologists and is fantastic for dinosaur enthusiasts becuase it emmerses the reader in a detailed scientifically accurate world of the late Cretaceous. This novel is a blast. I think the kind of people that would visit wikipedia to read about dinosaurs would appreciate a pointer to a great book like Hell Creek. The simplist edit would be " books and films such as Jurassic Park and Hell Creek..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysonnsa (talk • contribs) 08:13, May 6, 2007
First, please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes. Jurassic Park is mentioned because the movies and novels were so popular. That's all. I am going to check out this book. Orangemarlin 16:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
But then we'd have to include every dinosaur book ever written, and then it would turn into a list, and Transformers would get involved somehow... you see the problem here ;) Dinoguy2 02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thing is, Jurassic Park is the single most popular dinosaur book by far and away, with the books being very popular and the movies even more popular. Hell Creek is far more obscure. Titanium Dragon 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I see your point, however from the point of view of actual information about dinosaurs Hell Creek might be the best current science outreach to the public, being both a good read and full of science. I just thought that if someone went on to wikipedia to look up dinosaurs this would be a perfect book to point them toward. I found a web page if you want to read about it ( www.HellCreek.org ). Well anyway, I thought it was cool.--Tysonnsa 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Make that www.hellcreek.org (great links to dinosaur research on one of the site's pages, too). Peisal 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... It doesn't even look like this book is mentioned on the page in the references. Is it there somewhere that I'm not seeing? Nideic 19:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hell Creek is getting a lot of press from educators -- more than Jurassic Park did, I believe -- and is written by scientists who did their homework, so even though it probably won't compete with JP for global entertainment dollars, it's at least as deserving of a plug as a mass-marketed movie. Isn't one of the goals of Wikipedia to help people accumulate knowledge? Eclindholm 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is not a goal to plug books or other items. •Jim62sch• 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My teacher says...
My teacher says that one of few ways how dinosaurs and other repiles evolved quickly is because of a high burst of radiation. He says that would explain how so many new types could appear in a million years or so. Does anyone else think the same? -- My name explains why
I don't think an explanation like that is needed, because the new types that appeared a few million years apart were not that different from each other. Take a look at Maiasaurua and Edmontosaurus or Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus--they are given different names, but they're only as different as, say, a fox is from a wolf, at most. I don't know of any evidence that says dinosaurs evolved more quickly than anything else. As a group, they were just around for a vey long time, hundreds of millions of years. Dinoguy2 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't heard of this radiation theory. Are you sure he didn't say dinosaurs evolved and radiated to all parts of the world? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't really relevant to the topic, unless a reliable source can be found that presents this theory. Also, I tend to doubt there's such a theory, at least that is still accepted, because radiation in reality tends to damage much more than vice versa, unlike the cliched TV show interpretations. My guess is this is more of an urban legend than anything. The best place to start would be to simply ask your teacher where he got this idea from, and if he can provide sources. --Bonesiii 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You have got to stop quoting The Simpsons when I'm in the middle of taking a drink. My keyboard and monitor thank you. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
He may be refering to a solar event etc. Theories like that aren't worth including, but aren't unheard of. Can't see a solid source on it though. Spawn Man 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, what are our science teachers teaching these days? Between the Discovery Institute trying to teach the controversy, political correctness, etc. etc. what kind of science education is out there? A high burst of radiation doesn't cause evolution. Grrrrr. Orangemarlin 23:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Does your teacher explain why dinos didn't get any smarter? (Personally, I could care less why they got wiped out; I want to know why they never became us... {Hmm, maybe it wasn't an asteroid, maybe it was dinonuclear winter...}) Lorenzo 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Religious View?
The section on religious views of dinosaurs is wildly out of place and should be removed. The only link in the section goes to an article about creationism; it makes no attempt to actually address religous views...just the views of creationists. In reality, there is NO "religious view" of dinosaurs because there are hundreds (or thousands) of religions and most of them don't share a single view about anything. Furthermore, the section is quite simply irrelevent. Would we include a section about religious views on cars in an article about General Motors? Of course not! The article contain facts, not irrelevent opinions. Can we please keep religion out of science articles? Doc Tropics 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said previously: I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV, as it makes clear that minority views do need to be presented, and bias against religious views is specifically listed as to be avoided. That is how Wikipedia policy defines what is "encyclopedic". It may also help to read WP:TIGER. Bias against any particular view is against Wikipedia policy. Also, your arguments really don't make much sense; if the article contains creationist views, how do no such views exist? If you simply read the article in question, you will see that they do, in fact, exist. They are simply the minority. And they are presented as such. What is the problem?
And yes, if there were significant religious views on General Motors, they would need to be included in order to follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Your statement reveals your bias against these views; it is fine for you to have that bias, but not fine for the article to have that bias, according to Wikipedia policy. --Bonesiii 22:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I do agree with you Doc (!), for the sake of both completeness & our sanity, I also feel we should keep the section. It's a small price to pay to solve the problem of religious fanatics vandalising the article & it does lead to a legit article, regardless of its theories. That way, nuts can go edit that article about their views (Which does include most religions) instead of editing here. A valid point, but in the end Doc, it's just not worth it. It subtracts nothing from the article, but adds a bit in other regards. Cheers, Spawn Man 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Side note, but Spawn Man, you may want to check out this page: WP:CIVIL; insulting those who disagree with your view is against WP policy. Name-calling such as "religious fanatic" and "nut" do not help. I agree with the idea of what you're saying, but don't forget that WP:NPOV requires that balance anyways; it's not merely a good compromise but required policy. That's what that policy is designed to solve, and it does so quite well. And you're correct that it does include other religious views--many of which, BTW, that are unrelated to creationist scientific theories. Either way, creationist theories are based on religion, thus can accurately be called religious views. --Bonesiii 22:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Spawn Man, I've done a lot of edits of "that article" and I'm hardly a nut. In fact, I'm a solid supporter of Evolution and removing Creationist POV from science articles. That other article is pretty well written and referenced, because it is what it is--a description of what Creationists think of Dinosaurs. A neutral POV lead to a balanced article. If the Creationist acted in your manner, then we'd have badly written POV Evolution articles. Take Bonesiii's advice and be civil. Orangemarlin 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I see your point Spawn Man. I still don't think it belongs, and I'm hoping there will be some support for that position from other editors, but your point is well taken indeed. I've spent a huge number of hours protecting this and other articles from religious vandalism, so I can become a bit short-sighted (even short-tempered) at times. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, I've seen your name in a number of the articles I visit, and I've got a lot of respect for your work : ) Doc Tropics 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what, you add a religious section to this page, and I'll personally add a wicked scientific criticism section to every single religious article on Wikipedia. No lie. Fair's fair.Sheep81 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a real problem with a brief, summary-style section on religious perspectives on dinosaurs in this article, with a link to the full article. Having this short section (provided it is kept short) allows us to fulfill our NPOV requirements without causing disruption to any of the 1,000 genus or family-level articles, and gives Christians a focus/target for their edits: the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article, which none of us touch. That said, what happened to the rest of the paragraph? It's now too short to be its own section. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure--it was that short before I suggested the NPOV fix above. Is there a policy on length of such sections? I did not raise any objections to the brevity based on undue weight rules, and it looks OK to me, but not sure what any policies might say about it. Will try to look into this if noone else gets it first... --Bonesiii 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
We all throw about NPOV all the time, the fact of the matter is that we need to be aware of undue weight section. The fact is that it is a minority viewpoint that dinosaurs showed up 10,000 years ago, and anything more than the current section is giving too much weight. As for the Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs, it doesn't hurt to edit it. I constantly am keeping it neutral, and finally "won" the battle that the lead should clearly describe what the preponderance of information and science states about dinosaurs. Now the article is essentially neutral. Orangemarlin 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You should clarify: minority scientific viewpoint (all that matters anyway). I'm not sure if it is a minority viewpoint out of the 6.5 billion out there. Sheep81 10:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I wasn't being rude. Spawn Man 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Spawn was just being Spawn. : ) Sheep81 10:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe this argument is being held at all. Should we add make-believe stuff to other articles as well? How about adding to the article on Sleep that while science believe it is a physiological process, some people think the Sandman comes at night. Or how about the article on Biological reproduction adding something about how science believes its about genes being brought together in new combinations, some people believe babies are actually brought down chimneys by storks. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If something like 40% of Americans believed it, yes.—John.Conway 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
But science isn't a democracy. Not everyone gets to vote. The only people who matter are the scientists who study these things and get their work published in the scientific literature where other scientists can critique it. The fact that 40% of Americans are so ill-informed and unable to grasp basic scientific principles like evolution and biostratigraphy shouldn't colour a non-fiction body of work like Wikipedia. I respect that others have religious beliefs and don't go editing the pages on religious events and characters by making sections about how the stories are all made up and such-and-such a miracle is scientifically impossible. I'd expect the relgious Wikipedia editors to extend the same courtesy to scientific articles. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Serious, we don't need any claims about the divinity of Jesus in articles about Judaism just because a majority of Americans believe it to be the case. Debivort 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, I know the old mantras about science not being a democracy--that's not what this is about. It is made abundantly clear that the creationist view isn't scientific in the article. Most significant science articles have small sections devoted to the social context of that science, and rightly so; science does not exist in a vacuum, and people may be reading the article a variety of reasons. The creationist stance on dinosaurs is a noteworthy social context (as I said, something like 40% of American believe it).
Also, there are several articles on religious subjects that contain scientific criticism: shroud of Turin and other artefacts, Virgin Birth, etcetera. Science doesn't "own" dinosaurs, and religion doesn't own claims of the miraculous. —John.Conway 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Percentage of Americans who believe in the following
Belief in psychic/spiritual healing: 56 (54)
Belief in ESP: 28 (50)
Haunted houses: 40 (42)
Demonic possession: 40 (41)
Ghosts/spirits of the dead: 39 (38)
Telepathy: 24 (36)
Extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past: 17 (33)
Clairvoyance and prophecy: 24 (32)
Communication with the dead: 16 (28)
Astrology: 17 (28)
Witches: 26 (26)
Reincarnation: 14 (25)
Channeling: 10 (15)
In other words, Americans believe in a lot of pseudo or junk science. And moreover, since this article must take a world view, 40% of Americans is an insignificant minority of the world. Most residents of other countries understand and accept Evolution, along with the fact that Dinosaurs are 10's of millions of years old. Just because a minority of Americans believe in demonic possession and don't believe in Evolution means the USA will have a minority of uneducated individuals who will probably never provide leadership in medicine, biological research, infectious disease, etc. etc. Orangemarlin 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Americans are not the only creationists -- I don't know what the worldwide statistics would be, but I'm guessing with Islamic creationists, it is significant number. The issue is high-profile and public. I think it's a noteworthy social context of dinosaurs. At least as notable as anything in the pop-culture section, which also isn't scientific! —John.Conway 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Curiously though, evolution is an issue primarily in the American Protestant tradition. The Catholic Church hasn't a problem with evolution and doesn't subscribe to the literal description of Genesis, i.e., the whole six-days thing. Essentially it teaches that while God put the soul into Man, evolution was the mechanism that God set in play to produce (eventually) the physical body of Man. I have no problem with that. Even as a scientist, there's clearly a difference between Man and Ape, and if you want to call that "a soul" then fine. The Church of England teaches something similar. As I understand it, the Islamic tradition is not that clearly defined and not terribly significant in modern Islam. Muslims are more concerned with practical things (politics, law, culture); esoteric things like dinosaurs really don't enter into the discussion. Certainly within liberal Islam, evolution is taken as read, provided the "specialness" of Man's soul is respected. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it always makes me smile when someone compares American fundamentalists to Islamic fundamentalists. There's no difference in my opinion, except we have a constitution that keeps the American ones mostly in check. It isn't noteworthy, because it's not science, it's faith, that is believing in a supernatural being or possibly green aliens from who knows where. And the reason the Shroud of Turin is criticized is because once someone claims it's real, then the world of science gets to study it. You can't use science to show that a supernatural being put dinosaurs on earth, so why discuss it? Orangemarlin 15:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"It isn't noteworthy, because it's not science(...)" -- There goes most of the Wikipedia then, let's start the purge! Seriously, the Wikipedia isn't only about science, it's also about documenting people's beliefs and a huge range of other subjects. The non-scientific beliefs of creationists are noteworthy because they are high-profile, have cultural and political significance, and are held by a large number of people. — John.Conway 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You took my quote out of context. It's not noteworthy as a part of this article, because this article is about science not about faith-based beliefs in something that is scientifically untestable. Dinosaurs may have died in the biblical flood, they may be the Loch Ness Monster, or they may have been around since humans were, but those are all myths, and they aren't science. I love reading about the Loch Ness Monster, but I know it doesn't exist. I love reading about Dinosaurs, but I know the wealth of sciences of Evolution, Biology, Paleontology, Geology, etc. confirm their existence up until about 75 million years ago. I will read and edit articles about people's beliefs, including a whole article about what religions believe about Dinosaurs. That's fun. Orangemarlin 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for their replies to my suggestion. I've given a lot of thought to the particualr points made by Spawn Man and Firsfron of Ronchester. While the inclusion of this section in the article still rankles, I can see now that it might well be the lesser of two evils. In the interest of protecting other articles I would be willing to reverse my stance, and let the section stand as-is. Thanks again to everyone for taking the time and trouble to address this issue. Doc Tropics 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like that issue is resolved, then, and I'd like to thank you again for remaining civil and thinking it through. :) Just a few loose ends to tie up--much of the above comments went way off-topic, and started to debate between the actual two views (in favor of evolution as fact and creationism as pseudoscience; myths, etc). That's a great topic to debate, if both sides are willing to be open-minded about it, but doesn't belong here (I'd just point out that creationists believe the same thing in reverse so that argument would go in circles--i.e. that evolution is pseudoscience). If any of you are curious about that and willing to approach it as "truth seeking debate", feel free to bring it up on my talk page. :) Here, we need to focus simply on meeting the neutral point of view requirements, which the current version largely does. Glad we seem to agree on that.
