Talk:Darwinius/Archive 1

Support for merger with Ida (fossil)
I support the merger with the above article in the lines of Lucy (fossil)--Sulfis (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, since there is only one specimen of Darwinius, which is "Ida", whereas there are plenty of Australopithecus fossils other than Lucy. Once (or if) more Darwinius specimens are found, it might make sense to give "Ida" its own article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I got it wrong. You are right FunkMonk, I should not have mentioned Lucy. I meant to keep the contents in that style. Did not word it correctly. --Sulfis (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NO WAY. This is a huge find and is getting major media and scientific community attention. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * of course, Ida (fossil) should be merged into this article. It is pointless to keep the articles separate when they are going to discuss the exact same thing Darwinius masillae is a species known only from a single fossil, hence anything in the article on the fossil will be relevant to the article on the species and vice versa. --dab (𒁳) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the fossil itself is an earthshaking scientific find. the circumstances of its find, and significant scientific studies of this specific fossil will go in this article. findings about the species as deduced by scientists will go in the main article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched wikipedia for Ida to find information about this specific fossil, not information about the species. As a completely random user, I would like this to be a separate article. Zaglabarg (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But the thing is, everything known about the species is known from "Ida", since it is the only specimen of the species, as well as the genus. Splitting it up doesn't make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A prominent fossil section within the article should be enough, I think.--Sulfis (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Support merging, with redirect. Anything that would belong in the article about the specimen, also belongs here, as long as it's the only specimen that's been found. Let's keep things in one place. Anyone interested in the specimen would then be redirected here (or to a subsection here, if that's more appropriate). --NorwegianBluetalk 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. I too came to the Wiki to look for info concerning the specimen and the finding of it. I'm not necessarily interested in info about the species. However, this article should have a section on the specimen "Ida" and its story.


 * In any case, it seems Darwinius/Ida is overhyped, take a look at this: http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge, at present they are one and the same. There is also no telling if the individual fossil will become as famous as Lucy. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge per above. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge as above. If more fossils are found and if the type is still considered as historically important as Lucy when all the media hype dies down, then it should be split. At this point there's nothing you can say about "Ida" that can't also be said about the genus Darwinius in general. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. Lucy (Australopithecus) and Australopithecus afarensis are separate articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. There are other fossils of Australopithecus afarensis, which explains why they have separate articles. Then I'm OK with a redirect for now, and if they find more fossils of Darwinius masillae, we can go back to having separate articles. I change my vote to support merge, but I don't want to erase what I already wrote.Grundle2600 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge into this article of Ida fossil and Ida (fossil), separate articles not needed until more specimens found. Worth noting that the species name was to celebrate Darwin's bicentenary, according to the BBC News item: will add this at the start. Science Daily has good coverage, the overhyping is commented on by John Wilkins,, as well as and PZ: . . . dave souza, talk 05:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge There is no information about the species not relevant to the fossil and vice versa. J04n(talk page) 06:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge People who are interested in the specimen and its history are not necessarily interested in a lot of info concerning the species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.156.29.187 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * this is just nonsense. All "oppose" votes apparently fail to appreciate that there is only a single specimen for this species. As soon as a second specimen is discovered, a split will become arguable. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to implement the merger. I have been careful not to lose any relevant info, which was easy, since the Ida article was nearly to 100% duplicating material covered here already anyway. (note that the Germans have come to the same conclusion)--dab (𒁳) 08:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it would be better to combine the two, but not completely. I think the most logical thing would be to have Ida as a subcategory of this topic. That would be a way to list the story of Ida and give the details of the species. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Need to delete "Ida (fossil)".--Freedomuser (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably a fake
section imported from Talk:Ida (fossil)

You guys do know this fossil is probably a fake. Real experts have had a hard time getting a look at it, despite it being supposedly found in the 80s. It's been in a private collection all this time. It just smells of someone faking it to make money by selling it to private collectors. And even if it was real, calling it the missing link is HUGELY misleading. Read this BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8057465.stm for a little evidence behind some of what I say. -OOPSIE- (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't feed the prehistoric trolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.156.29.187 (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say I have my doubts on this too. This is an almost too-good-to-be-true find, but it was allegedly found back in 1983 and hidden away in a collection since. There is simply no way of verifying anything related to the discovery context now. For all intents and purposes, this is just something that was found on somebody's attic. A little scepticism would be in order. On top of that, this fossil is first presented to the public not in a scholarly manner, but on a tabloid .com website sponsored by TV corps giving us dumbed-down drivel. In combination, this certainly does raise a couple of red flags. Also, the journalists seem determined to tout this as "the missing link". Well, it is a transitional fossil, between monkeys and lemurs, and not related to the human species in particular. We already have the actual "missing link" in the Darwinian sense, between humans and non-humans. It is known as Sahelanthropus tchadensis. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't think it's a fake, save the faked parts in the American section which are properly described as such and disregarded. The hype is excessive and I've added cited questioning of the adequacy of the research to date. . dave souza, talk 09:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The fossil is most decidedly real. Take a look of other fossils from the Messel pit, and you will see it fits right in. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's even easy to fake something of that sort. X-Rays look pretty realistic to me. Please, Oopsie, explain how you imagined they would do! --Gibbzmann (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The link OOPSIE posted shows some doubt on the interpretation of the fossil, not its authencity. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is hardly fake, nothing indicates that, but it might be hyped up to a lot more than it is. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We should bear in mind that media buzz increases the selling price, so the owners are only acting according to their best interests in arranging for coordinated media and scientific publicity, with the tabloids leading. If they published it discreetly and allowed the experts to debate back and forth for a month, how many newspapers would be interested in covering "old news"?  I certainly don't know this happened, but I suppose that if they threw on a few hundred thousand or more in seed money to increase coverage of their commodity in the news it would be money well spent.  I've seen news stations dedicating segments to "news" about local restaurants and magic magnetic bracelets... for someone to take money to cover this story would be unusually good behavior for them. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You pretend that this fossil was first presented to the public not in a scholarly manner ??? That's totally wrong, this finding was submitted to the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE on March 19, was accepted for publication nearly two months later on May 12, and was officially published one week later and only then it made it to the general public news, or "tabloids" as you call them. Of course in the scientific publication there isn't any mention of this being "the missing link", that was indeed a journalist invention to sex up a bit the story, which by itself is already quite extraordinary and doesn't benefit from any of this "help".Link to the PLoS ONE paper. Sophos II (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the impression that the authors pushed the "embargo" a little more than usual, causing discussions to emerge in the media before people had read the paper, but I could be wrong. I don't doubt that it is a grand discovery, but there are many grand discoveries, and not all of them end up being sold in the media as the "Lost Ark".  The commercial speculation in fossils distorts how the science plays out, which annoys me, but I don't deny that there is real science involved here, and quite a bit of it. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree skepticism is needed in this case. It's being highly promoted and the fact that they just now pull it out of a collection just makes it worse. I believe it's real but to say its the missing link is pushing it. I find it amazing that when they discovered that mitochondrial DNA indicates that we came from one or argued by some few women that they didn't blast that all over the news like this fossil. It's kinda scary what they try to push and what the media tries to hold back on.Mcelite (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be closely investigated to find the truth for sure. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, skepticism is greatly needed in all of these cases. I've done research into each of the "missing link" fossils found and every one of them had some glaring issues with each of them that made them more debatable about their origin. I don't recall which one, but I remember one of them was a monkey's skeleton with a human's knee cap that was found near the rest. From the articles I read on Ida, one glaring issue that has to be looked at is that it was discovered a few decades ago, then "set in polyester resin" and hung on a collector's wall... was there anyone official to watch this process to make sure no fossils were altered? Who's to say it wasn't a practical joke that they swapped out a human child's foot bone (the only real indicator of the species change)?
 * But not by us. If it is announced that it is a fake, sure, it shold go in the article. But as for now, there's nothing that unique about the fossil, here's another fossil from the same formation, a rodent, the way it is preserved is practically identical. In any case, the authors themselves acknowledge that some parts of the counterslab are fabricated, and show which exact parts with a radiograph. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you would care to look up on the fossils of the Messel pit, you would see that putting the fossil in resin is the only way to preserve them, and has been done with all the other fossils from the site. The Messel pit contain oil shale with a high water content. The water needs to be replaced, or the fossil simply crumbles up. Scientists had given up on the site and left it to amateur collectors as no-one knew how to preserve the fossils, and it was the amateurs that discovered how to preserve them. When the "transfer technique" was acknowledged by science, the pit was closed to amateurs, and an amnesty was put on existing fossil collections, hoping the best fossils would find their way back to museums.


 * I actually work at the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo that bought the fossil (yes, I have seen it), and I can tell you there is no way the museum would pay half a million dollars for a fake. Jørn Hurum and his team spent a month with X-raying the fossil to make sure it was authentic before closing the deal. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very informative and good to know. The suggestion that it had been bought on the basis of photographs did seem odd, and it makes sense that careful examination was carried out before payment. The main area of contention seems to be the overblown claims in some of the presentation and reported by the media. . dave souza, talk 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just say Dr. Hurum is very good at working the media to create interest. Some of you may know of Predator X, another of his projects. He's a lot of fun to be around. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Scepticism is beneficial, but authority of the source is demanded nevertheless
With all due respect, I find it below standard that Wikipedia cites the criticism of the presentation and overall quality of a scientific paper by referring to a personal blog of a University student. If the claim is that the paper did not receieve proportionate peer-review, does this mean that blogs instead do? Is the citation of «Poor, poor Ida, Or: "Overselling an Adapid"» really in place here? I bet that more authoritative reviews will soon come out in the open, and until then the criticism be removed. --Gibbzmann (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ScienceBlogs set a good standard, in contrast to the coverage in Sky.com and, sadly, the Grauniad, which are also cited. Laelaps is particularly well respected. If coverage is restricted to peer reviewed papers, there would not be the hype about "missing link" and "human ancestor". . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * «If coverage is restricted to peer reviewed papers, there would not be the hype about "missing link" and "human ancestor"». Well, that is not the question I posed, isn't it? And two wrongs wouldn't make a right anyway. Besides, the media aren't scientifically authoritative, yet they still are relevant sources. The same sources that are often cited as "explaining" that at LHC at Cern they will reproduce the Big Bang or find "God's particle".
 * Anyaway, going back to my question. I take it that Laelaps is particularly well respected for original Science, I admit my ignorance. I'll submit the question to others for confirmation. --Gibbzmann (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If we want to do this properly, we need to base the "what it is" section entirely on scholarly, peer-reviewed literature, and all media hype about missing links and what not would belong to a separate section dedicated to "impact on mainstream popular culture". Academics losing it and rambling about holy grails and lost arks of course also go to the pop culture section.