Lastly, a few people brought up the scientific relevance point again. The subject of this article is "Dinosaurs", not "Scientific Views of Dinosaurs." The article currently includes historical, cultural, and entertainment views of dinosaurs, as well as religious views. As it should, because those are quite simply aspects of the subject "Dinosaur." Let's not get so mired in debate we lose sight of what this page is, heh. Even if it was a scientific-only article, it would need to include a small section about dissenting scientific views such as Creationism, and we would need a new page to focus on Dinosaurs in general, so that's not relevant here. Obviously that's important in terms of undue weight, but not in terms of the existence of the section, as the NPOV policy makes clear. :) --Bonesiii 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. First, I don't think I've placed a single edit in this article, unless it was to revert some vandalism. I only participated in the discussion because articles such as this should not be burdened with undue weight given to subtopics. Cultural views, such as describing movies, do not lend weight nonscientific outlooks to the evolution and extinction of Dinosaurs. A religious view, if given undue weight, would make it appear that there are significant number of people who dispute the evolution of dinosaurs. However, a small section that represents in a neutral manner, how certain religions view dinosaurs evolution and extinction would be all right. But here's where the problem occurs. Which religion? The largest Christian religion, Roman Catholics, have no problem with evolution in general and with dinosaurs in particular. We Jews, lacking a centralized dogma, probably have no view whatsoever (save for a few really strict Orthodox sects). Hindus, Shintos, Buddhists probably have no view whatsoever. We tried to discuss all those viewpoints in the original article, Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, and it had to be reworked to a Creationist version. Well, Creationists are a small portion of both Christians and other religions. By writing this section, how can it be done in a NPOV manner, unless it is very specifically written as the perspective of fundamental Christians in the USA, or by spending tons of bandwidth to give equal weight to every religion. It doesn't belong here, except in broad strokes, and it then references other articles on Evolution and Creationism. By the way, as it is written now, it's perfectly fine. Orangemarlin 20:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I wasn't getting you wrong. :) Just felt that needed to be clarified, since others besides you brought it up. Not totally sure I followed all you said in this post though [Edit: You clarified. Thanks. :)] We are essentially agreeing that the current very short section in this article on religious views fits undue weight well, correct? And that the linked article needs to present summaries of a wide range of religious views, right? (As it seems to do, mostly, but that's a subject for a different talk page, heh.) --Bonesiii 20:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Wording of "scientific scrutiny" issue, continued
No, it's not resolved (nor is it fine, really, sorry OM), the section reads as a nonsensical fabel now. "Mainstream science" -- as opposed to what? YEC science that isn't science? Creation science which is not science either? Opposed to some guy with a degree in cosmology who calls himself a scientist, doesn't know how to spell biology but pretends to be an expert on the subject? Enough with the pandering to religious beliefs: I don't care (and neither does Wikipedia, really) whether you think a god created the dinosaurs, whether the dinosaurs created the gods, whether the dinosaurs were gods or any variation thereof. This article is about scientific fact (note the little taxonomic box), not about the mythoi of various religions. Enough already. •Jim62sch• 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jim62sch. I suggest you read the previous discussions on the current wording above, and please read the WP:NPOV policy. The current version is designed to fit NPOV, which is why the term "mainstream" was used (a term that said scientists generally use to describe themselves). As opposed to YEC, yes, as well as OEC, and many specifically religious views. This is all made clear in the current section, and in the article it links to. :)
Also, as to your insulting approach later in your reply, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. :) And please keep in mind WP:TIGER as well. You obviously agree with the evolution view of this issue; but as editors, we must be careful not to write pages from that bias. Also, as I said above, the article is about "Dinosaurs." --Bonesiii 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim was civil. You guys need to read some of the Creation vs. Evolution discussion if you want uncivil. Orangemarlin 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry Jim, I reread it, and I agree that it was weasel worded. Mainstream scientists? OK, so 99.6% of scientists disagree with Creationism, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that mainstream=every freaking scientist in the world!!! Orangemarlin 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
OM, did you read the previous discussion on this? That point was addressed... --Bonesiii 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with saying "every freaking scientist in the world" is that there are these self-styled "scientists" who hold many advanced degrees from diploma mills/made up institutions who dispute evolutionary theory. These folks are NOT scientists, but it is difficult to make a NPOV claim that they are not scientists. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
They are scientists, plain and simple. Let's not mince words here, guys. They simply are not evolutionists. If you define "science" as evolutionism, then sure, they aren't scientists, but that's circular reasoning. --Bonesiii 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Fake diplomas don't count, Bonsiii. But this conversation is getting off-topic... Firsfron of Ronchester 21:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it was not addressed, not sufficiently.
I suggest, while we're on the suggestion kick, that you read undue weight. I think you'll find that unless you can prove a minority of say even 1% of real biologists/zoologists/paleontologists (the only scientists who matter to this discussion) who actually believe a hypothesis based on mythology, the verbiage you want is a fringe view that need not be represented at all. Otherwise, it's just utter nonsense; and no, I don't give a tinker's cuss whether or not the benighted American public believes otherwise. •Jim62sch• 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not about whether you personally give a tinker's cuss or not. It's about conforming to the NPOV policy. Yes, including undue weight. Please read the previous discussions; undue weight was already discussed. --Bonesiii 21:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Bonesii, yes, I understand what was above. But every time I read something like "mainstream" I recall that I'm not mainstream on lots of issues. For example, I might have been the only US Navy officer that was a Deadhead. So mainstream implies to me that there is an alternative view that just hasn't been accepted. At one time, the KT extinction by a big freaking asteroid (sorry couldn't resist) was not very mainstream. The alternative view in the case of dinosaurs is Creationism, and mainstream in this case means just about everyone. And Firsfron...don't get me started. LOL. Isn't Hovind in jail? Orangemarlin 21:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, to begin with, I did not expect there to objections to "mainstream", since it is a word used by evolutionists and the media often to describe themselves. If that word does come across as objectionable, I am fine with that. Just reverting back to the worse version as per NPOV doesn't really solve the issue, though, does it? I've asked for better suggestions than "mainstream" but nobody so far has suggested any. --Bonesiii 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
WTF is an "evolutionist." Is that a word? Orangemarlin 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason you don't know the word evolutionist is because no self-respecting evolutionist would call himself an evolutionist. We just call ourselves "biologists". Sheep81 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
More like, what friggin' "evolutionist" calls himself a "mainstream evolutionist"? "Hi, I'm a non-mainstream evolutionist who believes we evolved from space critters". "You're a Raelian". "Oh, OK." •Jim62sch• 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody used the phrase "mainstream evolutionist", Jim. It was "mainstream scientific community", a phrase often used by those within that community to describe itself, and used by the media often to describe it. --Bonesiii 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No actual scientist would use "mainstream scientific community" when referring to himself and his colleagues, except to contrast it with the pseudosciences on the fringe. And even then, to the scientist, it would just be a PC way to say "the real scientific community." Among scientists, it would just be "scientific community" because it would be understood that the pseudoscientists aren't doing actual science and so wouldn't be included. Just like a NASA historian wouldn't need to describe himself as a "mainstream space historian" except to contrast himself with moon-landing-hoax conspiracy theorists. On his resume he just writes "space historian" (or whatever the actual term would be, if there is one).
And who cares what the media uses to refer to things. If we relied on the media to name things, woolly mammoths and Dimetrodon would be dinosaurs and whales would be fish. Sheep81 03:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And for the fact that "evolutionist" is considered a pejorative term, because it really is defined as a "belief" in evolution as much as there is a belief in G_d. I don't believe in Evolution, and I don't accept Evolution because of faith, opinion, conviction--I accept Evolution as a fact, because it has been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, because of the substantial proof, and because a lot of people smarter than I have studied and accepted it. Evolution is not a doctrine, it is not a dogma, and it does not require faith to accept. Therefore, I am a scientist by trade, by education and by lifestyle. Evolutionist means nothing to me, and is not a word that any scientist would use to describe their understanding of that particular field of science. Orangemarlin 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You're getting quite a bit off-topic here, OM. If you want to bring up evolution as fact/theory, I'm happy to debate that, but it's off-topic here (if you bring it up on my talk page, I'll be happy to explain where I disagree, and why my disagreement comes from what I consider proof as well--I'm open minded enough to consider that I may be wrong and if so I want to know about it!). The issue at hand is that the statement that the views "do not withstand scientific scrutiny" is a POV statement that dismisses the existence of the scientific theories that have been inspired by the religious views. Specifically, Young Earth Creationist theories about dinosaurs. In the view of these YECs, their views do withstand scientific scrutiny. Therefore, the old version of the statement has a POV problem. That was what the newer version was intended to fix. Do you have a better suggestion as to how to solve this issue? --Bonesiii 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, here's a suggestion. Since the objectionable word was "mainstream", I think NPOV can still be served if we simply remove that word: "However, the scientific community does not accept these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs." To refer to the "scientific community" still refers to the mainstream scientists, and since we all agree they are almost all, if not all, evolutionists (meaning they accept evolution, whether as fact or as theory--we do agree on that even if we don't all like the label, correct?), that still makes it clear who holds the opinion, rather than stating it as a fact. I'd say that's acceptable within NPOV. Thoughts? --Bonesiii 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't have a problem with that sentence. Sheep81 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It works for me, too (but I didn't have a problem with "mainstream scientists", either, as it was clear there was a comparison between the mainstream and the Fundamentalists). I also didn't see (and still don't see) a problem with the original wording, but this strikes me as a decent compromise, and there should be room for compromise on a collaborative effort such as this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly... it's a compromise that marvelously doesn't concede anything. The spirit of the sentence is there, the link to scientific method is there, and the only change is that the sentence makes clear that the statement is from the POV of scientific community, which... duh. Sheep81 06:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The sentence as it currently stands is fine (as of 6:57 AM EDT). Compromise for the sake of assuaging someone's feelings regarding their religious beliefs is essentially equivalent to compromising the integrity of the article. The simple fact of the matter is that the claims made by creationists petending to be scientists fall apart when looked at. Religious beliefs are all well and good, but a true scientist does not allow his religious beliefs to interfere with his science: they are mutually exclusive in that the former has no basis in logic, reason, empirical data, etc., (no matter how much Aquinas and pthers have tried) and cannot be falsified, and the latter is based on all of those and can be falsified.
Mainstream is an adjective that adds nothing, but in a sneaky way attempts to bring a patina of credibility to pseudoscientists. Whether it is used by the media or not is essentially irrelevant -- once the media get a hold of a buzz-word, euphemism, "politically-correct" idiom, etc., they use it forever as it becomes an automatic phatic noise bereft of true meaning, but full of obfuscation. •Jim62sch• 10:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to the above replies. Jim--you seem to approach this every time as if it's a "feelings" debate. It's not; it's about trying to get the section to fit NPOV. I am a logician, not an emotionalist. The objection I have raised with the original wording is based on the NPOV policy. If that policy did not exist, I would not raise objections, and in neither case are my "feelings" being hurt. It sounds as if, no offense, "integrity of the article", to you, isn't based on Wikipedia policies?
I can understand what you're saying about the word "mainstream", though (especially the media point). That word is removed in the version I'm asking about, though. What did you think of the new version?
About "religious belief", that's a fascinating belief, and I can easily point out where you're missing the boat, but it's off topic here. If you're interested in that subject, I'm planning to actually post my reasoning on my user page, so I can help avoid this sort of off-topic discussion in the future. We shouldn't be debating which of the two views is best here; we should be debating how best to make the article fit the NPOV policy.
BTW, I'll hold off a while before putting in the new version, in case others want to weigh in. --Bonesiii 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see the objection you raise as being a logical one. In fact, you've done a very good job of parroting the creationist and theist stance that is seen on Wikipedia all too often. The sentence as it is in the article at this moment is quite NPOV: it states a very simple fact very clearly, although I can't for the life of me see why this topic needs to be discussed in this article.
I would suggest you move this "new version" of which you speak to this part of the talk page so it is available for all to see.
Not missing any boat dude, although I do so look forward to reading your reasoning on your user page. BTW, the item was not off-topic, it speaks to the need to even have that section in the article (and I'm not the first person to raise this issue). •Jim62sch• 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're reffering to with "for all to see"? Have you been following this conversation?
Also, it may be worth pointing out that I am a logician; and while I'm certainly fallible as well, I am confident that the logic behind my objection is sound. Think about it--if the majority view thinks creationism (or other religious views) do not withstand scientific scrutiny, but creationists think their views do withstand it, then a Wikipedia article needs to make sure it allows for the possibility of the minority view. Undue weight, to me, means that view doesn't need to be a part of this statement; it's a two-sentence section, let's face it. However, while the majority view needs to be present, it must be attributed to those who hold it, rather than stated as a universal fact. That's what my rewording is designed to do. Do you disagree?
Here's the newest proposed version again, in case that's what you meant about "for all to see". I'll just quote the whole comment, in case you missed it:
Actually, here's a suggestion. Since the objectionable word was "mainstream", I think NPOV can still be served if we simply remove that word: "However, the scientific community does not accept these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs." To refer to the "scientific community" still refers to the mainstream scientists, and since we all agree they are almost all, if not all, evolutionists (meaning they accept evolution, whether as fact or as theory--we do agree on that even if we don't all like the label, correct?), that still makes it clear who holds the opinion, rather than stating it as a fact. I'd say that's acceptable within NPOV. Thoughts?
Remember I'm asking about this in terms of fitting WP:NPOV. What is your take on this?
(Oh, and a preliminary draft of that essay has been added to my user page, though please note the vast majority of citing is not in it yet, nor is it anywhere near complete. Note again that this is off-topic; please discuss on my talk page, not here.) --Bonesiii 23:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember, NPOV is not a legal right to put bogus science in articles, to add weight to a minority opinion (and when we say minority, we mean less than 0.5%), to quote bogus polling like science should be run like politics, and to make anyone think that there is one tiny nanogram of proof that dinosaurs died out at the K-T Extinction event 65.5 million years ago (save for one forlorn hadrosaur femur that probably eroded into a higher sedimentary layer). I'm glad we dumped mainstream since it does imply something other than total, absolute scientific consensus on the dates of dinosaur existence. Orangemarlin 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh one more thing. I completely and utterly dismiss the use of "evolutionist" as a word to describe any scientist, myself included. See above. Orangemarlin 01:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah one more one more thing. Bonesiii, even though I completely disagree with your viewpoint, I appreciate your civility and logical discussion about this contentious subject. But, I still think you have it wrong. :) Orangemarlin 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, looks like that's three in favor of the new version and none opposing. Was hoping Jim would reply either way, but there doesn't seem to be a sign of him for now... If there are no last-minute objections, I'll add that in shortly.
Off-topic: Thanks, OM. And I can say the same to you and Firsfron and several others; thanks for being civil and logical about this (even though I still think you have it wrong). Back on topic, to clarify the context NPOV and undue weight was being brought up in: Since this article is not only a science article, the percentage of American public is relevant (and other countries; UK and Australia would be noteworthy, also noting that this is the English version of Wikipedia and those are English speaking countries), as a cultural/religious side of Creationist views of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs' newfound popularity among these groups is why, as I'm understanding it, this discussion is happening on this page and not many others. NPOV's section barring bias against religious views is where this comes into play, although we do agree that in this actual article undue weight means a mere two sentences is about as much detail as is deserved here. :) (You may have known all that already, just reviewing for the record.)
Finally, another off-topic note, I'd be interested in any takes you have on my Origins Essay. The last entry so far under "Problems with Evolution" addressed the "evolutionist" issue, incidentally. In general, you seem quite convinced by the theory (enough to call it fact), and since as a logician I'm bound to admit my mistakes and wanting to find the truth above all, I have to consider that I may indeed be wrong. If so, I wanna know why. :) In general though, on these worldview issues, it's best to just agree to disagree, so don't take it as a challenge or anything; it's totally up to you. (Same request to any other evolutionist/supporter of evolution, BTW.) Anyways... now I'm starting to ramble, lol. Wiedersehen... --Bonesiii 02:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look at your essay. But back to undue weight. I'm guessing maybe 2 billion people can read the English version of this article with a technical skill. That does not include the 100 million Americans whose education is so lacking (or they are less than 5 years old) that they cannot point to Europe on a map. Most English-speaking peoples are not Christian, are not Creationists, and probably know that Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Only in the US is there anything close to a group of people so enamored of a supernatural being creating anything. 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I read it...I missed the logic though, unless it was, to paraphase, "God exists, science is wrong". Anyway, this is not the place for rebuttal. •Jim62sch• 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Kids and their parents are the big audience - why not simplify???
There is NO need to talk about endothermic - use English instead. The same should be done throughout the article. Believe me, the researchers are not the audience - the kids are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.31.22607:27, May 17, 2007 (talk)
Why not? It's not the responsibility of the editors to write to the lowest possible denominator. And the last time I checked, endothermic is a perfectly fine English word. Orangemarlin 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Besides, if it was written for researchers, you'd use those better terms, such as homeothermy and poikilothermy, that describe specific concepts rather more accurately. As a former high school biology teacher, I would also add that within GCSE and A-level biology in the UK, the terms "cold blooded" and "warm blooded" are deprecated, and the children are expected to use (at the least) endothermic and ectothermic instead. At least, if they want to get full marks in an exam. Dumbing down doesn't help, and teaches children bad habits as well as encouraging a certain laziness of thinking. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And we don't "dumb down" articles anyway. There's a Simple English Wikipedia which uses very simple words. We don't do that on this edition. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The standard for writing articles on this version of WP is that they should be understandable to a high school senior. While schools vary significantly in quality, it doesn't seem like a big stretch to think that most seniors would have an adequate vocabulry to make it through this article. As for the younger ones with a strong interest in the subject, I suspect that they will either understand it as written, or they will eagerly look words up in a dictionary until they do; those kids tend to have the kind of thirsty minds that just soak up new knowledge (a trait I grow more and more envious of as my aging brain slows down). Doc Tropics 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well Doc, this just continues our conversation we had about the editor who couldn't even insult me properly. LOL. Orangemarlin 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh heh, indeed. We can only hope that most of the readers are brighter than certain of the editors : ) Doc Tropics 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
About once a month, a perfectly reasonable editor will drop by the Evolution article and ask to dumb it down. The answers were a lot less nice and assume a lot less good faith than the answers above. :) Orangemarlin 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
God forbid we teach a kid (or his parents) a new word!!! Sheep81 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has occured numerous times in the Wikiproject Dinosaurs talk page, (Sheepy, you should know. :)) & we've generally decided that text elvel should be at least at a highschool level. Words which are harder to understand must either be linked, have an explaining sentence (EG, Feline, the proper name for a cat) or be replaced with an easier to explain sentence or word. Most of the time, the word is replaced by a simpler meaning, but when this can't be done as there is no substitute, then a link is given & possibly a (bracketed) aside. This allows investigation if you really really want to know what endothermic means without compromising the integrity of the artcile. Spawn Man 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we replace the whole article with one paragraph:
Wow, those dinosaurs sure were big! And they lived a long time ago! Some of them ate plants, and others ate meat, but not before apologizing. Some of the coolest dinosaurs were T-Rex and Triceratops. They were really good at sharing and never had fights. But if they did, T-Rex would totally win. Maybe dinosaurs were warm-blooded, or maybe they were cold-blooded. We don't know for sure! What color were dinosaurs? We don't know that either! Use your imagination, kids!
If you fancy seeing the opposite end of things, stop by Static electricity. I'm a smart guy, but I have no idea what that article is about. For any kid or non-scientist curious why balloons stick to ceilings or what the connection (if any) between static and lightning is, this article is basically useless. The actual subsection entitled 'Static' electricity is almost funny. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Language that which was to be from translated mess that? That part of the article resembles English, but it sure as hell misses the mark! •Jim62sch• 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow! That's pretty bad; it's certainly overly technical. But my favorite part is the random sentence inserted about the bees. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you pointed us to the Pig Latin version of Wikipedia. Orangemarlin 02:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
"arge-chay eutralization-nay". If I didn't already have some notion what it was talking about, I sure wouldn't after reading it. Cheez. But, rather than "dumb down", can I suggest as a standard (if not actual policy) define or explain the technical terms early on, then use the technical terms for accuracy (& brevity!) afterward. rekphiler-tay 11:16 & 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean the way normal publications do? What a novel idea! :) •Jim62sch• 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Dinos for Hire?
OK, so they weren't as big as X-Men; why'd the ref to the title get pulled? Trekphiler 11:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (If anybody cares {doesn't seem likely...}, Lorenzo wore a Bernard Goetz Fan Club tee...)
probably the same same reason the human article doesn't list every fictional series about humans. --Philip Laurence 11:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You obviously haven't seen the trivia sections in some articles... Trekphiler 11:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Others obviously aren't. And I wasn't really serious, anyhow. You'll note I didn't restore a reference (despite being a fan) for fear of triggering (now there's an appropriate word...) an edit war by Creationists for Gun Control... Trekphiler 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a separate Dinosaurs in popular culture link that you are more than welcome to post that on if it's not already there. We have been trying to just keep a few major titles on the main dino article. Sheep81 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The trivia sections in most articles are an abomination, a blight upon the Internet, and probably make people think (rightly so?) that most of Wikipedia is run by trivia-obsessed fans of obscure TV series. I'd erase every trivia/pop culture section if I could and replace it with only "culture" sections that list really, really well-known or culturally relevent (or, like encyclopaedic) entries. But that's just me ;) Dinoguy2 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sort of funny that out of thousands of articles, the Tyrannosaurus in popular culture article is the 18th longest dinosaur related article in the Project! Sheep81 03:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Trivia/Pop culture
OK folks, you're all too good to be reverting each other, let's slug it out here like good wikipedians. I'll stand by with a first-aid kit : ) Doc Tropics 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have skin like Godzilla and don't need your silly human first aid kit, Doc. ;)
Seriously, the whole section is trivia. It is useless and adds nothing to anyone's understanding of dinosaurs. It should really be a see also. •Jim62sch• 21:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Did I see the puppy placing the tag? I'm staying out of this discussion, no good will come of it. I'll just get bitten. IMHO, trivia has it's place, but maybe there should be a POV fork to Dinosaurs and popular culture or something of the such. Because if I'm going to list out every dinosaur thing, I want the Loch Ness Monster included. :) Orangemarlin 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it trivia to say that trivia does exist, and that we keep it somewhere else? That's about all that section says to me. J. Spencer 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure why the King Kong reference was removed, and I've replaced it; although Kong was a primate, the movie features several dinosaurs and other prehistoric reptiles in iconic battles with the great ape: Image:Kong vs T-Rex.jpg, and many of the sequels also pitted him against dinosaurs. The person who removed the sentence as "inaccurate" hasn't seen or is misremembering the movie, which is quite frustrating, as it would be for someone to remove Jurassic Park as "inaccurate because it didn't have dinosaurs" either. As far as the trivia tag goes, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles states "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic." That clearly isn't the case here, and the article mentions specific non-trivial instances of when dinosaurs have appeared in popular culture, with a relevant introduction: in other words, it's already been incorporated into the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, Rochesterman, I had already reverted myself on Kong. Check the history. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Firs, I think the point is that given the nature of the article, what is essentially a minor list of dinosaur movies/references does not add much to the article. I remember reading it for the first time, and the section came out of nowhere. There's an article I've been editing Noah's Ark (don't even ask how many times someone tries to put dinosaurs on that ark), where we've consigned all the movie references to not be in the article. We even watch over the links to keep out garbage. I think we should move it somewhere else. Orangemarlin 21:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Where might we move a section on iconic uses of dinosaurs, OM? Certainly we have a seperate article for less iconic movies, but Dinosaur is supposed to be a Featured Article, representative of the most comprehensive articles on Wikipedia: if we neglect to mention, say, Jurassic Park, and the influence that series has had on public perception of dinosaurs, then the article really isn't comprehensive, and isn't a Featured Article. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So how about we remove just the second paragraph? It's fair to state, properly referenced, that dinosaurs appear in a lot of media. J. Spencer 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Firs, valid point, I admit. Although Jurassic Park may be iconic for Dinosaurs, it had enough mistakes that it really doesn't represent Dinosaurs accurately. And I don't even want to discuss getting DNA out of fossilized amber. I think references to pop culture, in what is a scientific article, should be "below the line" meaning "See also". Orangemarlin 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: Remove the section, add Dinos in Pop culture to See also. That way, a featured article does not have this trivia section, and those who are interested in the trivia can go read the Pop culture article. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can label something "trivia", even if it's not: the fact that dinosaurs have appeared in popular culture since the name Dinosauria was coined isn't trivial. Dinosaurs have become an important part of our culture, and that is what this section is saying. Further, the link between pop culture and science is reciprocal: the Jurassic Park film is credited with helping to bring to light the dinosaur genus Scipionyx.[1]Firsfron of Ronchester 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Without starting up humungous crap storm, I'd love to do the same thing with that Creationist POV section too. But I might be overreaching there. Orangemarlin 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a fringe view so, maybe it could stay (the creationist blather I mean), but I wouldn't cry if it were removed. In any case, it certainly could be shortened.
As for the Pop Culture section: yep, as a see also, and while refs have been added, the fact that it's trivia does not change. •Jim62sch• 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) That's similar to what I wanted to suggest: moving the links (like The Lost World, King Kong and Godzilla) to the See Also section. However, the first paragraph of Pop Culture contains some good prose that could be incorporated into the main article, possibly near, or even part of, the intro. While I dislike Trivia and Pop Culture sections in general, this one is at least concise, accurate, and well written. That puts it way ahead of the curve in comparison...Doc Tropics 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflicts) That is a one-line, well balanced summary which I see no issue with, myself. Trivia is something else - and "in pop culture" is a euphemism for trivia. Spencer, if you have sources, I suggest you add them to the Pop culture article - it is currently unsourced. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to OM's point: the religious beliefs section is superfluously redundant and pleonastic. I suggest the following:
Various religious groups have views about dinosaurs that differ from those held by scientists.[1][2], usually due to conflicts with creation stories in their scriptures. •Jim62sch• 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Back to a point Firs made: This is a Featured Article, and as such we should make changes only after careful deliberation, and only if there is a strong consensus to do so. Acting in haste could jeopardize the FA status, and I know that none of us here want that. Doc Tropics 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was trying to put across, Doc. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with removing a pop culture section, and have done so with several dinosaur articles where people tacked non-notable crap on to the end. However, in THIS article, I support keeping it in some form. Dinosaurs are intricately intertwined with culture and their relationship with human culture is highly, highly notable (much more so than say, like "Albertosaurus was featured in the game Jurassic Park Janitor III: Killer Koprolites!"). Every child dreams of dinosaurs and wants to be a paleontologist for at least five minutes somewhere along the line. People use the word "dinosaur" in everyday conversation even for things unrelated to dinosaurs! Dinosaurs are a major part of some of the most iconic movies ever made. While we don't need to list every action figure or video game that was ever made (and we will have to actively KEEP those references out), if some mention is not made of the way dinosaurs have captured human imagination from the very beginning, that makes this article non-comprehensive and in violation of Featured article criterion 1(b).
Sheep has made some excellent points. (Must be the inherent intelligence of non-primate mammels on 'teh internets', eh?) IMO, the section does not inform about dinosaurs at all, hence is more appropriate as a "see also". However, it appears consensus is leaning slightly that the brief section with the {{main}} tag stay. Is this worth discussing further, or no? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote the section to be more than a glorified list of cultural references, instead attempting to detail the historical rise in popularity of dinosaurs and some of its manifestations. And also, importantly, to show that dinosaur popularity has ALSO reciprocally affected dinosaur science. Sheep81 20:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I have only 2 very minor quibbles with Sheep's changes, otherwise I think it's quite an improvement.
I think the section header should remain "Dinos in Pop Culture" (instead of the truncated "Dinso in culture), because this seems both more accurate, and more consistent with other articles throughout WP.
The text about how popularity has affected dino science is good, but should probably be cited. now cited, looks great
Aside from those little points, I think it looks good enough to eat keep. Doc Tropics 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, yay? :) Sheep has now added citations, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have known he'd be thorough enough that I needn't mention it. I really (really, really) enjoy working with professionals : ) Doc Tropics 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's beautiful, Sheep. You know, I think it was a drive-by rather than a regular editor of this article who originally added the trivia tag that got this discussion going, but it really has resulted in a big improvement in the article, don't you think? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was a rogue bot; the owner has fixed the problem which caused it to tag so many articles. but this certainly is an improvement, yes. Of course it would be Sheep that wrote it. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Some of it was already there! Sheep81 21:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I hate 80% of the trvia sections on dinosaur articles & probably other articles too. Unless it's a biggy like T rex, or Triceratops etc, I feel if it's obviously not adding anything to the article, out it should go. However, I do agree that featured articles should be left alone unless discussed thouroughly before editing - they're featured for a reason & for God's sake, deleting Dinosaur's trivia section? It's a bit extreme & as I said, it has a bunch of trivia etc that should be kept for an article of its popularity. To put it more simply - Big=Trivia okay, Little=Trivia bad, Featured Article=Discussion first etc etc... Cheers, Spawn Man 02:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC) ;)
Honestly, this here is about as good as you can do a pop culture section, and frankly, I don't see the trivia part to it. I was brought up to regard trivia as pointless minutae, things like Captain Kirk's shirt size and how many times The Beatles played Get Back on January 29th, 1969. This, though, is a quick overview of an inescapable fact of dinosaurs: that people like to represent them in various forms of media. The article would not be comprehensive without recognizing this. How many of us came to love dinosaurs because of their power and evocative traits? If people didn't find dinosaurs fascinating, I doubt the list of dinosaurs would be full, or that any of us would be editing their articles except out of an OCD-like dedication to taxonomic completeness. How many brachiopod article are there? J. Spencer 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Links
Having spent some quality time at the bottom reaches of the article because of the Trivia tag, I think that the links should be whittled down. It seems like there's a lot of redundancy in the types of sites, and the technical sites are getting out of date. J. Spencer 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please point out which ones are bad and then we can discuss it. •Jim62sch• 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd taken out a couple, but I reverted myself so we could do this more systematically. The categories are slipping a bit, and were probably always a bit arbitrary in "technical" versus "popular". Also, there's some hyperbole in some descriptions which should be removed. It's hard to point out just particulars, because we have several that are compendiums of genera, or are compendiums of current news. Ideally, we'd only have the cream, but we have to decide that.