The problem here is that the authors of the paper are associated with the media hubbub: according to the scienceblogs entry criticized by Gibbzmann Even though the authors of the paper deny making any such statement, the promotional materials they are associated with (most notably the "Revealing The Link" website) play up this angle to a ridiculous degree. and ''even if their language was more reserved in the technical paper they have gone hand-in-hand with the History Channel to create an aura of sensationalism around the fossil. ... I am sickened by the way in which a cable network has bastardized a legitimately fascinating scientific discovery, with the scientists themselves going along with it every step of the way.''

In this sense, the scienceblogs article is mostly attacking the article authors not for the quality of their paper, but for their involvement in the misleading sensationalist presentation in the popular press. Since this will belong in the "publicity" section rather than the section discussing the significance of the find, I see no problem with using the scienceblogs reference. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann, I haven't "critized the scienceblogs entry" at all. I haven't produced a single statement about the merit of the criticism, which for me in principle could be the most enlightened ever conceived in Science history. The question was rather the relevance of the source to Wikipedia (I'm for now suspending my judgement). By the way, that "the scienceblogs article is mostly attacking the article authors not for the quality of their paper" is contradicted by the following standing statements: "This shoddy scholarship is matched by a weak attempt to show that Darwinius has more anthropoid-like traits. [...] The hypothesis [...] does not have strong support. The authors [...] did not undertake a full, rigorous cladistic analysis to support their claims. [The authors stressed the significance of this fossil] without undertaking the requisite research to support their hypothesis. [...] The overall poor quality of the paper, [...] I honestly have to wonder why it was allowed to be published in such a state." So much for NOT attacking the quality of a paper (I guess the word poor associated with quality is a compliment, such as shoddy associated with scholarship). --Gibbzmann (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is ironic. Se the next thread. --Gibbzmann (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gibbzmann, I am aware of the statement you have produced. I have in fact reacted to it. The question isn't so much what is in the blog entry, but what we are using it for here. To save you the bother of reading and understanding my reply above, I will summarize: As long as we cite scienceblogs in the Publicitiy section only, we are, in my opinion, fine. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK dab, I'll accept your proposition, although I find it a bit borderline to include in the publicity section a statement regarding "lack of adequate research in the published paper". --Gibbzmann (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

phylogenetically ancestral or extinct
If this speciment is phylogenetically ancestral then cannot be extinct in the terms of cladistic. Forcing extinction is plain POV. The term under words missing link emphasisn the ancestry of this speciment. 71.201.243.179 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, there is some dispute about whether it has been clearly established this is an ancestorial form "and a lack of adequate research in the published paper to back claims that it is an ancestor of the earliest anthropoids.[4]" Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So why about all talk about? About some millions years ago dead rat with well preserved tail ? 71.201.243.179 (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is ironic, Nil Einne. I've just been told (see above) that reference [4] does not represent a standing scientific "dispute" but merely a matching reference for misleading or exagerated media coverage, and now I learn that [4] is an authoritative source for rebutting the scientific claim which is object of the page (thus justifying modifications of the text regarding the merit of the finding). By the way, I would note that the very existence of the Wikipedia page on this scientific issue is justified by the claims made by those authors. If anybody is unhappy, the best way would be to cite the paper itself which in fact proposes and does not represent as a fact that Darwinius is ancestral. As an aside, I'd also say I find a bit exaggerated that the erroneous origin of the phrase "missing link" in certain circumstances should be held as an established fact, rather than a legitimate point of view. In fact, I see it not so outrageous that, should my lineage go extint soon, I'm still a potential missing link between Australopitheci and whatever descendants my brothers will have for millions of years to come. --Gibbzmann (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blame Charles Lyell, he invented the term (as I recall). Does it actually propose it? see below. . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the point of extinction: If the Darwinius masillae turn out to be ancestral monkeys (and thus man), the species is still extinct in that there are no D. masillae as such alive today. If so, it represent a chronospecies, it's extinction is not POV. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change to lead
draws attention to the PLoSOne paper paragraph which concludes "Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids." This shows suitable caution about the question of whether this species might be ancestral to anthropoids, but the assertion of ancestry is all over the news coverage and has been fuelled by statements made by the scientists concerned. We could cite that source and the paper for a statement that "the paper does not advocate Darwinius as ancestral to primates and hence humans" at the start of the section in the lead which currently begins with "Ida is a specimen of an extinct, phylogenetically ancestral primate species that lived 47 million years ago". Seem reasonable? . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, cause that has 47 million years which is bassed on Carbon Dating which is unreliable. Everything from fire to the sun to every and any heat source can greatly affect the findings. Not to mention the fact that there have been previously thought extinct animals that have been found. Don't ask me for examples as they are all latin to me(instead of greek :P), either way can't pronounce, spell, or come close to it. Instead maybe try, "Ida is a speciment of a primate species believed to be a phylog... ancestral primate which lived about 47 million years ago." -Fell Skyhawk (forgot to sign in) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.35.102 (talk)

Ecuse me, but "a phylogenetically ancestral primate species" is gbberish. First of all, it is tautological. You cannot be ancestral without being phylogenetically ancestral, so the adjective is redundant. Secondly, you can only be ancestral to something, you cannot simply be "ancestral". You are either a primate or ancestral to primates, but you cannot be ancestral to primates and a primate at the same time. Whichever it is, the article needs to make up its mind what it is going to state. From Dave's quote, it seems the relevant claim would be "an early primate ancestral to the Simiiformes", but at the same time it appears that this is only conjectured, and not claimed with any confidence. --dab (𒁳) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that the entire phrase starting with "Note that" and ending with "anthropoids" may be included in the part that deals with enthusiastic statements by the media, preceded by a linking phrase of the type «However, the authors themselves note that "Darwinius masillae... anthropods". It is a common practice to make such cautious statements, but nevertheless the hypothesis ("could represent a stem group") is outlined clearly, and as such should not be omitted from the entire phrase arbitrarily (as if the authors had missed that this could indeed be the case). --Gibbzmann (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am completely confused at this point. Is it, or is it not disputed that Darwinius is an Adapid? Then why does the infobox list it as a Notharctid? If the classification as an Adapid is undisputed, the implied point is that the classification of Adapids, and indeed of Adapiformes as Strepsirrhini? If the classification as an Adapid is undisputed, the lead should just say "Darwinius is a genus of Adapidae" and save the taxonomical intricacies for further down. The "ancestral to humans" thing, and thus the market value of all this, does of course depend on Darwinius not being a member of the Strepsirrhini. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How can it even begin to be disputed, if the dispute hasn't even started? My opinion is that one has to stand by whatever is stated in (and can be safely deducted by) the paper, and eventually add in parentheses something like "(proposed)", given that the scientific community will have to reach a consensus on correct (likely) classification in any case. --Gibbzmann (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * look the point is that Darwinius is claimed as a subset of the Adapiformes and the Adapiformes are claimed as a subset of the Strepsirrhini. From this it would automatically follow that Darwinius isn't ancestral to the simians. Do you see the problem now? If the paper suggests that Darwinius is Adapiform and at the same time suggests it may be ancestral to the simians it is -- implicitly or explicitly -- disputing that the Adapiformes are Strepsirrhini. So far, this article doesn't point this out to the reader at all, you have to click your way through the variuos taxonomy articles to even notice the problem. This should be fixed, and the article should state in no uncertain term whatever is the taxonomical implication here. Fixing this is much more important than collecting more journalistic trite and soundbites from Sir Attenborough. --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The authors of the paper do not believe that Adapiformes is a subset of Strepsirrhini. This is a new claim nobody has supported or refuted yet. Give it a year, then add a section on any potential controversy that crops up. What would be appropriate for now would be along the lines of "contrary to traditionally held views on the phylogeny of early primates, the authors conclude that Adapiformes are actually more closely related to modern simians than to lemurs and their relatives." Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * good. then this is the main upshotof this entire story. Cutting away all the media hype and the blatantly obvious attempts to make a quick buck marketing this fossil, the signficance of this find is the doubt it cast on the relation of Adapiformes and Strepsirrhini. We should state as much in the article lead. --dab (𒁳) 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For context, Carl Zimmer got email responses from "two prominent primatologists–John Fleagle of SUNY Stony Brook and Chris Beard of the Carnegie Museum" who suggest that this isn't really such a new revelation. It includes a brief analysis of what is claimed in the paper. . . dave souza, talk 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Protect/semi-protect?
There might be cause to protect this page for a little while. It's been vandalised quite a lot today. Lfh (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * you mean semiprotect, I assume. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly I do. Whichever is more appropriate.  Just for as long as the story remains front-page news. Lfh (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Page requires immediate semi-protection. --Hibernian (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, there's really not that much vandalism (surprisingly). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could this page be un-semi-protected please. As Julian mentioned, there didn't seem to be a huge amount of vandalism and the article is on the front page so I think should only be protected in the most extreme circumstances. Protecting for a week is certainly completely excessive. Any admins watching? GDallimore (Talk) 10:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinarily funny

 * "This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists"

would imply that the Deluge actually happened, that Earth is 6000 years old and that there was no evolution. God forbid!! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * you don't actually know what the "Lost Ark" is, do you. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * HAHAHA. Wow. The ignorance of the original poster is also apparent in the notion that using a figure of speech somehow verifies the existence of God.