A few that stand out as problematic:
Planet Dinosaur A very extensive site regarding dinosaur information.
me: a very extensive site with little information, but a nice dinoart section.
There are also better choices for some topics: for example, the image section should probably have a link to the Dinosauricon's galleries (the only things working there, really) and to a skeletal illustration site like Scott Hartman's or the Grave Yard. The Dinosaur Encyclopaedia is notably missing, and Dino Russ' Lair, whic hosts it, is a good choice for a place to find other links. J. Spencer 22:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If any section of this article needs a revamp, it is the links section. Thank you for proposing this, J. The Dinosaur Encyclopedia would make a better reference than some of those listed above, though I think some pages are out of date... and why the heck is Old Dinosaur Books in there? I think you are perhaps too modest to mention it, but a link to Thescelosaurus! might be a good idea. The weird Mirror Universe/Scale thinky link can certainly go. Did you go thru these a few months back? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that all 4 of the links JS specified could be either deleted or replaced. Links are supposed to add content, and those don't really make the grade. Doc Tropics 22:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I did go through it briefly at the beginning of the year when we were fixing dead links, and Thesc is there, in the middle of a section (and it feels odd to have outlasted Dinosauria.com, the Dinosauricon, and a registration-free Dinodata). The Dinosaur Encyclopaedia is version 4.0, and is good for everything up until 1999. J. Spencer 22:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Aw, man, this is positively dino-kitsch! I had this book, back in the late 70s/early 80s (actually, I remember several of these). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Notice how none of those books mention how many years ago dinosaurs were around? Creationist pandering even then. Orangemarlin 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Firs, have you forgiven me for sending you over to the Living dinosaurs article? I'm not sure that article should ever link over here. Orangemarlin 23:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Bwah! There's nothing to forgive: the article is in terrible shape, and needs improving (or deleting, or something). I'm not sure how I can even help it. It's clear you've cleaned a ton of things up, but it's still such a mess. Guess I'll have another go. Thanks for the reminder, OM. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry my friend. I hate that article with a passion. But then again, have you ever looked at the Loch Ness Monster? Orangemarlin 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, if you two are up to that kind of challenge, might I suggest every article in Category:Lake cryptids could use your gentle yet thorough attention? You could easily fill up your spare time until the winter solstice. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with Cryptozoology, and in fact wrote a lot of the Onza article long ago. The problem I have is that most of these Cryptid articles are speculation on speculation, which is a bad thing. I look at these articles, and I don't even know where to start, to try to improve them. And I don't even like touching the creation "science" articles. I feel dirty afterwards. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd get rid of most of those links if you're asking me. We should only have a few that are very general (since this is a general article), have good, accurate information, and that are kept up-to-date. Even the ones we do keep need to have POV captions altered or removed.
D.I.G can go, outdated. All of the paleoart sites there can go, to be replaced by the ones J suggested. The galleries Prehistorics Illustrated site don't work for me on Firefox, if they work for most people then keep that one I guess. Find Dinosaur Pictures rarely provides credit to the artist, which is lame. The third is one dinosaur artist's personal website, which is nice, but kinda too specific I think.
The Natural History Museum site is good. Dinosaur news is a decent source of news. The Dinosaur Lady talks almost entirely about mosasaurs, so it should go. "History of dinosaur discovery" is a professor's lecture notes and needs to go. The USGS site is just a series of basic questions, redundant to some of the other sites and not that great anyway so it should go. The BBC site isn't just about dinosaurs, and doesn't really have that much anyway aside from their documentaries. The UCMP site has a lot of information but is not updated frequently... should probably stay. "Fossilized dinosaurs in mid-battle" includes information on like 12 dinosaurs from Cretaceous Mongolia, far too specific for this general article, so it should go. LiveScience is a good popular website, keep it. The dinosaur books article really isn't of academic interest, so get rid of it.
"Putting dinosaurs noses back where they really were" isn't "technical" but a popular article about one bit of research from several years ago, so get rid of it. Prehistoric Planet isn't a technical site either, and parts of it appear to still be under construction, so it should go or at least move sections. Actually everything in the technical section should be axed, they're all news stories, except for Palaeontologia Electronica, keep that one.
Since we just deleted everything in the "Technical" section, let's just move the whole "Very technical" section into "Technical" and leave it at that. Dinobase from Bristol has a lot of inaccurate info and is redundant with some other sites. Keep DinoData. Dinosauria Online is getting ancient, but still useful (I use it sporadically)... however, this should link to the front of the website, not a page inside. Planet Dinosaur should be moved to the "Popular" section.
After that I would remove the whole last section and move it to the physiology article, or at least some of the links. Sheep81 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd support that. J. Spencer 03:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I went through the suggestions and did some work on the ol' link farm. How does it look now? J. Spencer 01:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks solid, it really needed pruning. I like! Sheep81 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thagomizer comic?
I removed the template for the wikiworld cartoon since the cartoon was taken directly from the thagomizer article, not this one. "Thagomizer" doesn't even appear in this article. Sheep81 01:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Erudite fiction
Back to an earlier discussion - I recently finished reading Hell Creek and really enjoyed it. As an earth scientist myself, I found the description of the late Cretaceous world to be very compelling and accurate. I would think Wikipedia would aim to not list any old dino book, but rather one that is real paleontology, real dinosaur science, written by scientists, and endorsed by paleontologists. So the question is this: if Wikipedia wants to direct visitors to a dinosaur novel on its page about dinosaurs, should that novel be "the most popular" or the most informative? Is the page meant to present accurate information, or is it to inform people about dinosaur pop-media? Because “Jurassic Park,” fun adventure though it be, makes no pretense at being in any way scientific; it's a great thriller novel. "Hell Creek," on the other hand, is directed at science outreach to the public: it is meant to teach the public about the Cretaceous. It isn't a question of listing all dinosaur books: there are a tiny handful of dinosaur novels that present accurate paleontology and are written to inform. Ecoscientist 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a tough one. My gut feeling is this is "dinosaurs in fiction", regardless of the motive. To take an analogy: imagine how you'd classify novels like Uncle Tom's Cabin or Great Expectations. Both were written to inform and to promote understanding of specific issues. Both have great value as reflections on how society worked when they were written. But neither are academic studies or primary reports of historical events. By the same token, however accurate Hell Creek might be, it's still a work of fiction. In the same way Uncle Tom's Cabin may tell us about slavery in the pre-Civil War United States, but it isn't actually documentary evidence of actual slaves or real events. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Something feels off here. Why have so many single-use accounts, four to this point, edited this talk page about including this novel? J. Spencer 18:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What's a single-use account? I posted a while ago in response to another posting about that novel (Hell Creek). It is a good science book. I think people are only responding to the idea that Jurassic Park is, well, let's just say a pretty sad choice for an encyclopedia page on dinosuars. No fiction would be best, but since Wiki wants to mention a work of fiction, there are informative dino novels. "Raptor Red" is another good choice. In any case, I think posters have the right to start a topic and respond to one already started, no? Peisal 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A bit broad, I suppose, but "single-use" in terms of editing only once to a few times in a single article or narrow range of articles, and on the same topic. Of course, anyone can edit to any article they want to (provided they haven't been blocked). J. Spencer 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I happen to have just finished reading it and thought I'd check what's been written under dinosaurs. Anyway, Chricton has some highly politicized views on some topics like global warming so I hate to see him always cited as a potential authority on scientific issues - part of my motivation for responding. Though I personally do enjoy reading some of his novels. Ecoscientist 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Where in this article has Crichton been cited as a potential "authority" on scientific issues? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Jurassic Park, a work of fiction, is cited in this article for its cultural significans only. If it is used in any other context, or implied to be an authority on any subject, such references should be removed on sight.
Hell Creek may be a good book, I'm not disputing that. I'm certain it's far more accurate than JP. But it is still fiction, and at this time it's cultural relevence is just about zero. Raptor Red, another fictional book about dinosaursm ore accurate than JP in many respects, and arguable more culturally relevent than Hell Creek, is similarly not mentioned. Ditto Walking With Dinosaurs. If Hell Creek were a non-fiction book, and presented a popular synthesis of research... well, I still don't know that i'd include it! We don't even mention The Dinosaur Heresies by name in the main article, and that's a far, far more seminal (though now slightly outdated) book for popular audiences. I don't understand the push to get this book mentioned, and I'm going to maintain an assumption of good faith by the users doing the pushing, but come on. You must understand why excluding all but the most culturally-ingrained fiction from a science article is the most appropriate way to go here. Now, if you want to add a mention of Hell Creek to the article on the Hell Creek Formation, well that's the definition of notability right there. Dinoguy2 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Heh, ironically, the hellcreek.org web site has a dino glossary, which lists under titanosaur pretty much every famous sauropod that is not one (plus Ultrasurus... yikes) ;) Has anyone read the book? Is it in fact more scientifically accurate than JP? The plot seems just as sci-fi. Dinoguy2 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, c'mon now... The Lost World, King Kong, Jurassic Park, and Hell Creek... one of these things is not like the others... Sheep81 07:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Correction: the dino glossary on www.hellcreek.org (I just looked it up) says that titanosaur is a sauropod, and that sauropods also include (list follows). It does not say that the listed sauropods are titanosaurs. I must strongly disagree with the statement that "excluding all but the most culturally-ingrained fiction from a science article" is the only way to go. I'm a scientist. Culturally-ingrained fiction has no place on a science page in an encyclopedia. By putting it there, you ARE saying that Crichton is a factual authority on dinosaurs. How many gullible high school kids, or adults for that matter, take the reference as such, since it appears on an information page? Not only that, but there's an active link to a page about Crichton and JP. Hm. Further, I see no "push" to get any book mentioned. I see only a few people who have picked up a new book commenting that it's far more appropriate on a science page than a book put there only because it's been read by the masses. If that's the criterion, put the Flintstones there instead. Better yet, take fiction off the page. But please, stop being "suspicious" of any posts that don't cover creationism (the predominant topic of this discussion page--and the reason you don't see some users posting more often). Thanks. Peisal 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, what are you expecting? A mention in the body? A plug in the bibliography? They're different things, after all. You're certainly getting a lengthy discussion on it on the talk page.
JP is listed not because of any factual pretensions, but because for better or worse it has become inescapable when talking about pop culture and dinosaurs, and with the idea of bringing back dinosaurs. If we're aiming to have a comprehensive article, it's going to have to be in there. You'll notice that the article does not say anywhere that JP was correct in its science and logic (and there's even a whole 13 kb article about its screwups); if a person cannot read for context, I certainly can't help them.
By the same tack, if Hell Creek becomes comparably influential, it goes in too. There are many other books out there that were written to be serious, scientifically-accurate, and with a fictional basis that are also not in this article: Ned Colbert's The Year of the Dinosaur, Bob Bakker's Raptor Red, George Gaylord Simpson's The Dechronization of Sam Magruder, etc., all written by professionals, all of which were probably more factually accurate about dinosaurs for their time than JP was for its. The difference is influence.
Whatever you're driving at in the second to last sentence of your paragraph is obscure - are you suggesting that we are suspicious of not discussing creationism, or that we would have more editors if the article was creationist-friendly? I'm suspicious because I see several editors, none of whom have edited anywhere else, popping up over a couple of weeks about a book I've only ever seen at GSA, which for all its virtues has not been discussed on the Dinosaur Mailing List or any other dinosaur-related forum that I frequent, and then when I mention my feelings, one of the earlier posters reappears within a couple of hours to call me on it. J. Spencer 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And J isn't the only editor who is wondering why all these new editors are arguing for the book's inclusion in the article, when none have ever made a single edit to any article. That is the definition of a single-purpose account. Even assuming good faith, there's no community consensus to add this material to the article, as accounts which have no contributions to the encyclopedia cannot be considered part of the community. All editors are welcome to add content to Wikipedia, and this article. But the consensus now is not to include material relating to this book, as it's not culturally significant to the public's perception of dinosaurs. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi All, I’m one of the authors of Hell Creek. A friend of mine alerted me to the lively Wiki discussion, and I had to check it out. Wow, this is a very interesting discussion and I thought I’d add a thought or two of my own, if that does not violate the Wiki policy. (I’ve never added to a wiki page before, so I am new to this business.) Of course I am very flattered at the HC attention. But I sense some larger issues, so I will try to stay away from discussing HC in particular. Having been involved in writing this book, I’ve become aware that there is a world out there of dinosaur enthusiasts, that is, people who know a lot about them, very often scientists or science educators, who have an amazing passion for the topic. These people care not only about dinosaurs, but also (or maybe more so) about the impression that gets to kids and the general lay public. It is also now apparent that the number one source of information on dinosaurs in the world, to which the vast majority of kids go when writing those reports for school, is this particular Wiki page. A noteworthy accomplishment. What I sense in these postings is a latent hostility toward the dominance of Jurassic Park and its lack of ecological validity. (Let me add that I loved JC and both read it and saw it and all its sequels. I keep hoping that there will be a fourth movie.) I sense that a lot of scientists and science educators in the dinosaur universe have seized on the most recent example of a dino-related book that puts the animals in some ecological context and makes them into real biological animals instead of horrible monsters. (If I am excused for plugging my book, I’d say its main charm is not so much an accurate list of scientific details, as an ecological context.) Mostly, though, I am picking up here a sense of frustration among dino enthusiasts that every kid who writes a report on dinosaurs ends up being pointed toward Jurassic Park and writing about how nasty the velociraptors are and how you can clone dinosaurs from bugs in amber. I think there is a sort of pedagogical impulse showing in these postings. An accurate fact book is great, but few people read them. A novel has more impact because more people are willing to read it, but novels tend to bend the truth or take the truth out of its proper context. Thus the question: what book is best to point people toward, given that so many people use this page as a first reference? I don’t know the answer to that question. If I might make a suggestion, however, one possibility is to have a separate page on the topic of dinos in fiction, rather than including the topic on the science page. This fiction oriented page could include some of the main examples, and also an explicit warning that scientific and ecological validity is often in short supply. Hope these comments are useful. Sorry for the long post!Mikegraziano 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well said. Guess it takes the author of the book to see that the real message has little to do with the latest dinosaur novel (actually I've seen it quite a few places--reviewed in Prehistoric Times mag, and for sale in museum bookstores. And I did mention Raptor Red, which is a fine book). Point is, though, that there is dissatisfaction with JP being on an encyclopedia science page. Believe me, people DO take that to mean they should read JP to learn real things about dinosaurs. Wiki is sanctioning and plugging JP in the context of dinosaur factual information. And that is what has been bothering some people. I don't think there's any thought of trying for consensus about putting another book up there. There's just discomfort with the current featured work on dinosaurs, and with the reason it is there. As for the sentence about creationist postings, I did not mean any offense and certainly did not intend to "call" anyone on anything. My observation, based on admittedly hasty skims of this page now and then, has been of a creationist-discussion site. So when I saw the topic move on to something that had bugged me for a while (JP being on that page), I added my own opinions. Sometimes it only takes one or two people mentioning something to bring others out of the woodwork.75.67.47.241 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Those are fair points. I'm not interested in promoting JP as a factual tome myself. We do have a Dinosaurs in popular culture article, which is linked under the dinosaurs in culture subheading. Of the JP references in this article (three, not counting an image caption, by my count), what are constructive ways to modify each so as to make sure that JP is not given as fact? I just rewrote one sentence where its use appeared to not make sense. J. Spencer 01:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I also don't want to cast aspersions on anyone's work without having seen it, and I would like to apologize if I came off too harsh. J. Spencer 02:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
JP and Amber
Since it seems like a lot of people feel like we're singling out JP and thereby giving it some kind of approval, I've removed both references to it outside the pop culture section. I also merged the soft tissue and DNA sections, since most of the DNA part was a discussion of JP with no scientific basis (at least none cited). An artifact of this is the picture of amber, which has no relevence now to the discussion. Have any peer-reviwed articles or sources outside JP suggested the use of amber for getting dino DNA? If not, the picture should probably removed. Dinoguy2 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That is a very good change, and much appreciated by those of use who are science educators. Now I can point students to the dino page without having to add "However..." And if Raptor Red or Hell Creek or some of the other fine books mentioned above wind up in an article on dinosaurs in fiction/ media, so that Jurassic Park isn't a solo, why that's great. Though I must admit I haven't looked at that section /page, so I don't know what's on it. 75.67.47.241 02:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to be modified? SalaSkan 18:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is only semiprotected. Almost any editor can make changes if they're appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Chinese Dragon medicine
News reports in the past few days mention the current Chinese practice of digging up "dragon" bones to grind up and consume due to their rich calcium content. These have been identified as dinosaur bones. [2] Is this interesting enough to include in the article? rossnixon 02:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not really "news", because they've been doing it for centuries, but I think it is certainly worthy of mention in the article. Go for it, man! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Westjova - just want to clarify why I keep undoing your edit of "Dinosaurs" to "Non-Avian Dinosaurs." Your edit is inappropriate for two reasons. First, the article is about Dinosaurs, which include birds, not about "non-avian dinosaurs." Secondly, birds evolved in the Jurassic, and the dominance of the dinosaurs include dominance by those birds. Hope this makes sense. Debivort 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If Birds are included with Dinosaurs on the Dinosaur page, than why does it say "Dinosaurs were"? It would make sense if it said, "Non-Avian Dionsaurs were" or "Dinosaurs are"! Also it would make sense if the fossil rage would say Trassic to the Present, if it included Birds!-westvoja
Well, Dinosaurs were dominant then. They aren't dominant now, even as birds, so the past tense is right. The statement that "Dinosaurs excluding aves persisted from the Triassic to Cretaceous" is correct. The statement "Non avian dinosaurs dominated ..." is misleading because it implies that the avian component of dinosaurs were not part of that dominance. The statement "Dinosaurs dominated ..." is precisely correct. I'm going to move this discussion to Talk:Dinosaur so the experts can weigh in. Debivort 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you all think? Debivort 04:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought we'd agreed to limit this to a paraphyletic Dinosauria...? From the article: However, referring to birds as 'avian dinosaurs' and to all other dinosaurs as 'non-avian dinosaurs' is cumbersome. Birds are still referred to as birds, at least in popular usage and among ornithologists. It is also technically correct to refer to birds as a distinct group under the older Linnaean classification system, which accepts paraphyletic taxa that exclude some descendants of a single common ancestor. Paleontologists mostly use cladistics, which classifies birds as dinosaurs, but some biologists of the older generation do not.. For clarity, this article will use 'dinosaur' as a synonym for 'non-avian dinosaur', and 'bird' as a synonym for 'avian dinosaur' (meaning any animal that evolved from the common ancestor of Archaeopteryx and modern birds). The term 'non-avian dinosaur' will be used for emphasis as needed.
It's explained in the text, so no need to confuse people from line 1. Even in peripheral intro stuff, like the taxobox, the distinction we're using is made clear-- fossil range states that it excludes Aves, and Dinosauria is marked as paraphyletic (as it should be, since the taxoboxes are er... taxonomic, not phylogenetic). Dinoguy2 05:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Would anybody know why the article "Prehistoric life" is so crummy? Dr.Bastedo 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing because nobody knew it existed? Sheep81 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
reference to King Kong
Maybe the reference to the "1933 film King Kong should be edited so as to add "...and its [whatever year it was] remake." After all, the more recent version of King Kong, the one directed by Peter Jackson, also features dinosaurs. Tom129.93.17.135 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
image
If you wish to add some color to your page, this image by Karen Carr (wildlife and natural history artist) is available at Wikicommons. [3]--Random Replicator 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks ok... (despite the fact Triceratops stands out as the one ceratopsian with no evidence of herd/gregarious behavior and was probably solitary...) but what theropod is that? Dinoguy2 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Not a clue --- a small one?... you're welcome to ask her yourself, this one was orignally on the cover of a calender for Barnes and Noble [[4]; she is an illustrator for the Smithsonian, so I assume some degree of accuracy. I'm not advovcating for its use; I just know how hard it can be to get images that follow the copyright laws. Visit her site, her talents are amazing. --Random Replicator 01:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree her artistic skill is amazing... however, there are a lot of technical problems with her anatomy, etc. The Archaeopteryx, for example, has wings that do not follow the correct structure of bird or dinosaur wings at all... and it's shown along side Morrison formation fauna, a different continent than where it really lived. All of her theropods also have pronated hands, an anatomical inaccuracy that first became 'common knowledge' over a decade ago. Some illustrations simply don't look like the dinosaur they're supposed to portray. For example, the Velociraptor on her site does not seem to have any characteristics of the real animal except for generic dromaeosaurid features. Dinoguy2 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, if there are significant errors in anatomy then you should not use the image; however, dinosaurs are suppose to be exciting. Not to be insulting; but your page is boring. Personally, I would substitute the two Centrosaurus fighting for this image, if I had to justify it as "dinosaurs in art". Again, no insult intended to the any of the artist on this page .... but ....
I guess my motivation is somewhat self-centered, since I expended the effort to get a world class artist of natural history and wild-life --- illustrator of numerous text; artistic contributor to the Smithsonia Institute's Natural History Department--- to release a painting to Wikipedia Commons; well anyway. I don't wish to be annoying (you do have "featured at the top); so I'll disappear now! --Random Replicator 23:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No need to disappear! She's got some beautiful illustrations. I don't even see an Archaeopteryx one, unless we're talking about this. The pronated ("bunny hands") hands on that Saurophaganax prevent the image's usage on Wikipedia, but maybe something else could be used. What other images might be usable? I'll always prefer accurate to exciting, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the Archie in question [5] (see Talk:Archaeopteryx). It's a good painting, as I said, but the skull is the wrong shape, the feet are wrong, and the wings are wrong (finger proportions are off, hands aren't incorporated into the wing, it's got a hefty propatagium, and the presence of tertials makes the wing come flush with the body, which was not the case in early birds). There's something to be said for making biology exciting, of course, but it should be accurate as well. Some of Carrs is, like the Buitreraptor, which looks spot on.[6]Dinoguy2 02:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello from Karen's webmaster and ne'er-do-well partner! Karen was pleased and honored to add her images to Wikipedia and seeing your comments is all the more exciting. As you with technical expertise have identified correctly, some of her images are anatomically exacting, some are pretty pictures, and some are both (hopefully). The theropod is intentionally undefined and somewhat idealized... but hey, it's a calendar. But all comments welcome regarding Karen's images and site, www.karencarr.com. She is certainly a fan of wpedia and support a community of folks looking to make good info on ancient life and the "E-word" more prominent. And perhaps we (I) did a poor job in identifying the image when it was requested by the Wikipedia folks... so I apologize if this one misses the mark for scientific use....
I should take responsiblity here. I requested an image that would lend an element of excitement to the Introduction to Evolution page; as it was written for a younger audience. The image I selected serves that purpose very well. The image demonstrates transition over time -- and the nest with eggs relayed the concept of next generation quite well. Of course these guys are going to tear it apart if every digit was not exact. Thats what they do here. That is a plus for Wikipedia; although their blunt frankness probably didn't do much for accessing any future illustrations from Karen. Which is most unfortunate since quality illustrations are in desperate need.--Random Replicator 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope our "blunt frankness" was no so harsh as to scare anybody away... I'm not sure how exactly we could be more tactful when reviewing scientific illustrations. If they're incorrect, they're incorrect. Not much wiggle room to let somebody down lightly, and I'd hope any scientific illustrator would take constructive criticism in stride. This is usually the case on our image review page. Someone submits artwork, the others evaluate its accuracy, and if modifications are made to correct errors it gets approved. I've very rarely seen our "tearing apart" of an image met with a retreat... in fact some of our resident artists are very prolific, and eager to adjust submitted artwork to meet strict standards of accuracy. Dinoguy2 04:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Jurassic Park.svg
Image:Jurassic Park.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Section "Distinguishing features of dinosaurs" says:
“
The open, or "perforate", hip joint described above had significant implications for dinosaur movement and behavior. Most notably, it allowed dinosaur hind limbs to be "underslung", or situated directly beneath the animals' bodies; this, in turn, allowed dinosaurs to stand erect in a manner similar to modern mammals, but distinct from most other reptiles, whose limbs sprawl out to either side ...
”
The perforated acetabulum has nothing to do with erect limbs, which are produced by 2 known configurations: "pillar erect" (rauisuchians); femoral head at right angle to shaft (dinos and mammals). I've commented out this para as a temporary fix.
The "Behavior" section says:
“
Since the later mammalian radiation in the Cenozoic produced numerous burrowing and tree-climbing species, e.g., rodents and primates, the lack of evidence for a similar widespread radiation of species among the dinosaurs is somewhat surprising.
”
2 things wrong with this:
"lack of evidence for a widespread radiation of species among the dinosaurs" is nonsense - they radiated all right (see preceding estimate of 3,400 genera). Should say e.g. "lack of evidence for a diversity of lifestyles among the dinosaurs"
It's not surprising, it's a consequence of skeletal anatomy - see Richard Cowen's web pages.
The "Behavior" section leaves readers hanging in mid-air - how fast could dinos run? did large theropods have to slow down when rushing for food? (and what does this mean?) could sauropods float?
The discussion of dino metabolism omits growth rates and erect limbs.
The discussion of feathered dinos should say that:
feathers found so far only in coelurosaurs (Beipiaosaurus was a therizinosaur, but new discoveries suggest therizinosaurs descended from dromaeosaurs).
skin fossils of carnosaurs and sauropds suggest no feathers.
The section on lungs should at least mention Ruben's contrary views on dino respiration (the "Heart" section does mention different views).
"Evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs" is uncritical - AFAIK most paleontologist dismiss these fossils as re-woprked, but the section gives readers the impression that most paleontologists acce pt Paleocene dinos.
"Extinction theories" is as unbalanced as ever and still fails to mention Deccan Traps. It should summarise the relevant sections of Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event (which also an FA, and a better article).
I'm surprised this article made FA, since many whole sections lack citations.
A lot of words / phrases throughout the article should be linked to other articles. Philcha (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your observations, Philcha. This article could use some reworking, as it was promoted to FA nearly two years ago, and not only has the Manual of Style changed in those two years, many sections have been added/modified since then. A thorough examination of the material is needed. Your above comments are a good start.
I reverted your addition of the two hip images because those images were already present in the article. Move them if you feel it's necessary, but don't repeat the same images; that's just a waste of bandwidth in an already long article. The "Paleocene dinosaurs" paragraph does contain the disclaimer "If the bone was not re-deposited into that stratum by weathering action..." it was just brief discussion of what's in Paleocene dinosaurs. I agree, though, that a short statement that Sullivan disputed this would be worth including. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Firsfron of Ronchester's last comment does not tell the whole truth. He / she also reverted changes I made to "Distinguishing features of dinosaurs" in order to: comment out an inaccurate paragraph; make clearer the distinction between shared derived characters (present in other archosaurs) and characteristics found only in dinosaurs but not in some dinos. At about the same time he / she posted a message on my Talk page warning me to be careful about editing Featured Articles - but said above, "This article could use some reworking, as it was promoted to FA nearly two years ago". As far as I can see Firsfron of Ronchester's actions violate the guidelines in Help:Reverting.
This is not the first time I've been the victim of casual and sloppy reverts on this article - see User_talk:Philcha#DinosaurPhilcha (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
We could certainly find better sources for the size section. The Bill Erickson site is one of those weird places that argues for significantly reduced Mesozoic gravity. J. Spencer (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It got better; poking around his website, it turned out that the guy was also a proponent of the expanding earth theory, which I should have seen coming. Anyway, I've got a temporary patch up. Here are some citations to track down that could make a better section, hopefully:
Hotton, Nicholas H., III. 1980. An alternative to dinosaur endothermy: the happy wanderers. In: Thomas, R.D.K. and E. Olson (eds.), pp. 311-350.
Carrano, Matt. Body-Size Evolution in the Dinosauria. 2006. in: Carrano, Matthew T., Timothy J. Gaudin, Richard W. Blob, and John R. Wible, editors. Amniote Paleobiology: Perspectives on the Evolution of Mammals, Birds, and Reptiles.
Montague J.R. (2006) ESTIMATES OF BODY SIZE AND GEOLOGICAL TIME OF ORIGIN FOR 612 DINOSAUR GENERA (SAURISCHIA, ORNITHISCHIA),Florida Scientist: Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 243-257
Farlow,J.O., Dodson, P. & Chinsamy, A. (1995). Dinosaur biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:445-471.