 * Personally, I think that line is funny, too. Whether it's referring to the Ark of the Covenant (like Indiana Jones looked for) or the Ark that Noah built (which was wood, so it would have deteriorated centuries if not millenia ago). Making a Biblical reference with an evolutionary (or other commonly considered "anti-Biblical" topic) kind of makes me giggle a bit. ;-) Burleigh2 (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

guys, Rursus was being ironical. He was just confusing Noah's ark with the ark of the covenant. The latter was certainly a historical artefact, but we are talking about a piece of furniture of 3,000 years ago. It is possible to dig up furniture of the Late Bronze Age if you are lucky, but to go and find the one specific chest you were looking for would be spectacular. This is exactly what the comparison was intended to say. It is lucky to find a near-complete fossil of 50 Mya, but it is spectacular luck if that fossil turns out to be the one you would have wished to find most. As such, the Lost Ark comparison is perfectly valid, and has nothing to do with proving or disproving theism or creationism. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Title in italics?
Why is the title/heading of the article in italics? eu.stefan (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * hmmm, don't know. that's kind of odd. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be. FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a feature in the Taxobox template. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine in the taxobox, but the problem is that the title of the article is italized. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. A feature in the infobox causes the title to be italicized. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. How is it turned off? As far as I've seen, genus and species names in article titles are never italized. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can bring it up at the template's talk page; however, while I'm no expert, I assume that feature was implemented for a reason. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a previous discussion here regarding the matter. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like the italics disappear when the "| name =" field is added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. The name field overrides the automatic formatting. I'm curious why you say the title shouldn't be italicised. Binomial names are always italicised in the scientific literature. The lack of italicised titles in the past was not as a result of consensus for such presentation - it was due to technical limitations. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mgiganteus just re-italized the title name, but where was there a consensus for that? I can't recall seeing any other articles about extinct animals with binominal or genus names being italized. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's likely because it's a relatively new feature and few editors know about it. See the link Juliancolton provided for a discussion on this subject. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the binomial name, even as title, should be italicized. This is the standard for binomial names of all organisms in the literature; surely it should be followed in Wikipedia?  Agathman (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I un-italicized the title (is that even a word?) without reading this discussion. I mentioned something about this in the Puijila talk page. After all, Puijila is hard on the eyes before the italics are even added. I don't object to italicizing page names, so long as all scientific names in all articles are italicized. A lot of articles, be them dinosaurs, tricodonts, icthyosaurs, etc., don't have their titles italicized. BTW, there are far more non-italicized article names then their are italicized ones. It will be a major undertaking if it were to be done. It seems that only the well-publicized names are italicized, such as Puijila (previously mentioned), and Darwinius. -- Spotty  11222 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember some dinosaur article titles being italized long ago, but they were quickly changed back again, so it's not exactly new to be able to do it, but new that it should somehow be the norm.. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While this is somewhat not-related to the topic, if these article names are italicized, there are thousands more that are un-italicized. Their are plays and game titles that should also be italicized but are not. Having the italicization in the title doesn't seem like such a great idea to me, no matter what naming conventions or binomial names are. Article names are article names. -- Spotty  11222 20:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not consistent across Wikipedia. It does appear to be policy to italicize genus and species, even in article titles, though.  See WikiProject_Tree_of_Life.  Why not italicize here, and resolve to make such changes elsewhere for consistency when possible?  Agathman (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's an odd logic that because the feature is new and is still being applied across Wikipedia (a job that will take some time) we shouldn't change articles because other articles haven't been changed yet. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  05:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

we have many many articles with binominal names as titles, from Fusobacterium necrophorum to Homo erectus and it doesn't seem like many of them are italicized. It is silly to have an infobox tempate that randomly italicizes a small number of such titles. It there is a wiki-wide decision hat these titles should be italicized, it should be done properly and systematically. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason most of these titles are not italicised is because the taxoboxes include the "| name =" field, which was recently made redundant. When this field is removed, the template automatically includes the article name at the top of the taxobox and italicises the title. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would still be a major undertaking to do this for all' articles that require italic titles. -- Spotty  11222 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but I don't see this as a reason not to follow established procedure for scientific naming. Most could probably be dealt with by a bot anyway.--Kevmin (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * this is what I am saying. If we really want this, we need to send in the bots with the task of "if the article title is equal to the binominal name, italicize it". This is up to the Tree of Life people, but they should either do it all the way or not at all. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It needs to be done in genus articles too, though. Not sure how a bot would figure that out. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title again a while ago - sorry I didn't see this. We need to form some consensus on the best way to italicise species/genus titles. There is a discussion at the Tree of Life wikiproject here and one discussing using a bot here. Smartse (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to a Lemur
I hate the line "The creature appeared superficially similar to a modern lemur but had opposable thumbs" in the opening section. There are many differences noted later on, but the differing ankle bone as a key indicator is missing from there as well. Although it is to linked back to lemur type creatures, I feel that line on its own downplays what makes this find so significant, in a definitive way before the article can explain it. Anyone else agree? perhaps "with some signifant differences" or similar? The people who first saw it would not have thought what that line says imo. It is not a lemur with opposable thumbs, even superficially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The comparison is inapt to begin with, since, I believe, Lemurs have opposable thumbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.79.71 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do. Editing now then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Lemurs have slightly different skull. 89.146.65.170 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

something unclear to someone: 'multiregional' versus 'out of Africa'
there are indisputable facts: (if you should read more follow wiki-links (eventually ask for sources))
 * 1) The Ida fossil was found only 250 km away from Neanderthal See map
 * 2) Neanderthal find had big impact on media.
 * 3) The Felthofer1 discovery was 2 years before C Darvin published in 1859 book On the Origin of Species
 * 4) Media claim the Ida fossil is important to understand Anthropogenesis
 * 5) The Ida discovery was published in 200 anniversary of C Darvin. (Media also try to honor his achievements)
 * 6) The Africa at 47 Mya ago was separated by sea.
 * 7) The separation period was for millions years of until Africa collided with Europe due to plate tectonic. See map in Paleogene
 * 8) The Ida fossil lay in territory of Europe. The plate which form Europe today.
 * 9) Nobody found so early 47 Mya fossil of primate in Africa.
 * 10) The human evolution did not only take place in Africa.
 * 11) The human evolution is long process. Is certain that some stages of human evolution take place outside of Africa.
 * 12) The human evolution take places in many regions out of Africa.
 * 13) There is ongoing dispute between evolutionist about models of human evolution.

All the above facts of knowledge was put into 3 sentences, below:

The Ida fossil was found only 250 km away from another specimen, a milestone of anthropogenesis, found at Neanderthal.. The evolutionary path of 47 million years from Dearvinus to Neanderthal if crossed Africa was at least for period of 25 million years separated till tectonic plates bridged the sea in Paleogene. The evolutionary path is not as recent and as the fossil show is more multiregional.

But deleted here with comments about limits of perceptibility. 71.201.243.179 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the current version of the multiregional theory of human evolution claims that the various groups of humans living today evolved in different parts of the Old World only a couple million years ago from Homo erectus that left Africa.


 * The multiregional theory has nothing to do with Darwinius. The comparison with Neanderthals is one of historical significans, not of evolution of man. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I live about 250 km away from Darwinius, and the distance between me and Darwinius is almost exactly the same as the distance between Neanderthal and Darwinius. If we mentino Neanderthal here, we should also mention me, and everyone else closer than 250 km to the site. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * hmm... you say :we should also mention me
 * Where is your picture? If you think you are missing link show up please Dab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.125.234 (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * sheesh, are you User:Muntuwandi or something? --dab (𒁳) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
I changed the etymology to reflect the type paper, which does not mention creature or specify which messel is being honored. The genus name is "Derivatio nominis. Honoring Charles Darwin on the occasion of his 200th birthday." and the species "Derivatio nominis. Masilla= Messel in the Codex of the Lorsch monastery, 800 AD." --Kevmin (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When a fossil genus is monospecific...
... isn't the title of the article supposed to be the genus, and not the species? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the general policy of Wikiproject Paleontology has been to keep extinct taxa articles to genus and higher do to the fluidity of species numbers, with many genera having questionable species. However given the media frenzy surrounding the specimen it would require consensus to move it to Genus.--Kevmin (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be moved. And even if there had been more species, I'm in favour of having them all merged into the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur. Unomi (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I should also mention that this topic was also brought up on the talk page of Puijila and Otodus.
 * support a move to Darwinius. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is an official policy of Wikipeoject Dinosaurs, not, as far as I know, Wikiproject Paleontology in general. But if you all want to follow suit, I do think it's a good policy. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it makes sense on the dino project because species do not have articles. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Publicity stunt
Looks like archeologist have found out how to work the media. The media hype is exaggerated. I thought "missing link in human evolution" would be an ape or a hominid. Rather this is a missing link between prosimians and simians. Let’s Not Go Ape Over Ida, has compiled some useful critiques of this exaggerated media hype. The finding is important, but the people involved are clearly trying to cash in. Already there is a book out in all the book stores. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To be rather pedantic, the scientists who study these fossils are Paleontologists not archaeologists. The use of the term missing link is typical of media sources and unfortunate, but its IS a transitional form in the primate tree so the implied meaning is not totally wrong.--Kevmin (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does this article mention Homo sapiens and human evolution. It has got as much to do with human evolution as cottontop tamarin evolution or mongoose lemur evolution, yet neither of these get a mention. Nurg (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * because Hurum and friends are trying to sell this to human television, not mongoose television. I agree that all the pathetic hype surrounding this needs to be constrained to the "publicity" section at the bottom of the article. This is an important find for the reconstructino of early primate phylogeny, but it has nothing to do with human evolution in particular. Anything relevant to the specifics of human evolution takes place within Hominini, beginning some 8 Mya. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Wikipedia doesn't need to ape Hurum. Nurg (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin name of the species