J, do you have Seebacher, F. (2001). "A new method to calculate allometric length-mass relationships of dinosaurs." Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21(1): 51–60? It's got mass estimates for several dinosaurs, if we can't find the Montague paper (which sounds awesome... 612 genera?!). Firsfron of Ronchester 18:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Just picked it up. Looks interesting, except small ornithischians (less than 4 m long) are oddly underweight (weights less than 10 kg for Gasparinisaura, Hypsilophodon, Yandusaurus, and, entertainingly, Thescelosaurus). J. Spencer (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
By "body size" this Montague article is apparently referring to body mass index (BMI), not length and mass. The values Montague uses for length and mass are, according to the abstract, culled from DinoData and other internet databases. So it doesn't appear to be new information, or even based off of specimens. Seems like it's basically just DinoData's numbers in print form. I don't think I would cite DinoData for mass or length values so it's interesting but honestly I'm not sure how useful or reliable it is for our purposes. I haven't read the paper though so I could easily be wrong. Sheep81 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
If you regard the reverts "sloppy", imagine how editors might feel about edits where the same images were added for a second time to the article. That's sloppy. Now that we've agreed some sloppy editing was done, let's work on improving the article. It's clear it could use some work, and you have made some good suggestions. J's comment about the sourcing makes sense too. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Firsfron of Ronchester, your reverts were sloppy because, by using the revert procedure, you also threw out the changes to correct deficiencies in "Distinguishing features of dinosaurs". Re the duplication of images, I've stated in our private correspondence my opinion that they should appear where the ornithischian-saurishian distinction is first discussed, i.e in "Phylogenetic definition". If you disagreed, you could have gone back to the earlier version of "Phylogenetic definition" section and pasted it in. Your use of the revert procedure was lazy, arrogant and a violation of the guidelines in Help:Reverting, which I suggest you should read. Philcha (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Philcha, your edits were sloppy because you duplicated already existing images in the article. No one does that. I don't know of any articles where the same images are repeated. I could call your reverts "lazy" and "arrogant" as well, but would prefer to refrain from personal attacks, and get back to discussion of improving the article. That's why you're here, right? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I did improve the article (section "Distinguishing features of dinosaurs"), by commenting out an inaccuracy and clarifying another passage. You reverted that. Philcha (talk)
Re "personal attacks", it doesn't get more personal than reverting without attempting other approaches first.
I'd request resolution of this dispute via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs, but that page makes it appear that you are WikiProject Dinosaurs. Meanwhile there are other articles I can improve or (occasionally) create without looking over my shoulder and worrying about someone getting revert-happy. Philcha (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, then let me apologize for reverting your hard work on the other section. It was a mistake for me to remove your edits from the article. Pax? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
So how do you suggest putting it right? Philcha (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Putting the article right, or putting the wrongs done to you right? Firsfron of Ronchester 18
27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I was mainly asking about the revert. Re the article, I suggest we start with structure. The argument about the images arose because the Saurischia-Ornithischia division is discussed in 2 places, with a fair bit of duplication. And other topics are in odd places, e.g. most of the dino classification stuff is under "Study of dinosaurs" - this may make sense to specialists, since classification is a consequence of study, but it won't make sense to the general public. So who produces the first draft of a new structure (under a new Talk thread)? Philcha (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"Beipiaosaurus was a therizinosaur, but new discoveries suggest therizinosaurs descended from dromaeosaurs"
Err... what? Do you have any cites for this? I find that extremely surprising. If it's unpublished, it's not our place to include this in the article yet, even if it's true. As for your accusations of "sloppy" reverts, you may want to think about discussing your input here with the whole community before unilaterally making large changes to the centerpiece FA of a large wikiproject. Some of the changes, as far as I understand it, would be easy to make with a simple modification. The acetabulum issue, for example. Yes the perforate acetabulum is not the only contributor to an erect posture, and other groups achieve the same thing in different ways. So just modify the existing paragraphs with phrases like "one of" and "contributes to" or "is associated with". We don't want to get too technical here-remember that Wikipedia is meant for a general audience and all sections should be comprehensible to someone with only a limited understanding of the subject background. If a high school senior can't understand this article without significant outside research, we didn't do our jobs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Saw an article on the web a few days ago, can't remember if the researcher concerned has formally published yet. In any case Therizinosaur classifies them as coelourosaurs, which is what mattered in the context (feathered dinos).
I have to wonder if this might have been a misinterpretation by a journalist--coelurosaurs are often equated with "raptors" and therefore dromaeosaus in a lot of popular press, and the fact that one of the WWD shows implied that Therizinosaurus evolved from Velociraptor (it meant coelurosaurs in general) didn't help... Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Re-the placement of hip images. I don't think they belong in the section on phylogenetic definitions, as the arrangement of the hips has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with phylogeny or definitions in the cladistic sense. They're part of the traditional Linnean classification. What needs to be changed is this sentence: "Dinosaurs are divided into Ornithischia (bird-hipped) and Saurischia (lizard-hipped), depending upon pelvic structure." This is false, in the context of phylogentic definition. It's true of traditional classification, which is why the images are in the classification sentence. In phylogeny, despite the names, dinosaurs are divided into Saurichia and Ornithischia not based on hip structure, but based on whether they're more closely related to Triceratops or to birds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"the arrangement of the hips has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with phylogeny or definitions in the cladistic sense". So what on what features would you base your cladogram? In any case as soon as "Ornithischia" and "Saurischia" have been translated into "bird-hipped" and "lizard-hipped" the diagrams help the general reader to understand what would otherwise be meaningless words.Philcha (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As many features as could be included in a character matrix. Orientation of the hips is certainly one of them, but if (for example) sauropods are ever found to be closer to Triceratops than to birds (as some have suggested with the discovery of things like Silesaurus), they would be ornithischians, and the names would likely not change. As far as I know, nobody uses an apomorphy defintition based on hips for these groups, which is what the text currently suggests. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"but that page makes it appear that you are WikiProject Dinosaurs." You may want to watch language like this in the future. I can personally vouch for the fact that there are at least a dozen active members (granted we come in and out, but I'd hope Wikipedia is not the focus of anybody's life ;) ) who all contribute a great deal. Firs is among the most active at the moment, but your hostility toward him in your comments here are plainly obvious from my perspective. Please try to use more neutral language when attempting to get your points across. Wikipedia is a community project, it is unhelpful to make unilateral edits and then fight an edit war to keep them. Discuss edits first, reach consensus, and then alter the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You're not helping, in fact you're more likely to stir up trouble by intervening at this stage. Didn't you notice that there appeared be some hope of a rapprochement?Philcha (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this bit was counter-productive, I just think the levels of hostility here were not warranted. Similar disputes over content have been settled without this kind of... 'back and forth' many, many times. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, people. Calm down, go listen to George Harrison music and get some cocoa or something. "No reason to get excited." The article needs to be spruced up (as does Tyrannosaurus, which looks out of place with its old structure). These are reasonable suggestions for a starting point. J. Spencer (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts:
The open acetabulum - it is an important feature for dinosaurs, so it should be in there. It used to be a synapomorphy, but no longer. The effect on locomotion is both overstated and poorly stated, but it is true that dinosaurs used a peg-in-socket femoral articulation that allowed them to walk erect (and also to not pivot well at the hips, but the poor lateral maneuverability of dinosaurs is another issue), and is a feature that sets them apart from their ancestors. They struck upon a solution similar but not exactly the same to mammals, which go into ball and socket articulation.
Limitations of the dinosaur body plan - see above. Dinosaur articulations generally limited flexibility by being simple hinges (knees, ankles, wrists) or pegs (hips). Just a matter of cleanup.
It would be nice to have a payoff to the end of the Behavior section if specific examples are being cited.
Additions to dino metabolism - sure. The whole physiology article needs attention.
A bit odd that coelurosaurs aren't identified as the feathered dinosaurs, but easy to fix. Sauropods are not needed, as this section is about birds and dinosaurs, and no one thinks sauropods are especially close to birds. The best skin impressions outside of coelurosaurs in Theropoda belong to Carnotaurus, so the appearance of feathers should be somewhere between it and basal coelurosaurs. I'm not sure who puts therizinosaurs with dromaeosaurs, and "carnosaur" is not all that useful. If this is a tyrannosaur thing, tyrannosauroids should not be lumped with carnosaurs, as they are very different things.
The respiratory turbinates should be in there, but the hepatic piston smear needs more work.
Paleocene dinosaurs should definitely be adjusted.
The Deccan would be good to have. Perhaps Orangemarlin would do us the honor of a rewrite?
Other things:
When this was written, refs weren't as big a deal; if it was being done today, it would certainly be cited as strongly as any of the recent WP:DINO FAs. "Evolution of dinosaurs", "Skeleton", "Reproductive biology", "Asteroid collision", and "History of discovery" are obvious sections that need citations.
"Gastroliths" should be thrown out, as "gastromyths".
This material does need to be addressed, because otherwise sooner or later someone will put it up for review. Maybe it could the collaboration for a couple of weeks? "Update Dinosaur"? J. Spencer (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"2. Limitations of the dinosaur body plan - see above. Dinosaur articulations generally limited flexibility by being simple hinges (knees, ankles, wrists) or pegs (hips). Just a matter of cleanup."
Upon further consideration, I just wrote that out. Those dinosaurs suggested to be burrowing or arboreal are either from poorly-known groups or were small, which means we know very little about what if any radiations they were part of (how many tiny theropods are known outside of Liaoning?). The general inflexibility of dinosaurs is known, and pretty obvious if one sits down and thinks about their joints, but has not attracted much attention that I know of (PhD proposal, folks?). So, I killed it. J. Spencer (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll volunteer for the Deccan Traps. However, you do realize that the evidence that they had anything to do with the extinction of Dinosaurs is controversial. Now I would also volunteer doing something about Creationist Rantings.....errr... Perspectives on Dinosaurs. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 14:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
A little background on the Creationist perspective article. I participated in trying to clean up and manage that article. Then one day it was clear to a number of us that we were giving undue weight to a fringe theory. We moved the key points of the article to Young Earth Creationism because most religions have no problems with dinosaurs living 65.5 million years ago. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 15:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by, and feel free to pick at any part of the article you like! J. Spencer (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Stop me now or forever hold your peace, because I'm slowly changing the references to WP:CITET format. It does a couple of things. First, reduces the size of the article by using templates. Second, doi and isbn references increase the articles place in Google. If that matters! OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 20:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone? I'll totally do it; you know I will. I'm crazy like that. :) J. Spencer (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Go for it, these big articles always get a bit jumbled around after awhile. Sometimes they just need a good kick in the ass. Sheep81 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree, bummer with these highly-edited articles - price we pay for constant vigilance :) cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I trust the paleontologist's judgement. :) No worries here. Thanks for seeking consensus, though... (makes it easier to blame us when the article is de-FAC'd: "They made me do it! Honest!" ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get around to it today at some point, probably evening CST. One other thing, now that I think about it: "Feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds" may deserve a promotion to section status, since as far as I'm concerned it's only controversial with a handful of ornithologists who apparently would prefer that birds had no ancestors whatsoever. I'd like some of the theropod people to comment on this move, though. J. Spencer (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
New structure looks like an improvement to me, much more logical. I'll help out with some small stuff as the editing progresses if I can! Also, I think bird origins could absolutely be it's own section, it's certainly one of the biggest topics within this subject currently. Maybe you could even copy/condense material from the bird origins and bird evolution articles. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It probably will need to be condensed; certainly I'd steal some refs from the other articles. J. Spencer (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That didn't take too long; try it out, see if you like it. I opted to promote the dinosaur/bird section, as you can see. The main changes were to move some specific topics out of the beginning, such as size, and to bring general topics toward the top (particularly the classification, as I think it's important to introduce the cast early on). Also, some topics were associated with things I thought were more germane, like the movement of "Dinosaur Renaissance". "Study of dinosaurs" is still kind of nebulous. J. Spencer (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dinoglyfs & dinolits made by the ancient man
Pjojala (talk)
I think we should acknowledge that the ancient man carved, painted and made detailed mosaics of the dinosaurs. Even if they were imagined on the basis of the fossils. But honestly speaking, this makes a reasonable argument for the viewpoint of the "dinotopia" type of ethos in air:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
Pauli.Ojala@gmail.com Biochemist, systems biologist
said pjojala
So, you deleted a chunk of commentary on work in progress to post this? J. Spencer (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm deeply sorry for the deletion! I supposed the old texts were there only for quotes and did not want to make a long extra copy.
Okay. For future reference, on a talk page, previous comments are generally left alone unless they are vandalism, or are being archived.
You do know that Dinotopia is a fictional work, right? I don't know of any Dinotopia-like ethos on the air, in any of the circles I communicate with. On several grounds, there is no reason to conclude that people ever saw living nonavian dinosaurs.
Except for a few very contentious scraps from the very earliest Paleocene, it is very well-established that nonavian dinosaurs (birds are being excluded for this posting) have been extinct for approximately 65.5 million years. Nonavian dinosaur remains are just not found in rocks younger than the Cretaceous, even in well-sampled sites like the La Brea tar pits, the Messel oil shales, various Cenozoic rock units in the western U.S. (such as in the Badlands with their endless oreodonts), and elsewhere. I currently am doing an inventory on Wannagan Creek crocodile fossils, from a unit in the Tiffanian land mammal age of the Paleocene. If one was going to find dinosaurs after the Cretaceous, this would be an ideal setting, because it's loaded with crocodiles and turtles and other things that are found with dinosaurs in older rocks (so it would be a logical dinosaur habitat in those older rocks), because it's well-sampled, and because it's not that distant in age from the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. I've seen thousands of Leidyosuchus (=Borealosuchus) bones, and I can poke around in the collections and see the turtles and champsosaurs (weird extinct reptiles that are something like lizards and something like crocodiles, but aren't either) found there, and the mammals and trace fossils, but there are no dinosaurs found there.
There is often the perception that all prehistoric animals lived together in a "Prehistoric World" (not helped by The Flintstones, "lost world" movies, and cheap toy sets), but this is not true. Not only do we not find fossil beds containing, say, Dimetrodon, Stegosaurus, Iguanodon, Tyrannosaurus, Hyracotherium, and Neanderthals, we don't even find rocks with Stegosaurus and Iguanodon, Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus, or Iguanodon and Tyrannosaurus. Heck, in Montana and Alberta, there is almost complete turnover of dinosaurs at the generic level from the ~76 million year old Judith River\Dinosaur Park Formations to the ~66 million year old Hell Creek\Scollard Formations. There is more time between Stegosaurus (~150 my) and Tyrannosaurus (~65 my) than there is between Tyrannosaurus and us (0 my), 85 versus 65 million years.
Beyond the absence of dinosaurs after the Cretaceous, there is also the fact that during the entire Mesozoic, mammals never got much bigger than a cat or dog, and were not much like today's mammals. The Morrison Formation, Dinosaur Park Formation, Hell Creek Formation, the Yixian Formation... all well-sampled, all lacking any kind of familiar mammal. Dinosaurs and mammals got started at about the same time back in the Triassic, but one group took off, and the other didn't. This is reasonable evidence that something about dinosaurs was not allowing mammals to compete with them in dinosaur niches, so mammals instead specialized in niches dinosaurs weren't suited for. It took the extinction of the dinosaurs for mammals to get into large terrestrial niches, and to eventually produce the modern mammal fauna. (On the other hand, were you to introduce today, say, Eoraptor, Saturnalia, and Pisanosaurus, it is unlikely that they would be able to get a foothold, because the evidence from the Triassic shows strongly that dinosaurs needed the extinction of the established reptiles and therapsids of the time to diversify.)