 * Shouldn't the name be Darwinii Masilla, instead of Darwinius Masillae? Mmcarvalho 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * well, maybe Darwinius masilla? The genus is in the nominative -- we aren't Homini sapiens. The genus name is Darwinius. It may be interesting to find out whether there are any other genera named after people. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is Masillae because Masillae is the genitive of Masilla, while Darwinius is correctly given in the nominative. It means "Darwinius of Masilla" (or from Masilla) or, rather, in English "Darwinian of Messel" (Darwinian becoming a noun). --Gibbzmann (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the proper Latin for "the Darwinian of Messel" would be Darwinius masillensis. The genitive in the second member is dubious. You encounter such genitives in species named after people, i.e. Europolemur kelleri "Keller's Europolemur", but this is a different case. The name makes it sound as if Masilla was a person, "Masilla's Darwinian". --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, there's nothing controversial here. Whatever you assert the more correct way would be, it's beyond doubt that literally "Darwnius Masillae" means "Darwinius of Masilla" (the only controversial bit being whether Masilla is the mother or wife, or a place). The genitive is genitive in Latin, as in any other language, and therefore any confusion is just a failure to translate; the only alternative would be that Masillae is plural, and subjective, so a second subject distinct from the first, which wouldn't make any sense of any sort. There's no "sounds as if" here, just as "John of New York" means "of New York", and "John of Greta" means "of Greta". I would also doubt it's incorrect anyway, but that's not mine to judge (there are examples in Latin in which the geographical origin is treated as genitive, the same way "John the newyorker" and "John of New York" are both understandable). Finallly, being of Messel is not an active action, and therefore it would rather be "Darwinius masillus" or "masillanus" (whatever), and not "masillensis" (and not in upper case). --Gibbzmann (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was answering Mmcarvalho's question. I wasn't proposing we insert the claim that it is bad Latin in the article text, nor was I saying anything is "controversial" here. I am not sure what purpose your posting is supposed to serve, and not for the first time on this talkpage. Masillensis would be the most likely Latin for "of Masilla", compare Massiliensis from Massilia. Masillanus, as it were building on Romanus would be arguable but dubious. I am not saying this is a "controversy". It would be nice for paleontologists to get their Latin right, but obviously paleontologists aren't philologists, and apparently aren't expected to consult philologists before naming new speies. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Australopithecus bahrelghazali, Porconsul nyanzae, and many more, are examples of the same practice, the authors didn't invent anything. There are indeed other practices, equally correct. However, apart from lack of homogeneity, I'm not aware of outright mistakes. Maybe, sometimes it's concordance that is lost. And, I was responding to Mmcarvalho too. --Gibbzmann (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Darwinius Masillae means Darwin of Messel. It gives the animal found in Lake Messel the name of Darwin. This is similar to the hypothetical case a fossil of a unknown species of donkey were found in London and named Darwin of London. Frankly, I do not think this is honoring Darwin. Although still a bad name, Messelian of Darwin (Darwinii Masillensis, parhaps) would be better. Mmcarvalho 18:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.146.203 (talk)
 * no it doesn't. As we have just established right above your post, it means "Messel's Darwinian". --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My dear dab, it is evident that you do not have Latin. Please do not make uninformed assertions. Mmcarvalho 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected after nine anon edits in two hours?
Did someone have an itchy trigger finger w.r.t. semi-protection? Unless my hand-crafted cut/paste list failed me, I count ten anon edits to the article in the two hours before semi-protection was applied, with no anon changes in the nearly 50 minutes before the protection:
 * 1) cur) (prev)  21:53, 20 May 2009 SoWhy  m (12,692 bytes) (Protected Darwinius masillae: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC))))
 * 2) (cur) (prev) 21:02, 20 May 2009 70.106.82.210 (talk) (12,618 bytes) (→Discovery and publication)
 * 3) (cur) (prev) 20:56, 20 May 2009 67.71.181.78 (talk) (12,619 bytes)
 * 4) (cur) (prev) 20:42, 20 May 2009 98.221.129.232 (talk) (12,695 bytes)
 * 5) (cur) (prev) 20:41, 20 May 2009 66.154.147.129 (talk) (12,685 bytes) (→Type specimen)
 * 6) (cur) (prev) 20:40, 20 May 2009 71.203.225.60 (talk) (12,680 bytes) (→Notes)
 * 7) (cur) (prev) 20:31, 20 May 2009 71.203.225.60 (talk) (12,555 bytes) (→Type specimen)
 * 8) (cur) (prev) 20:26, 20 May 2009 89.181.47.48 (talk) (12,537 bytes)
 * 9) (cur) (prev) 20:10, 20 May 2009 190.49.44.58 (talk) (12,568 bytes)
 * 10) (cur) (prev) 20:09, 20 May 2009 190.49.44.58 (talk) (12,566 bytes)

70.106.82.210 just tweaked some wording, and one or two others were changes that at least superficially could be considered legitimate (e.g. 190.49.44.58 changed a year). Several of the rest fit the category of content disputes, a distinction significant to WP policy. But even if you assume all ten were vandalism, isn't that too light a reversion load to justify semi-protection?

Perhaps there were a lot of non-autoconfirmed users causing vandalism (as opposed to content disputes)&mdash;I didn't research that. But if that wasn't the case, in Protection policy, I read the following:

...administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes. (use of bold is mine).
 * Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option.
 * Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are anonymous or new editors (i.e., in cases in which full-protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved.

I was in on some of the early clean up (Special:Contributions/67.100.222.146) so the semi-protection didn't affect me, but as someone who tries to contribute without logging in I'm concerned about this. Thanks. 67.100.125.164 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree that semi-protection of new articles such as this one are a bad idea. Semiprotection is useful for (a) articles that are subject to a trolling campaign, e.g. by a banned user refusing to give up, and (b) long-standing, well-developed articles that tend to be degraded by the occasional drive-by anon. Neither case applies here. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But I must say that the threshold for new accounts is very low, and the time it took 67.100.125.164 to write the above claim would have been sufficient to create a throw-away account able to edit this article. After all, the truly anonymous editors are those using throwaway accounts. IPs are anonymous for the purposes of the Wikipedia community, but they are at the same time a direct link to your real-life identity. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the semi was correct because it was subject to quite a large number of vandalism edits, unfortunately for those good IP edits. I did just notice though that the length probably was a bit too long and changed it to a day. Hopefully by then the vandalism will have stopped. Regards  So Why  13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Since it seems several people agree with my comments above, I've made this request: Requests_for_page_protection. GDallimore (Talk) 13:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was good to get online again and see the article is no longer semi-protected. Thanks.  67.100.126.197 (talk) (earlier editing as 67.100.125.164 (contribs)) 23:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a valid genus and species
Don't know the standard for blogs being cited here but this is from Discover and is ubiquitous on paleo blogs/boards/sites/probably Twitter and Oprah right now. Darwinius is not validly published according to the ICZN. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks like it is going to be a very interesting discussion in the days to come. This find is simply too well publicised and too important to ignore the implications. Thanks for the link, Dinoguy2! Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Couple follow-up links from the Discover blog: Official word from the ICZN is Darwinius does not exist yet and Science held hostage Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You write in the comment field that ICZN has changed their mind. Do you have any links? Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This PLoS posting explains an agreed procedure. . . dave souza, talk 19:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwinius: Named at Last! | The Loom | Discover Magazine gives more background, rather interesting. . dave souza, talk 22:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Concern over a single specimen
Burleigh2 has put the following text, or some variant of it, into the article at least five times now, and it has been removed by various editors:
 * "Another concern is that while other evolutionary steps have many more examples, this species is currently known only from a single fossil specimen."

I heartily approve the removal of this statement. It's not referenced, having only a single specimen for a species isn't that rare, and I don't know what is meant by "evolutionary steps" -- sounds like the Great chain of being to me. Anyway, can we go on record with a consensus about this? Agathman (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense and definitely sounds like the author is mistaken about the nature of evolution. Remove immediately! Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, re-removed it and was beaten to the edit in removing creationist fringe "criticism" which is against WP:WEIGHT. . dave souza, talk 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies that I can't find the link source at the moment. I'm also new to Wiki and wasn't aware of how much should be done in the "talk" section and how much should be in the article. Part of the source was going by the dictionary's definition of "Species" at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species that points to a group of beings that are the same, not a single occurrence of a single unusual being... that's more reminiscent of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutation I will be searching for the initial reference to back it up if the dictionary's basis to that source isn't enough. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The dictionary definition is a simplification of the reality of taxonomy, in that it refers only to living modern species. Most fossil taxa are known from only one to a few specimens.  It has been common practice since the earliest days of paleontology to name species for a single specimen or, more often then not, a single partial specimen.--Kevmin (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "single fossil concern" is a non-issue. And that it is obvious that this is the case. A more meaningful question would be, how can they be sure their fossil shouldn't be classified under the Europolemur genus. --dab (𒁳) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A primate or a lizard?
Does anyone know of a source which can be used in this article to explain exactly how/why the fossil is identified as a primate, and not a lizard of some sort? - Brian Kendig (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The PLOS article (see ref 1 in the article) goes into considerable detail on its affiliation with the Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini, specific groups within the primates. There won't be anything in there specifically saying "here's why we don't think it's a lizard," because it's too obvious.  The simplest way of telling is that reptiles have simple conical teeth; mammals have varied teeth, many of which have multiple cusps.  The molars of Darwinius have multiple cusps and roots, typical of mammals, as you can see in the illustrations in the PLOS article.  Agathman (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! - Brian Kendig (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple of problems with article
I spotted a couple of problems with the article while reviewing it that I do not know how to fix. There isn't necessarily anything wrong, it's just that there appear to be important details missing. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks.

Firstly, in the lead, it talks about the two slabs being separated and not reassembled again until 2006, but the article itself does not discuss this - it discusses Hurum's purchase of one section, but no mention is made of the other that I can find.

Secondly, in the radiograph picture it refers to "fabricated parts of the counter-slab", but this is not referred to in the main text. Words like "fabricated" need some qualification to avoid misinterpretation by those who would seek to damage the credibility of the fossil.

Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "fabricated" is used in the paper itself: "All of plate A and parts 1 and 2 on plate B (enclosed in dashed lines) are genuine; remainder of plate B was fabricated during preparation." and "Relative positions and museum numbers as in Figure 1. Radiographs show that all of plate A is genuine, while cranium, thorax, upper arms (part 1), and lumbus, pelvis, base of tail, and upper legs (part 2) of plate B are genuine."


 * This article could be a lot longer, by the way, remember, the paper has a Wikipedia compatible license, so we can basically copy text from it without altering it. All the problems you address are clarified in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I haven't read the paper and wasn't planning on doing so. So, someone who has should clear up the problems I've noted was what I was suggesting. The wikipedia article should be internally complete without needing to read the paper. GDallimore (Talk) 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the section on the history of the fossil, hope it goes some way toward answering what you pointed out. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Thanks for that, but it does all look a little vague. I wonder if the stuff about the separation and fabrication is really worthy of note at all given how little information appears to be available. GDallimore (Talk) 08:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it's both interesting and well worthy of note. Sure I saw more info somewhere, but can't find the source right now. . . dave souza, talk 09:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing - or I would have removed it from the article myself - I'm just saying that, as currently represented in the article, it appears neither interesting nor worthy of note. It was just something that's been in the article for a while and seems to have been overlooked in all the other great improvements that have been made so I thought it worth mentioning. GDallimore (Talk) 10:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

primate genesis
re this, I admit the paragraph was somewhat gratuitous, but its background is the Attenborough video clip here which for all in the world sounds as if the significance of this was about connecting primates with non-primates. So, the blanked paragraph isn't strictly necessary, but it doesn't do any harm I can see either. --dab (𒁳) 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a non-sequitor though with no context. It's also editorialising to have the article editors reply directly to a perceived misconception. Rather, if such a misconception does exist, and someone responds to it in print, then we can report that. As it stands, you can't even cite the fact that it has no bearing on primate genesis, because nobody has said that it does or doesn't, so there's nothing cite. Nobody has said it has bearing on the origin of dogs either, and we shouldn't point that fact out. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have just stated, Attenborough is on record as saying that it does. Although that was orally in an interview, and I suppose he would have no problem with putting this more accurately. I am not sure how you can claim that "nobody said so" when I just have given you the link. If you are trying to say that I didn't phrase this explicitly as being in reference to the Attenborough interview, then fair enough. But rather than going to the tedious "however" clauses, I thought it would be easiest to just state it like it is unexcitedly. I am not saying there is any "controversy" here, I am just saying that some clarification on this point may be necessary. --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your point but it sounds pretty clearly like Attenborough misspoke. We can't be sure he wasn't including lemurs among 'the rest of the mammals', especially since the other side of the 'link' was "monkeys and apes." Sounds to me like he was trying to simplify Anthropoid vs Streptorhine for general audiences down to "monkey and apes" + "other mammals." Still, even if that's what he meant, my point stands that it's not our place to correct him here, and his comments seem too ambiguous to even include at all really. He may not be saying anything that isn't said more clearly in the actual paper. At best, we could write "contrary to Attenboroughs comments in a video sound bite, the authors conclude... etc." Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My humble opinion is that we already have living fossils in Lemurs, old world monkeys and new world monkeys. The similarities between lemurs and old world monkeys are remarkably obvious, so much so that any creature linking them shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Nonetheless, it appears there has been an active debate over which lineage is ancestral to the anthropoids . This particular article, Why Ida fossil is not the missing link contends that Ida is even more primitive than lemurs, and cannot be the link between prosimians and simians. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

you are right, this is about telling a general audience about the "missing link" thing. That is, link between what and what. This is what my paragraph was trying to do. I will be happy to include the newscientist article. Of course we will not state that "Ida is not the missing link between birds and mammals" because that's too obvious. But within the context of early primates, there is enough confusion to warrant some clarification It may well turn out that Ida is indeed a "missing link" completng the picture of early primate evolution, but not upstream of the human lineage but rather in the poorly documented "Adapiformes" taxon. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * between primates and non-primates? no, but it won't hurt to include this because the misconception is flying around
 * between anthropoids and more primitive primates? this ''seems' to be claimed, but rather implicity. Maybe, maybe not
 * between lemurs and other prosimians?
 * between the Adapidae genera?

Name
Can we be sure this is named after Charles Darwin. After all, there must be hundreds of species named 'Darwin' that have nothing to do with an obscure foreign scientist. Why, I have some of them in my garden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.88 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Derivatio nominis: Honoring Charles Darwin on the occasion of his 200th birthday." Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"an obscure foreign scientist" - you are kidding!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.197.249 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably has Berberis darwinii, Calceolaria darwinii, Pleuropetalum darwinii and Abutilon darwinii. Maybe Sapphirina darwinii, and probably a bridge for the trolls..... dave souza, talk 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except at least one of those probably was named after Charles Darwin. Pleuropetalum darwinii was named by Darwin's closest friend. The others don't list authority. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Abutilon darwinii was also named by Joseph Dalton Hooker, Darwin's friend, so likely also named after that same obscure foreign scientist. Agathman (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was just kidding a bit, pretty sure they all are. Today there are more than 120 species (and 9 genera) named after Darwin, including the remarkable Galápagos batfish (Ogcocephalus darwini). Berberis darwinii was named by William Hooker, after it was first collected in Chiloe, Chile in 1835 by Charles Darwin during the Beagle voyage. By an unremarkable coincidence, that source now features an interesting reconstruction of Darwinius. . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ida photoshop contest! --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ida was hailed as a "missing link" in human evolution, beautifully illustrating our transition from leaping about in trees to rampant mass-media sensationalism.  --dab (𒁳) 11:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

May 25 Is Darwinius Day, The Most Important Day IN 47 MILLION YEARS!
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/22/may-25-is-darwinius-day-the-most-important-day-in-47-million-years/ May 25 Is Darwinius Day, The Most Important Day IN 47 MILLION YEARS! | The Loom | Discover Magazine].... kinda getting out of hand. . . 22:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, this seems to be a spoof. Getting hard to tell. . . dave souza, talk 07:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent analysis from Edward Current. . . dave souza, talk 08:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a more informative story on the cooperation between Hurum and his team and History Channel: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/idalized_the_brand_of_a_fossil/ Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one's serious and informative, and I've added a couple of points to the article as well as rephrasing the start of the media blitz section. I've not yet mentioned the very fair point that PLoS publication made the info available to a wide public, including people like me with no access to Nature, and the revealing statement "Hurum seemed particularly preoccupied with the way the blogosphere is able to dissipate a story, mentioning an Arctic excavation he worked on several years ago that was picked-up by a blog in Japan within three hours of posting his pictures on the internet. 'I’ve seen Chinese specimens of dinosaurs and so on destroyed like this with lots of bad early descriptions [from] blogging,' he says. Hurum wanted to subvert the system and take his story straight to the masses in a way that would appeal to the average person, especially kids: 'If we really want kids to get involved with exciting scientific findings, no matter what kind of field, we really need to start [thinking] about reaching people other than [our] fellow scientists. This paper could have been drowned in other papers and would have been read by 15 people around the world'.” – evidently blogs getting the story right could reduce the appeal to kids. . . dave souza, talk 11:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic information
As a layperson I find that the article misses some very basic information. For example, I can't tell if the fossil was 3 cm tall or 3 m tall or somewhere in between. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Giant Lemur from the Dark Lagoon! 58 cm tip to tail, from a chart linked from the main PLoS paper. Actually not very easy to find, doubtless it appeared in some of the news coverage. . . dave souza, talk 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Darwinius Debate and Eosimias Wikipedia Pages
This may initial seem to be a side issue, in the middle of the flare-up regarding Darwinius. But I hope one of you experienced editors will work to clean up Wikipedia's material on Eosimias. Eosimias has been a key to the heated debate about early Anthropoid and pre-Anthropoid evolution in the past few years, the debate that Darwinius enters. As more and more people learn about Darwinius during the media blitz of the coming days, many interested amateurs are going to want to know about Eosimias. Wikipedia currently has two separate articles, an Eosimias article and a separate Eosimias sinensis article; each has its own links to good quality articles and its own interesting tid-bits (but one has a nearly extraneous bit of information that should be sent over to the Wikipedia Catarrhines article). I hope one of you, or a group, will collapse the two Eosimias articles together, as you did when you collapsed the Ida Fossil and Darwinius material together.Middle Fork (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, articles about extinct species, whether the genus they belong to is monotypic or not, should be merged into the genus article, unless the different species are highly notable on their own, as with very recently extinct species or fossil hominids. Otherwise the articles will just become complete duplicates, apart form very dry info such as provenance and size. That's how the dinosaur articles work, and it works well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture
What's the rule on uploading images from articles and stuff? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link has a very nice picture of the fossil that shows up better then what already exists on the article. Yami (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Images have to be explicitly under a free license, as you'll be advised if you click on the "Upload file" link to the left. We're using the original images which appeared on the PLoS paper under a suitable license, the Grauniad appears to have tweaked a copy of that image to suit their webpage, but we can't use their version. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Our picture is a lot better I'd say, it's straight from the paper, and has insanely high resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Something odd about the linked picture too, almost looks like a detailed cast, not the original fossil. Unless some really unique lighting was used. The contrast looks different from the figures in the paper, and the fur impressions not as detailed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, the copyright issue trumps all of this -- the figure from the Guardian appears to be copyrighted, while the PLoS figure is creative commons. End of story.  Agathman (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dinoguy2, as the resin used in preserving Messl fossils is usually semi-transparent, they can be backlit to dramatic effect. All casts are currently still at the NHM in Oslo as far as I know, so this is most likely the original fossil.Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit: Sorry, I think your are right. I just learned that the first casts have been sent to NY.Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fossil Wiki article
I was looking around for sources for this article, and stumbled upon this site. It's called the Fossil Wiki. I noticed that their article on Darwinius, while much the same like Wikipedia's article, has some more pictures. Could we use some of those pictures here? It is a wiki, so it is licensed under the CC license ( i think), and the image profiles say that they are under a free license, I suppose the same as the paper. Comments anyone? --71.246.98.235 (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that found out that if you sign in (it was free for me), the articles look much better without ads. --71.246.98.235 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's essentially a mirror of this article on Wikia, a project of Jimbo Wales. The images may have come from the PLoS ONE paper, in which case they're presumably under a suitable license. Not sure how many more images we want here, it's already quite well illustrated. . dave souza, talk 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All of those images are available to us, but there's not much room left in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Laelaps
Brian Switek's Laelaps blog on ScienceBlogs has provided useful and timely information which has subsequently been backed up by other sources and news reports, some of which have cited and linked to Laelaps whithout giving as much detailed information as Switek. An anon editor,, has been trying to remove Switeks as a reference, but in my opinion Laelaps is a source well worth citing and should stay. . dave souza, talk 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading this talk page, I see that I am not the only one who finds it questionable to use the blog of an undergraduate student as an authoritative source. I see that you are not willing to compromise on its inclusion, so I've refocused my efforts on making the credentials of the 'expert' explicit.  To do otherwise is to intentionally inflate the credibility of the source.  It is what it is: a statement made on the blog of an undergraduate science student.  I see nothing wrong with explicitly labeling it as such; it does not interfere with the flow of the article, and it tempers the remark with prudent caution.130.13.170.197 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, The Loom, a blog associated with Discover magazine, expresses the same sentiments in several posts. Not sure if this is more acceptable or not.    Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I agree with the opinion expressed. So does my niece, in 5th grade, but I'm not going to cite her blog in the article.  The issue is pretty clear --- there are plenty of other sources that back up these claims (some of which are *already* in the article, making the blog citations unnecessary).  If for some odd reason, this blog *must* be sourced in the article, despite my protests and the protests of others listed on this talk page (see section "Skepticism is beneficial..." above), I only ask that we qualify it with the credentials of the 'expert' in question.  He is an undergraduate student and a professional blogger.  It should be noted with the citation since doing so does not detract from the article.130.13.170.197 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry 130.13.170.197, but Seed Magazine's Scienceblogs have been considered reliable sources at Wikipedia since 2005. They are not ordinary blogs, contributors are by invitation only - vetted by the editorial staff of Seed magazine for academic excellence. You should stop edit warring and trying to poison the well here and move on and find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