If dinosaurs *had* survived the end-Cretaceous event in any meaningful numbers, they would have gotten back to the business of being dinosaurs. Perhaps mammals or other animals might have become more prominent in some niches, but given the dinosaurian propensity to dominate medium and large-bodied terrestrial niches, there is no reason to think that they would have let up if they weren't killed off.
In short, on stratigraphic grounds, there is no evidence for dinosaurs coexisting with modern mammals, or that dinosaurs persisted past the Cretaceous. On biological grounds, it is very unlikely that there *could* be coexistence of dinosaurs and modern mammals, because the presence of one group seems to precludes the presence of the other (no dinosaur extinction, no modern mammals as we know them). This is not even getting into the lamentable and obfuscating effects of fakery, wishful thinking, point-of-view pushing, and misinterpretations. J. Spencer (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Chinese word for dinosaur
The history section states: "The Chinese, whose own word for dinosaur is konglong (恐龍, or "terrible dragon")," but the word is actually a translation of "dinosaur" by Japanese and later imported to China, as the Chinese version of the page says. Putting the statement in context of history gives an impression that the word was used for millenia. Yoshiki.ohshima (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Fixed? Sheep81 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In order to find POV in this article, one needs look no further then the opening sentence, "Dinosaurs were vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, first appearing approximately 230 million years ago." As becomes clearer later on in the article, this is stating the theory of evolution as fact, and no matter how well backed up, it is still a theory, and thus can not be stated as fact. Also, the "Religious views" section is one big chunk of obvious POV. --Mark(Mschel) 04:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
NPOV tag has been removed. (Personal attack removed by —Animum (talk)) Any further creationist edits will be considered vandalism Mokele (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, now that's an obvious POV: "Any further creationist edits will be considered vandalism". —Animum (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
How is that any more "POV" than forbidding the Earth entry from being edited by Flat Earth Society members? Sorry, but in science, which covers this topic, views *can* be proven 'right' or 'wrong'. Creationism has been *proven* wrong. Editing articles to reflect the state of 18th century knowledge is not good practice in any meaningful way, and should be considered vandalism, since it's deliberate alteration with an agenda. Mokele (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not how it works. See WP:NPOV. We are allowed to include minority sources, just not give them undue weight. Flat Earth Society members are allowed to edit the Earth entry so long as the follow the rules, just as creationists are allowed to edit here as well (see "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia ANYONE CAN EDIT"). Regardless of the fact that Mschel's complaint has no merits, he's still allowed to edit the article; to forbid him from doing so would be ludicrous. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 05:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, find me a creationist source, then. Peer-reviewed scientific article only. Mokele (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:DINO has long established that material sourced to peer-reviewed papers is certainly worthy for inclusion on dinosaur articles. However, after two years of repeated requests, there still hasn't been a pro-creationism edit sourced to a peer-reviewed paper. Not on Dinosaur, and not on any of the 1,100 articles on the List of dinosaurs. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Precisely my point. There is no POV issue when there is no dispute on the facts. Mokele (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hell, it doesn't have to even be a peer-reviewed scientific paper: a peer-reviewed theological article would work, considering the topic. But source it to something better than a self-published website. Peer review is designed to catch mistakes; something that isn't reviewed by peers in an academic field isn't worthy of inclusion because anyone can claim anything in a self-published source. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Firs, I came here because I thought it had to be the one of the least controversial articles on the project. Now I'm going to cry. And eat more turkey. And watch a food network marathon!!! BTW everyone just point these Creationist POV warriors to Talk:Evolution/FAQ and Evolution as theory and fact. That old canard about Evolution being a theory is kind of silly. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 06:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Good links to keep handy. Enjoy your turkey and marathon, OM. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't eat much more Dinosaur...er Turkey...meat. I'm nearly in a coma! Anyways, after editing Evolution for over a year, I think I have macros that place those links. I always wondered why the Creationists on this project focus on Evolution for their POV attacks. I'll bet there are 100,000 articles on Wikipedia that reference time frames, scientific knowledge, etc. that basically blows the crap out of Creationism. But they ignore those articles. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 06:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Bible (it would be independent of the topic of dinosaurs, obviously, and an excellent source to use when discussing Creationism vs. Evolution), any other religious texts, or any theological peer-reviewed document can be counted as a source in the "Religious views" section; the reader can decide whether or not to give them any merit for himself/herself. —Animum (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The bible isn't a source for anything but amusing stories about nothing. And we don't ascribe to fringe theories that are unsupported by verifiable sources. But thanks for pushing your Creationism here. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 17:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Enough. There is an undue weight clause in NPOV for a reason. Young Earth Creationist ideas about the age of the earth and related issues are not significant enough to justify mention in the introduction per undue weight. I would like to remind all parties that this talk page is about improving the article not for debating the truth of the Bible or how to interpret the Bible or anything like that. Go to usenet if you want to do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Geesh! When this article was featured in 2005 we had this argument about creationist theories and I come back on the verge of 2008 and see it's still going on. Let it go - the dinosaurs were not alive a few thousand years ago, science has proven it. There's much more credibility and proof against the creationist theories than for it. There are suitable sections to place theories and content on those beliefs, but the main article is not. Reminds me of Sunday school when the teacher would make the class repeat that Noah brought dinosaur eggs on the Ark! Sheesh, let it go everyone and make constructive edits... Cheers, Spawn ManReview Me! 08:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Consistency
REgarding this edit; [7] - it's tempting to write any edit like that off as creationist, but actually the edit that was reverted is totally logical - you can't use "it is known" when the next sentence says that taxonomists "believe" that birds are descended from theropods. Either both sentences use weasel words, or both are stated as fact, or the pair of sentences needs to go. Thoughts? ELIMINATORJR 07:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The whole dinosaur-bird section needs to be rewritten a bit first. I don't know how the phrasing will fall out in the end, but aside from creationists, who obviously don't accept evolution, a small but dedicated cadre of ornithologists who apparently can't stand the idea of dinosaurs being related to birds and have never put up a suitable alternative but a revolving panel of "kinda bird-like poorly-known Triassic reptile that is definitely not a dinosaur" candidates, and the usual out-there fringies, maniraptoran birds are well-established. J. Spencer (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
dino wars?
given the large amouts of meat eaters in packs,and herboives in family groups,this si possible=(meat eater pack attacks family group)..if there were any dino wars there should be mentioned-(by dino wars i mean like the ongoing violence and "war"as some amy call it,between packs of meaties(meat eaters)and family packs(herbimoves)-it should be mentioned..(srry bout some of my spelling btw)96.224.186.131 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Carnivores and herbivores are not at war with each other in any kind of organized, anthropomorphic fashion. Carnivores kill and eat other animals because that's what they do, not to seize herbivore land or resources (besides the herbivore itself; and note that carnivores kill and eat other carnivores), and herbivores certainly aren't organizing offensives against carnivores. There's this popular perception of "carnivores" and "herbivores" as great, immutable camps forever pitted against each other in a grand good\evil dualism of the natural world, but that isn't how nature works at all.
Finally, how would this kind of behavior be fossilized? J. Spencer (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Best comment ever!! Sheep81 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You guys are much nicer than when this type of comment comes up at other locations. But great answer JS. I wasn't sure if I should laugh or cry. :) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 04:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm from Minnesota; I was born to be helpful. :) Well, we all have to start somewhere when we're learning, I suppose. J. Spencer (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm originally from Iowa, and I am not that helpful. Although I did stop to answer this question. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm originally from California, and we smoke pot, drink merlot, vote for Democrats, and could care less about anything, except to smoke pot. And ignore the rest of you. Did you guys say something? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 05:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Say... something...? No. Nothing. I still think about this edit sometimes. They're just kids: they don't know better. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you hear something Marlin? I could have sworn I heard a voice drifting in from the east... just another Santa Ana brewing, I guess. :) Sheep81 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
i have seen one fossil were a meat eater and herbivore was locked toghter,and i know i seen a huge fossil containing like 4 meaties vs 5 herbies.and i see yu guys are evry distracted.96.224.178.41 (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean they were at war. What you seem to be describing is cross-species premeditated aggression between carnivores as a group and herbivores as a group. There is no parallel in the modern environment to this (carnivores don't kill herbivores because they are herbivores, they kill them because they want to eat them, and they also frequently kill other carnivores and eat them. There simply are not grand alliances in nature between animals of similar diets, against animals of other diets), and there is no way that this behavior could be reliably fossilized. What are the taphonomic clues that a person could look for that could only be produced by this kind of interaction, and not by regular feeding activities or just remains being concentrated in one place by, say, rivers? There is no definite evidence that theropods even hunted in packs within their own species; the current examples proposed as evidence of such are just as easily explained as theropods killing each other at feeding sites (a type of behavior seen in the modern world in reptiles like crocodiles and komodo dragons), or chance accumulations. J. Spencer (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of J. Spencer's comments, but there are a few exceptions in the modern world. Some social animals are territorial and will attack intruders; Jane Goodall even saw one group of chimps in Gombe make a series of pre-meditated atacks on another and eventually exterminate them. Some animals do try to eliminate dangerous predators - dolphins attack and often kill sharks by rammimg them; the BBC's "Big Cat Diary" showed water buffalo trying to kill undefended lion cubs; and of course humans hunt down any predator that attacks them or their livestock. Philcha (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Translation for kids: there were no "dinosaur wars", just carnivores (meat-eaters) attacking herbivores (plant eaters) because they were hungry. Meat-eaters even ate other meat-eaters. We're not even sure that the meat eaters hunted in packs: it could just be that their bodies were found together because they killed each other, or because they gathered at watering places. War and what an animal does naturally (feed) are two very different things. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, some modern animals do attack predators and chimps occasionally wage war on other chimps - but these are rare exceptions to the general rule that that animals don't make war. Just to avoid confusion, there was period called the ""Bone Wars" in the 19th century, when Marsh and Cope competed quite ruthlessly for the glory of discovering the most dinoaur fossils - bu this competition was between humans and the term "wars" was just a metaphor. Philcha (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I can just see Triceratops using battlefield tactics to ambush a T. rex supply dump. ;) Spawn ManReview Me! 08:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be funny. Also, though this topic is finished, adult males frequently attack their male children as the children grow older, seeing them as competition. In some species. I think. :] 24.77.18.71 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Another error
I've just seen another elementary error concerning distinctive features of dinos. But since the people who think they own this article revert my edits every time I correct errors, they can look for it themselves. Philcha (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know what the error is so it can be corrected expeditiously. While we're at it, I feel uncomfortable with stating a general consensus for dinosaurian endothermy. I see a lot of "dinosaurs were doing their own in-between thing." J. Spencer (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No need to feel left out Philcha. I'm sure anyone who reverted your edits didn't intentionally mean to hurt your feelings - please contribute to the article. After all, it's a policy that no one can "own" an article. Feel free to contribute - I'm sure no one really wants to make the article suffer over some issue like this. :) Have a nice day and anything you can do is appreciated, as long as it's not vandalism, in which case it will be reverted. Cheers, Spawn ManReview Me! 08:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, when did you edit this article? I went back three pages of history and didn't see your name anywhere? Sheep81 (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. On the fourth page of course. Sheep81 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, Sheep81 and Spawn Man. But I've edited Dinosaur exactly twice, both edits were reverted within a day or 2, and both reverts were in contravention of my understanding of Wikipedia:Revert. It's not going to happen a 3rd time. Philcha (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you aren't going to edit it yourself, would you mind telling us what the error is? If we all agree it's an error, then there will be consenseus to change it and it won't matter who wants to revert what. I'd like our flagship article to be as accurate as possible. Sheep81 (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No-one has proposed anything that would make me believe the same person(s) are unlikely to revert my edits in future. I suggest the person who reverted my last edit should do the grunt work. Philcha (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it was what you had in mind, but I did catch "It is also technically correct to refer to birds as a distinct group under the older Linnaean classification system, which accepts paraphyletic taxa that exclude some descendants of a single common ancestor", which was implying that birds were the paraphyletic group (and is still confusing with "dinosaurs" exchanged for "birds"). J. Spencer (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not good to be spiteful Philcha. Sure your edit was reverted, maybe by mistake, maybe for a good reason, but there's certainly no reason to hold a grudge against the editors of this article. I ensure you and promise you that your edits will not be reverted if they are factually correct, sourced, well written or at least okayly written (In which case they will be merged into the article rather than deleted) and are not vandalism or in an incorrect place. You have my word and hopefully everyone here will help me keep my word because I certainly don't want any editors to feel left out. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Look it up in the dictshunery Sheepy! It's right after gooder I'm pretty shure! ;) Well, I tried... Merry Christmas! :) Spawn Man (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Spawn Man, I'll take you up on that. I would like to point out that the edits that were reverted were not vandalism, one was referenced (the other adjusted some text that wasn't referenced to start with), and both were more factually correct than the text they replaced - so anyone should be accused of spiteful behaviour, it was those who reverted my edits. Philcha (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the edits that were reverted included removing images that you were using repeatedly in the article. That's not spite, that's common sense: we don't use the same pictures over and over: you won't see that in any encyclopedia. If you want to improve the article, you are welcome to do so, but the revert was made over a month ago, and since that time you've complained bitterly about how terrible it was that your edits were reverted, how wrong it was, because your edits were "factually accurate", and how much of a "mess" this article is. Your earlier edits were reverted by someone because they were all in bullet-points, which is frowned upon. On talk:Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event the other day, you actually proposed to remove material from the lead because it was discussed in greater detail in the body of the article. It is clear you haven't read WP:LEAD as of two days ago. The manual of style pages are provided to avoid the sorts of honest editing mistakes you are making. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
And you need to read Help:Reverting#When_to_revert. Let me help you: "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism"; "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it"; "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute"; "Do not revert good faith edits". That's only a selection, and you violated most of them. Philcha (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As I have already stated, I've read that page. Let me help you: reusing the same images again and again in the same article will be reverted. When you reverted my removal of the duplicate images, as you did here, you were reverting. I haven't been complaining about your reversion for the past month, but I'm starting now. Why did you revert my removal of duplicate images in an article? Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything similar to the effects of vandalism. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I do wish you would state the facts accurately. Your actions removed not only the images (dino hip types) but my edit to the text. I noticed this and at first thought I'd forgotten to hit the "Save" button, so went back and re-saved. After a couple cycles of this you posted a message on my Talk page "why do you keeping adding duplicates of the image" and saying nothing about the loss of your text. I replied (a) complaining about the removal of my edit of the text and explaining the edit; (b) explaining that I thought the hip images should go with the first mention of "saurischian" and "ornithischian" (an issue now apparently resolved by combining the 2 classification-related sections, which is in line with my comment at the time that there was a structure problem). I regret that (as I've just noticed to-day from the history of Dinosaur) I accidentally undid some of your text while reinstating my own. But it wouldn't have happened if you had stuck to removing the images (leaving my text in place) and sending me a message that accurately described what you had done, as what got my attention in each cycle of our unintentional edit war was the removal of my edit to the text. Philcha (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
My last edit (reverted) was an attempt to distinguish between shared derived characters and non-universal characters in "Distinguishing characteristics". Looking at it again it's currently a total mess and my attempt could at best have been partially successful, so I'll list the features here so that anyone who knows and has a ref can comment on each item; then we can sort out the section in the article:
a diapsid skull bearing two pairs of holes in the temporal region - shared derived (shared with lizards and most non-dino archosaurs, so goes well back in the sauropsid lineage)
holes in the snout and lower jaw - shared w other archosaurs.
loss of the skull's postfrontal bone - shared w crocs [8]
a long neck incorporating an S-shaped curve - shared w ornithodira
an acetabulum, or hip socket, with a hole at the center of its inside surface - not universal in dinos, e.g. not in Saturnalia. BTW the ref at the end of this list in the current article may be to Saturnalia rather than dinos generally; I remember adding a ref to Saturnalia when I corrected this point in Jan 2007.