we can use scienceblogs as a quotable reference in its capacity as a science blog. It cannot be presented as an academic presentation, but it can be presented as a referenced opinion in the field's blogosphere, for whatever that is worth. 130.13.170.197, once your nieces blog has a Wikipedia entry, survives AfD and gets established in Category:Science blogs, we will also be able to cite it here.--dab (𒁳) 06:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given up on trying to stop you from citing a blog. I find it quite interesting that several editors here are afraid of listing the credentials of the 'expert' in the article.  "Poisoning the well?"  If knowing his credentials turns off the reader, then maybe you should reconsider using his opinion as a source.  I see nothing wrong with letting the public know the truth, and am suspicious of the motives of anyone who would hide it.130.13.170.197 (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The credentials are that it's a blog on ScienceBlogs, which is stated. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "the truth", and it's well established that Laelaps is one of the more useful and informative sources of comment on this find and attendant publicity. Your suspicion of motives is a failure to assume good faith, as is required of all editors. That's a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, read it. . . dave souza, talk 15:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you bothered to think about why it is wikipedia policy to not use self published sources whenever possible? If not, maybe you should take a minute.  There is no system of checks or balances here.  If this guy wants to say that the paper lacks scientific rigor, but provide absolutely no evidence to back up his opinion, he can do just that (and in fact, this is exactly what he did).  It is a blog.  A *blog*.  If he wants, he can say that the fossil reminds him of something he once found in his grandmother's paella.  The blog is his little diary, and he can publish whatever musings he wants, without backing up any of his opinions.  You've already included more desirable sources to back up the claims that the blog is used for, as evaluated by wikipedia's own policy WP:SPS.  Maybe you should read that, while you're at it.  It is odd to me that you are insisting that this blog be referenced, despite (1) objections from at least two other editors, and (2) the fact that its need is eclipsed by the inclusion of non-blog sources, and lastly (3) that you consider exposing the credentials of the expert to be a liability to the article.  I don't have to assume anything about your 'good faith', I can see quite plainly that your actions are detrimental to the article.130.13.170.197 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you disagree with the assessment of Bora Zivkovic, Online Discussion Expert for PLoS and a published scientist, who reckons that "Finally, in the domain in which science blogs often have some advantage over more traditional journalism (detailed analysis of the science), a number of blog posts cover the science of the paper in great detail and lovely clarity: Laelaps, Pharyngula, The Loom, Panda’s Thumb, The Open Source Paleontologist, Evolving Thoughts, The Knowledge Emporium, Greg Laden, Observations of a Nerd, NGM Blog Central, microecos, A Primate of Modern Aspect and Laelaps." And your credentials are that... you're an anon with a shifting IP. Very well. By the way, we've cited the first Laelaps article linked by Zivkovic. but not the second which gives a very good explanation for the ordinary public about how it's known that Ida was an immature female. At present we cite the PLoS ONE paper itself for this information, many people seem to find that rather unreadable and the Laelaps page would be a useful supplementary link. . . dave souza, talk 16:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * everyone agrees it's a blog. A notable one. The version you keep attacking has "at ScienceBlogs" explicitly. At the moment, you are editing against consensus, and you have been reverted by various editors. With your latest revert, you have also violated WP:3RR. If you revert this once again, I will just block your IP for blatant 3RRvio without further ado, and if you should keep edit-warring on different IPs, the article will be semiprotected. If you know so much about Wikipedia policies, why don't you use your account: it will give you privileges in content disputes between editors in good standing that anonymous IPs do not enjoy. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of disinterested assessment, I've reported this. . dave souza, talk 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * imho, it wouldn't have done any harm for us to hold this pending a fifth revert, but whatever. --dab (𒁳) 17:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed the IP's last revert and prepared a report before seeing your comment, our friend appears to be an enthusiast for Wikilawyering so it seemed best to do things by the book. Now, more to the point, think it's worth adding a link to Laelaps's explanation for the ordinary public about how it's known that Ida was an immature female, supplementing the reference to the PLoS ONE paper? . . dave souza, talk 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your kind always reacts the same --- when you can't argue with my reasoning, you just focus on the fact that I choose to edit anonymously. Next, you'll look up my current IP address to find its geographic location.  I'll save you the bother; it's in Gilbert, Arizona (as if any of that is consequential in any way).  I'm not going to explain why I choose to edit anonymously; you probably wouldn't understand anyways (or maybe you just don't want to, much like in the case of this article).  The fact remains that it was a Rutgers University student that made the opinion in question, and you want to hide this fact because you know that it will cause the opinion to carry less weight.  Effectively, you're standing by me saying "Shh!!  Don't tell!" every time I try to speak, despite the fact that what I'm saying is true and is important for others to know as well so that they can evaluate the opinion appropriately.  It is for this reason that I will continue to restore the article with this information so long as the article is unprotected.  You can protect the article to silence me for longer, but I'll still be right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.170.248 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah, with the fifth revert in spite of my warning and the remarks about "our kind", 130 made clear they are not interested in constructive debate and I have no objections to invoking 3rr penalties at this point. I can do the honours, or you can ask an uninvolved admin, that won't really matter at this point.
 * regarding the content side, this isn't about being "right". It is about raising a valid issue, see if you can get people to agree with you and propose compromise phrasings if you run into objections. Stubbornly reverting to your revision isn't going anywhere except the way of WP:BLOCK.
 * as for anonymity, ip2location.com said Gilbert, Arizona all along. That is indeed truly inconsequential. --dab (𒁳) 20:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Too funny. It's like clockwork...130.13.168.237 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has become good at dealing with disruption over the past eight years, so yes, your block was rather predictable. It still works "like clockwork" only in really obvious cases such as this one. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Screw the blog, Brian Switek has just written a column for the Times online about Ida, should be more citable: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6360606.ece FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Being the first one to have raised the issue, I feel like I have to say my word. Although I don't back up IP:130...'s methods and I am against entering battles with productive editors, I must confess I think he does have some points. I was the first one to write who Switek is in the article (I didn't use the adjective "professional" though). I did it because he is nowhere near to have a wikipedia page (unless, see below!), and despite this fact the article cited him as just Brian Switek. My intent therefore was just to make wikipedia a place where information is complete, and not wanting (now, imagine that I contribute an article, think "The origin of species", saying that Jeremiah Sweridolski "has written that" - put in your own critique - and I add the comment just like that; but nobody knows who he is). In this respect, I agree with IP:130..., I find it mostly weird that a war was declared between the two parties in order to elide from wikipedia information that was both truthful and informative. I say weird not because it was elided, but because I see tons of comments here and not one single explanation.

The conflict here is between having the article say "Brian Switek says", as if everybody should know, and absolutely no intention whatsoever of informing the reader about why we care that "Brian Switek says". Is that really normal for you?

A second issue is that I find it disturbing from some editors toward me that my doubts the first time were answered by pointing out that the Switek boy is cited in the "Publicity" section. Actually, it is in the "Publication" section now, and has passed through the "Discovery" section to get there. The true issue is that Switek criticizes the Science and the presentation, not only the media coverage or exploitement thereof. ScienceBlog's prestige is justified by reporting on scientific research, not for carrying out original research. It seems almost nobody here appreciates the difference.