I've also revised again the last para of "Distinguishing characteristics": there's no connection between perforated acetabulum and erect limbs ("pillar erect" alternative in rauisuchians and other archosaurs; therian mammals); I think it's worth mentioning Carrier's constraint. Philcha (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Philcha (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Scrapped and rewrote the shared non-synapomorphy paragraph. J. Spencer (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the positive identification of some shared derived characters, and the addition about how erect limbs made large size possible. Have you given up on the feasibility of sorting out other characters into "shared derived" and "not in all dinos"? And I see you've dropped "no prefrontals" - is that another "not feasible to sort out"? Philcha (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It depends on how much anatomical detail we want to have. I was "hitting the highlights"; sacral number and perforated acetabulum were characters that always had been cited as synapomorphies in the past, and elongated shoulder blade is pretty easy to visualize, whereas the hand thing was proving impossible to concisely describe, the S-shaped neck is an ornithodiran trait that doesn't "seem" to be a discrete character, and the postfrontal has two problems: it's a really obscure bone, and I'm finding conflicting designations of how far down the tree the dinosaurian absence should go. J. Spencer (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Philcha (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a decent diagram of "normal erect" and "pillar erect" hip joints, as I think it would be useful to illustrate the para about dinos' erect stance. If no-body can point to one in a few weeks I'll produce one - we only need a stick drawing. Philcha (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Guarantee you there isn't, go ahead and make one now if you so choose, or request it on the art signup page. Sheep81 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Great mind-reading, I was about to request a link to the art signup page! Philcha (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
See guys, collaboration is much better than seperation! :) And for anyone in the future, if you feel your edits are being reverted unfairly, the reverter may not understand your edit, so placing a note on the talk page of an article is always the best thing to do. Hopefully you'll continue to contribute to the article Pilcha! :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Spawn Man, I appreciate your helpful attitude (see above), but you're on very thin ice here: in Oct 2006 I posted a list of proposed changes (icluding fixing some gross errors), nothing had happened by mid-Dec 2006 so I posted that I intended to edit as per the Oct 2006 post, in Jan 2007 I edited and it was reverted within 2 days. You're admonishing the wrong person. Philcha (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Philcha--I suspect one reason the reverts happened is that, in high-profile featured articles like this, we get loads of attempted contributions by people who don't know or don't care about standard style guidelines being used. I'm guilty of reverting 'out of place' looking edits myself without deeper investigation, especially if they comprise a really big chink of text. This is especially true of featured articles, where the likelihood that some new editor not previously associated with the project is going to step in and make meaningful contributions that are not detrimental to FA status are basically nil. The fact is, for better or worse, the use of repeated images and bullet lists are detrimental to FA. The article would not pass review with that type of problem. It's easy and (I think) forgivable to jump to the conclusion that poor formatting and understanding of Wiki style guidleines + unfamiliar editor = detrimental contribution. Most of us don't have time to pick through massive contributions and re-format or re-write them. I hate to say it, but in these cases it's easier to just revert the whole thing "for the good of the article." Many people also appreciate this, and major contributions are either posted and/or discussed on talk first, or a sandbox version is created for community editing, then copied into the main text. I'm sure it's nothing against you personally, but the fact that you're taking it that way is not exactly helpful, and neither is the attitude of "there are problems but all you guys hate me so I won't share what I think it is." What is this supposed to contribute, exactly, other than the fact that you have a personal grudge against the editors working on this project? Either tell us what you think the problem is, or don't.
As for the edits themselves, I think they were a bit misleading. Yes mammals and rauisuchians achieve an erect stance without a perforate acetabulum, but we're not talking about mammals or rauisuchians. Dinosaurs do use a perforate acetabulum to achieve this, at least in part. Is it the only way? No, but the article didn't say it was. Simply adding a parenthetical "(some other groups of animals achieve erect posture in different ways)" would have sufficed, rather than out-commenting the entire paragraph. Anyway, thanks for your contributions, and for baring with me on all this! Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Dinoguy2, don't take what follows personally - I've enjoyed our recent discussions (see for example Talk:Tyrannosaurus).
You said, "It's easy and (I think) forgivable to jump to the conclusion that poor formatting and understanding of Wiki style guidleines + unfamiliar editor = detrimental contribution." I think that view violates the guidelines in Help:Reverting#When_to_revert, plus all the more detailed guidelines at the back of these (see section "Working with others" in Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines).
What you regarded as "poor formatting and understanding of Wiki style guidleines" is simply a different interpretation of the guidelines, and one that I can defend with chapter and verse (starting with Wikipedia:Embedded list, which provides examples of acceptable use of lists).
We were all unfamiliar editors at some time - do you want to drive people away? AFAIK Wikipedia doesn't want to drive people away - see section "Working with others" in Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines.
Re "Dinosaurs do use a perforate acetabulum to achieve this (erect limbs), at least in part" (which refers to the reversion of a more recent edit), I think your logic is suspect. Dinos used the same basic hip joint geometry as mammals (acetabulum faces approx horizontally, femoral head approx at right angles to shaft). Perforate acetabulum is part of a different "package", along with the roughly cylindrical femoral head, that limited the the sideways mobility of the hindlimbs (I found an article about that once, IIRC the detailed analysis was done on guinea fowl; see also the many references in Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs .." to dinos' "stiff, birdy limbs") - whereas mammals, with approx spherical femoral heads, have greater sideways mobility (which some cursorial species, including dogs, horses and antelopes, have secondarily reduced). If you provided a ref that supported "Dinosaurs do use a perforate acetabulum to achieve this (erect limbs), at least in part" it would be reasonable to use it in the article; but I'd go looking for a ref that presented the other view :-) Philcha (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
(Non-)avian dinos
I've used "non-avian dinosaur" a lot to exclude birds, but one thing bothers me. Is there any support for Paul's suggestion ("Predatory Dinosaurs of the World") that dromaeosaurs such as Velociraptor were secondarily flightless birds? If so, can we sort out the resulting terminological mess (since "dinosaur" in the popular sense would then be paraphyletic)? Or should the "definition" section just admit that our use of "dinosaur is paraphyletic? Philcha (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh. I thought it did state it (paraphyly of dinosaurs), but I see that although the idea is mentioned, the magic word "paraphyletic" is not. No one that I know of has found Paulian flightless dromaeosaurs lately, but since "dinosaur" as commonly understood is already paraphyletic, I guess it would just have to be even more paraphyletic. Either that, or the author(s) could propose a different definition of Aves to exclude dromaeosaurids. J. Spencer (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Logically you're right of course - "non-avian dinosaur" is by definition paraphyletic. But if there's support for Paul's secondarily flightless dromaeosaurs, that adds further scope for confusion. If so and there's a simple way to explain this, we should include it in Dinosaur; otherwise perhaps a little explanation might be helpful in article(s) about any groups that are regarded as secondarily flightless birds. Philcha (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Even studies that find dromies to be secondarily flightless, as far as I know, have not found them to be avian. Avain does not = flight, after all (that's Avialae sensu Gauthier, not often used). A quick mention that "dinosaur" here excludes birds (Aves) should be enough for now. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, thanks! Philcha (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Rise of the dinos
I think the article needs a "Rise of the dinosaurs" section to explain that: dinos first appeared relatively late in the Triassic; they did not become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates until the end of Trissic, possibly helped by a mass extinction that reduced competition from other archosaurs that had previously been dominant (ref: Benton, "Vertebrate Paleontology"). General readers are unlikely to be aware of this since the Mesozoic is still commonly labelled "the Age of Dinosaurs". "Rise of the dinosaurs" need not be much longer than this post. Philcha (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Check out the subsection "Origins and early evolution". It should be one-stop shopping. J. Spencer (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, must clean my glasses!
How about making "Paleobiogeography" immediately follow "Origins and early evolution", so they're sections of the same narrative? Philcha (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"Extinction" should cover the debate about how fast dinos became extinct (several analyses of Hell Creek by Fastovsky and co. argue it was abrupt; I don't know the latest consensus).
"Extinction" should keep "Paleocene dinosaurs?".
A lot of the material about patterns of extinction and causes should be moved to Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, with brief notes and a cross-link rermaining in Dinosaur. In particular "Extinction" in Dinosaur should avoid the impression of being committed to one theory (impact) and should briefly mention the other leading contender, Deccan Traps eruptions. Philcha (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Dinosaur already has a section on both the impact extinction theory and the deccan trap extinction theory. What it is really missing is the 'they were already on their way out' theory, which is Dodson's and some other folk's view, and one of the leading contenders on dinosaur extinction theories. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Going through "Extinction" (Dinosaur) in detail: the 1st para is good but should mention vegetation, while the rest of the intro mentions factors which are not discussed in Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event (ice caps, temperature, oxygen level) and whose relevance is not made as clear as it should be in "Extinction" (moving "Some scientists hypothesize that climate change, combined with lower oxygen levels, might have led directly to the demise of many species" before the material about climate would help); too much about the details of variations on the impact theory and not enough about how an impact might have caused a mass extinction ("nuclear winter", rain of red-hot debris, acid rain, longer-term greenhouse effect); Deccan trap content OK but could be shorter, and I think the stuff about Alvarez' view of the Deccan Traps should move to Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event.
To get the 2 articles to support each other with minimal duplication I suggest: incorporate content into Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event as suggested above, so that Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event becomes the main source amnd "Extinction" only summarises selected items from it (probably not a quick job, as Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event is an intrinsically complex subject); start "Extinction" with review of extinction patterns (extinction of dinos fast or slow, Fastovsky vs Dodson; Paleocene dinos; Hell Creek {AFAIK} the only boundary-spanning terrestrial fossil bed, may not be globally representative, but if others have been discovered recently we need to have a good look at the refs before editing anything; brief list of other casualties); brief review of major explanatory hypotheses and killing mechanisms, with strong recommendation to read Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event for fuller description and explanation. Philcha (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Archived
The page was getting extremely long, and there was a distinct break between the November material and everything before it, so I cut everything before "Corrections urgently needed" (the most recent active discussion) and created Archive 7. J. Spencer (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Linking to other articles
I can't see any pattern in whether parts of Dinosaur link to other articles. For example the list of not-dinosaurs in "What is a dinosaur?", ornithodirans in "Origins and early evolution", sauropods in "Evolution and paleobiogeography". I prefer to link a term when it first occurs in a section, though I realise that in some cases that will create long strings of links; but when in doubt I'd rather over-link than under-link. Philcha (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but it'll be a lot easier to fix once the article restabilizes. J. Spencer (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, to link a term when it first occurs in a section we have to be sure where the section breaks are. Should this go in a "To do" list at the top of this Talk page? Philcha (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Restructuring - "Classification" and "Natural History"
I don't know how J. Spencer is getting on with the heroic task of restructuring the article, but I'd like to make a few suggestions. IMO "Classification" is not the most interesting aspect to non-specialists, and its current position breaks up the narrative in the "Natural History" section; and it also partly functions as a "List of" section, which normally comes near the end of biology articles. There are also a few other topics that I think fit most comfortably under "Natural History". So I suggest:
Natural history
Origins and early evolution
Evolution and paleobiogeography
Size
Behavior
Soft tissue and DNA. Before "Physiology" because "Soft tissue and DNA" is likely to describe evidence that's relevant to "Physiology"; drop the "Controversies" heading because at present there's only 1 sub-section that's controversial, "Physiology" (unless people want to include the dino-bird link under "Controversies", but I'm not sure that's justified; and there's at least some debate about many topics in the article anyway.)
Physiology. It might be good to move "Lungs", "Heart" and "Gizzard" from "Feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds" to "Physiology" because these are also elements in the dino thermoregulation debate.
Feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds. Refer to "Lungs", "Heart" and "Gizzard" if these are moved to "Physiology". But retain "Sleeping posture" in "Feathered dinosaurs ...".
Extinction
Classification
History of discovery. Include in this the 1st para of "Study of dinosaurs", possibly under "The "dinosaur renaissance", which lists other modern study techniques.
Dinosaurs in culture
Religious views Philcha (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like having the cast established early on, which is why I moved up the classification section; that's my reasoning. "Natural history" is a bit of a placeholder when I was struggling to find a better term, but I think such a section should be limited to topics with a time component, like origins, evolution, and distribution. However, moving soft tissue/DNA and physiology into paleobiology is not a bad idea, and "controversies" is vague and potentially biased anyway. I also think that there may be too much on the dinosaur-bird stuff, and would like a theropod or bird person to have a look at that section and see if anything is redundant with Origin of birds and Feathered dinosaurs. J. Spencer (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and perhaps rename "Study of dinosaurs" to "Paleobiology." J. Spencer (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't all the subheadings that include "dinosaur" be renamed? Isn't that against the MoS? Sheep81 (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Changed all but one ("What is a dinosaur?") and decided to give an expanded "Paleobiology" a test drive. J. Spencer (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
"Distinguishing features" currently says, " ... early dinosaurs and other basal archosaurs are often poorly known and were similar in many ways." Should that be " ... early dinosaurs and other contemporary archosaurs ..."? "Basal archosaurs" makes me think of e.g. Protorosaurus. Philcha (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. J. Spencer (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't we find a better word than "contemporaneous". I noted the "ugh" in J. Spencer's edit summary. I'd be happy with "other contemporary archosaurs" or "other archosaurs of that time". Philcha (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I liked your second suggestion more, but I added "Late Triassic" to clarify what "that time" was. J. Spencer (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Simple and sweet! Nothing personal :-) Philcha (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
disambig
cornwell and predator need disambig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomblue (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
^Dawkins, Richard (1996). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. W.W. Norton. p. 400. 978-0393315707. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