By the way, now you have your own Switek super article. A moment ago Switek's motive here was that he was "the first one", soon it'll be "late enough to cite" (and the first citation will probably disappear). I share the feeling with IP:130 that for no apparent reason some editors here have decided that Switek must be on this WP's page no matter what. This leads me do give up right away, because the outcome is already written. It's probably another example of the internet self-feeding on itself, and wikipedia becoming the unwitting accomplice. Switek's profile had changed between the first and second day of his post and had become "Science writer" right for the occasion. I won't be surprised if one day we'll find him doing just that, with lesss authority though to do what he did in his blog entry: to review the article as referee. --Gibbzmann (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no problem with your characterisation of Switek as "Brian Switek, an ecology and evolution university student and a blogger", and this was accepted. The proposed shift of his descriptions into "publicity" sections was a bit slow to be implemented, certainly something worth discussing if that's still a concern. Unfortunately IP:130 chose to edit war to delete all references to Switek, including your description, with the argument that "The opinions of a blogger are not valid sources". This led to a revised description as appearing on ScienceBlogs, which are accepted as valid sources, then further edit warring by the IP to insert an unflattering and unnecessary description in place of that description. The reason for including reference to Switek's posts (and now his article in the Times) is that his writing is much more readable and informative than the brief comments in news reports of established anthropologists dissenting about the human ancestry claims made by the promoters of this fossil. To repeat the assessment of Bora Zivkovic, Online Discussion Expert for PLoS, "in the domain in which science blogs often have some advantage over more traditional journalism (detailed analysis of the science), a number of blog posts cover the science of the paper in great detail and lovely clarity". His list includes Switek's Laelaps blog, and many of the other posts had only outline information but included links to Switek's posts for detailed analysis. If there are other equally useful descriptive articles giving detailed analysis of the science then we should cite them: the official website appears to be pretty useless for that purpose, and the PLoS paper is too technical for most readers to follow, as well as lacking outside critique. As things have developed, the arguments about hype have become a major part of the story, and Switek's posts are notable in that context, but the primary reason for linking to them is for a readable and lucid analysis of the science. The hype continues:  ..... dave souza, talk 09:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first time I came across the article, I did in fact edit out all references to Brian's blog on the grounds that using self-published sources reduces the credibility of the article. I understand that this topic is still hotly debated, and after encountering some resistance, I left in the references, and added the description "Rutgers University undergraduate and professional blogger Brian Switek..."  Is this the phrase you are calling derogatory?  Calling someone an undergraduate is not an insult; it differentiates whether you are studying for a bachelor's degree or a graduate degree (i.e., master's degree or doctorate).  See undergraduate education.130.13.168.237 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dave, 130 is not so far from saying something sensible. How can a true fact about someone be derogatory? I couldn't even notice - at first - a diffrerence between my entry and his. I understand your point Dave (and there's no excuse for edit warring), but we are still going around the issue here (which Section it belongs to). Actually, at one point I was myself thinking to delete that phrase.


 * Brian Switek doesn't inform only about the article, he plainly reviews it. This is not (or is not limited to) Science for the layman, it's Science for Science under any modern standard. In 24h he's been able to read, understand and demolish (all at once) the methodology, presentation and conclusions of the paper (in a word, everything, with the exclusion of the results which strangely he could not replicate in 24h). Even a professional Academic who is the best and fastest referee around would hardly take less than 10 days to review a paper, and when he does he actually says what would have had to be done. This is probably also why, no matter how intelligent they are, editors don't send papers to students.


 * True, there isn't a comment article yet around (and for a GOOD reason, scientists are serious people). In fact, in this WP article in the meantime I expect no shortages of verbs like [the authors] claim, poist, suggest, propose, assert, argue, whatever. The comments will be around soon for you and everybody, as the authors replies will be. In fact, the only thing very unlikely to be ever around is a reply of the authors to Switek's blog entry.


 * The hype is an unrelated issue. The correctness of a paper is statistically almost independent from it. This is a matter that everybody working on this page must take into account constantly. --Gibbzmann (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My description here of the IP's wording as "unflattering and unnecessary" stands; in the 3RR report my phrase was "slightly derogatory" which I thought was reasonable given the repeated deletion of the link to ScienceBlogs, but given that the IP's feelings are hurt I withdraw that description.
 * The posts by Switek, and the similar immediate responses from fully accredited anthropologists, notably Beard, give no more than an immediate response to a paper that had just been released, and all want to see the paper fully discussed and debated in a measured way. Once such conclusions are available, we can assess the quality of the instant response. However, while the University of Oslo Natural History Museum is doubtless a serious scientific organisation, its press release embargoed until 19 May (available as a download from the official "Link" website) provided journalists with "expert quotes" including: "This is the first link to all humans truly a fossil that links world heritage. Dr Jørn Hurum - Natural History Museum, University of Oslo Its really a kind of Rosetta Stone. Professor Philip Gingerich - Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan This fossil rewrites our understanding of the early evolution of primates. Dr Jörg Habersetzer - Senckenberg Research Institute This little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of the mammals. Sir David Attenborough Broadcaster & Naturalist  The link they would have said until now is missing... it is no longer missing. Sir David Attenborough  Broadcaster & Naturalist It is incredibly rare to get the opportunity to document groundbreaking science as it happens. Even more exciting is to be involved with breaking the news in conjunction with the scientists and across multiple platforms with a story that connects to every person on the planet. Anthony Geffen  CEO and Executive Producer, Atlantic Productions"
 * The hype was inextricably tied into the scientific presentation from the outset. Unfortunately the paper seems to lack a detailed phylogenic analysis, and they seem to be claiming justification for a significant rewrite of lineages from early primates to humans, removing other families from Haplorrhini with very little evidence. The PLoS ONE paper is now inviting open comments, and it will be fascinating to see an informed analysis when expert reviewers have had their ten days or so to produce a measured response. If Switek's initial response was wrong, I'm pretty sure he'll be delighted to be corrected. If the paper's more dramatic conclusions and the hype from the serious scientists prove wrong, Ida will be at least as famous as Nebraska Man. . . dave souza, talk 08:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The paper seems to lack a detailed phylogenic analysis. Indeed, Einstein's paper on general relativity also lacked a detailed story of the universe. Actually, it took 60 years to settle that question, so I'm not impressed. Beard's comment is less aggressive than Switek's entry anyway (he doesn't dismiss it and he doesn't contest the methodology 'tout court', in fact he mostly criticizes the conclusions which are the quickest one can counter of a paper). In my very personal opinion, Beard too was too quick to respond, and it's not an accident that his reply belongs to a "news-paper" and not to a journal. Once again, the hype is unrelated to the core of the paper. The authors claims are more understandable, in the light of the extraordinarity of the fossil's state and their pride. If one wants to criticize the media, then it's enough to point out what the paper really says rather than saying the paper is outright wrong. --Gibbzmann (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discovery and publication
The section on discovery and publication is getting kind of longish. Would it be an idea to split it in two, one on the discovery and one on the publication? An alternative would be to move some of the reactions to the publications to the "Publicity and media coverage" section in stead. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

hm, in view of all this publicity stuff, it may make sense after all to split off Ida (fossil) as a standalone article after all. Seeing that it all concerns just Ida rather than the Darwinius genus itself. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. While dab posted, I've split the section as suggested, into Discovery and acquisition and Publication, as well as adding the dates it was sent to PLoS. That's the problem when the hype becomes the story. Having said that, most people will be looking for the story of the fossil as much as for the technical stuff about the genus, so for the moment my preference is for one article. A summary style split will be appropriate if it gets too large. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job on the media-section! I agree we should keep it one article for the time being. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ars
John Timmer of Ars Technica has added his thoughts at. More about the publicity than the fossil, and a bit pessimistic. One nice touch – "for a good technical overview, I recommend Brian Switek's blog post". Worth a read, but I'm not inclined to add it to the article.. . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Name
Is it possible to put some sort of pronunciation guide to the name? When I first read about this fossil, I thought her name was pronounced [eye-da] when it is really [ee-da.] I'm not sure if anyone else has made the same mistake? If not, disregard this. Thanks-Amanda.
 * I've heard it pronounced both ways, it seems to vary by the person's accent. The only person I've heard pronounce it ee-da is Attenborough. FWIW, I have a German relative named Ida and she pronounces it eye-da. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the original Ida is a Norwegian, I suppose Norwegian(ish) pronunciation would be correct. Attenborough is hitting fairly close to the mark in that regard. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ee-da in Danish too (probably all Scandinavian languages, and I would think German too, sure your relative didn't change her pronunciation while speaking in English, Dinoguy? I pronounce my own name differently too when speaking in other languages), so it just comes down to what language the reader speaks, I guess. Is the name not used by Anglophones? FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many Scandinavians change their pronunciation when talking to native English speakers (I usually pronounce my name "Peter" when doing so), and Jørn Hurum do the same. He might have pronounced Ida the anglophone way for the benefit of the American audience. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

explain for layman
Suggestion: Can this sentence "Older fossils are thought to represent the earliest anthropoids or the related tarsidae, and most experts hold that anthropoids evolved from tarsidae, while a smaller group agrees with Franzen et al. that the first anthropoids were adapidae" explain to the layman what tarsidae and adapidae are? Bubba73 (talk), 05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why sources keep going on about "anthropoids", apparently an obsolete term for simians. The Tarsiidae are special because they are the only non-simian (prosimian) Haplorrhini, while all other prosimians are Strepsirrhini. The Adapiformes is what the entire "missing link" hubbub is about. The question is, do the Adapids link Haplorrhini and Strepsirrhini, or are they just Strepsirrhini. This is the entire rub of the question addressed, but not necessarily answered, by Ida. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is pretty baffling for me as a layman, made worse by several different terms being variations of the same name, or redirects to another term. The unsourced heading to the Adapiformes seems to set this out pretty well, though confusingly I got there via a redirect from Notharctidae which is linked from the first sentence of our Taxonomy section – Adapiformes is also linked from that sentence, implying that there's as distinction. So, an informed clarification of the Taxonomy section here would be very welcome. . . dave souza, talk 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created a few stub pages for these families, hopefully that will help clear up some of the confusion better than the redirects. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a "layman" myself, and I don't see any real problem in the way we're explaining this stuff. Obviously many of these obscure families will lack their own article and redirect to the next higher taxon with an article. Just as long as they are listed there you only need to search for the name you are interested in and see how it fits in. --dab (𒁳) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dinoguy2. these stubs help considerably. The hype means that thse families are a bit less obscure now, and duffers like me are easily baffled. . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph on reasons for the hype
An unsourced paragraph was deleted, then added in again as:
 * "The extra media hype may be rationalized as a way of recovery high acquisition cost of this fossil. When to do the research somebody had to to invest 1M, he can invest some some more money in PR to recover the initial cost. Overall it was economically justified and good for science."

The sources did not support the statement, so I revised the paragraph to summarise the relevant parts of the same sources:
 * "Buying the fossil with its original asking price of $1m represented a huge gamble, but Hurum said that "You need an icon or two in a museum to drag people in, this is our Mona Lisa and it will be our Mona Lisa for the next 100 years." He has been described as "a modern-era, media-savvy scientist with the right amounts of showmanship, populist sensibility, and disregard for the normal avenues of scientific prestige required to pull this off." The debut in "an astonishingly slick, multi-component media package" required exceptional coordination between networks, museums, producers and scientists while maintaining a level of secrecy which is hard to attain in modern circumstances."

This was then deleted with the summary " removed ad copy - this is wikipedia, not a fawning book jacket." To me it's revealing rather than fawning, but not a big deal if people want to leave it out. . dave souza, talk 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is suitable to call this a "huge gamble" in Wikipedia's voice, but we can certainly quote Hurum explaining what he thought he was doing. It would seem Hurum is still smug about this. I happen to think he made a fool of himself, and of paleontology. But that's probably in the eye of the beholder and obviously the article isn't to pass judgement. --dab (𒁳) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, since the paragraph has been reinserted I've modified the opening sentence to:
 * Hurum considered that the risk of buying the fossil had paid off, and said that "You need an icon or two in a museum to drag people in, this is our Mona Lisa and it will be our Mona Lisa for the next 100 years."
 * I think that's a reasonable reading of the Guardian article which is the source, and the issue about the price and purchase on the basis of photos is covered earlier in our article. . dave souza, talk 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Working in said museum, I can confirm this was quite a bit of a gamble financially. The Norwegian Minister of Education Tora Aasland has promised to refund at least some of the costs, so Jørn Hurum is right in that regard. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just objecting to the tone, I have no doubt dave has the gist of the matter correct. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talus bone
The Attenburgh documentary concludes by explaining that the Talus bone in Ida is similar to apes and humans, but distinct from Lemurs and other prosimians, thus proving that the species is our ancestor. One problem, I can't find any mention of it in the PLoS ONE paper or on the tiff they provide to show a comparison. Can an expert help? By the way, Attenborough finishes with the ringing claim "And remarkably, exactly 150 years after Darwin put forward the proposition that human beings were part of the rest of animal life, here at last we have a link which connects us with not only the apes and monkeys, but also with the entire animal kingdom." Stirring stuff, slightly marred by the point that Darwin didn't put that proposition forward until 1871 – in On the Origin of Species of 1859 he merely stated that "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." Well, close enough for television, I guess. . . dave souza, talk 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Attenborough makes great animal films, but his scientific rigour leaves much to be desired here... Also, if it is undisputed that Homo is connected to apes and monkeys, connecting Homo to "the entire animal kingdom" is just a question of connecting monkeys to other animals, and I really don't see why we needed Ida to make this anything less than straightforward. The proper headline should read "Ida may connect monkeys and lemurs". That's really the whole story. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Partly a failure of my searching skills, or inability to stay awake when swamped with unfamiliar scientific terms. Afarensis has a useful explanatory post, only a blog and the author's credentials suggest he or she may be a bit long in the tooth, but the explanation looks good. From the PLoS ONE figure 3. table, Franzen et al. seem to be pointing to this as one of the three synapomorphies Ida shares with tarsiers out of only six synapomorphies they claim, but the paper itself points to differences with tarsiers and omomyids and they appear to want to move these from Haplorhini to Strepsirrhini, leaving Ida in place as the last common ancestor of Simiiformes, which they call Anthropoidea in accordance with usual (though potentially confusing) practice, as does the TV documentary. Hope that's clearer. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

location of article
Why is this at Darwinius and not Darwinius masillae, comsidering it's about Darwinius masillae and the genus only gets a brief 'we don't actually know anything about this genus that isn't also specific to D. masillae' mention at the beginning of the article? Njál (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. No views on this myself, other than that it has the advantage of less to type. . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. The most convincing bit is the link to Talk:Pujila which comments that:
 * we seem to have a precedent for covering such species under their genus
 * it's (apparently) how it will be referred to, there not being another species to confuse it with (although there are plenty of arguments for keeping it under its genus even if another species were found).
 * I revise my opinion on where the article should be to neutral. Njál (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Brian Switek ... again
It is with a bit of puzzlement that I read Switek's assessment of the media hype of Ida as a "fiasco" (Times.online), as cited in the article. Obviously, Switek is not an avid fan of Jørn Hurum, but his reasons for calling the media-hype seems to exclusively be the internal US evolutionist/creationist debate. Is this relevant to the article? As it now stands, it suggests Switek has deemed the entire media-stunt a failure, which I do not feel really reflects Switek's position. Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dave! Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Fair enough, it was an attempt to quickly summarise his conclusions, "had been lost" covers the same point less dramatically so I've changed it. The point about Huxley urging caution is well made and was noted on this New Scientist page which also shows an interview with Hurum: "In summary, Hurum says that this PLoS paper is the first of several, and a rigorous cladistic analysis (classification based on evolutionary lineage) is on its way. Phylogeny [evolutionary history], he says, is not the most important part of the paper, and is only mentioned in the discussion. But, of course, it is the phylogeny of Ida - and the claims that it is an ancient human ancestor - that have made it such a big news story." . . dave souza, talk 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of Switek's column is that everything he asserts is that this hype may turn out one day to be problematic in the light of the creationists' agenda (and quite frankly, that in 2009 scientists and media should take action based primarily on the preoccupation by such irrelevant events is disturbing). His concluding remark is indeed reported correctly, but his entire argument makes reference not to the general public but to reactions of creationists to a possible revision of the significance of the discovery. This does not transppire in the WP Section. --Gibbzmann (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your understanding seems to relate only to his penultimate paragraph, which is accurate enough in itself. The column is accurate in that overhyping the find, as in "This is the first link to all humans" – Dr Jørn Hurum, "The link they would have said until now is missing... it is no longer missing." – Sir David Attenborough, (both cited on the University of Oslo Natural History Museum press release), creates a situation of unnecessary disappointment if the full phylogenic study in about a year's time finds out it's "only a lemur", tarring the find as a failure when it's actually an extremely interesting find regardless of just how it relates to human ancestry. It's not as bad as Nebraska Man, but there are unfortunate parallels in publicity getting out of line with the science. Creationists will misrepresent it anyway, as they do with Lucy, but there's no need to give them valid ammunition by potentially having to back down on overblown claims. For everyone else, it's an annoyance to see people getting misled by the presentation into thinking that "the key to her significance, however, is located further down her skeleton, in her feet. Ida's ankles contain talus bones, which are crucial to walking upright. The only other creatures that possess them are humans and primates." . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Following: a situation of unnecessary disappointment if the full phylogenic study in about a year's time finds out it's "only a lemur". That will hardly be ever the case. At the very least, we are in front of a fantastic example of convergent evolution. This is scientifically interesting. Actually, taking human-centered obsessive approach to Science aside, scientificallly speaking it'd be probably a much more interesting fact than if it's otherwise.


 * It is actually failure to explain these sorts of things to everybody, not to creationists alone, which is unfortunate. I agree with Switek, but for the worng reasons. We shouldn't care about some crazy irrational people who would say everything umanly conceivable to criticize what they don't like, regardless (read the article once again, that is his key motive). Ammunition? What ammunition? Instead, it's important that everybody undesrtands how Science progresses and questions itself, its methodology. In this regard I agree with Switek that the media broadcatsing may have misinformed people who aren't prepared to understand what's behind (and failled to explain that the fossil is interesting regardless). But who cares of the people who wouldn't have been touched by it anyway. Should we find ETI, should we just say, hey, we're not so sure what it means and be silent, just because somebody would immediately start crying foul for no reason? --Gibbzmann (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's important that everyone understands how science progresses and questions itself, and think that Switek shows how the media presentation has misrepresented that process. They've erected such an edifice of certainty that Ida's species is ancestral to humans on inadequate science, that important clarification of the relationship of other primates can only seem an anticlimax. Accurate presentation of the situation at this stage as "we think it may be ancestral to humans, and we're embarking on a year of intensive studies to understand the relationhips" could have been a fascinating and informative cliffhanger, but instead we have the impression that education played second place to book and documentary sales. As for "we shouldn't care about some crazy irrational people", they're in charge of education in Texas and are doing all they can to deprive all the children of state schools of accurate education about evolution. Don't forget that presentation of this fossil was launched in the U.S., evidently Ida's promoters think that market is significant. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's happening in Texas falls primarily under the responsibility of American politics and administration, not of Sir Attenborough. If the Americans fail to contain this grave issue it isn't a good reason to restrain freedom of discourse, by whatever tactics the actors wish to employ. All that said, I insist that Switek's core argument is that the hype was wrong because of the potential negative effect on the creationist-evolution debate. --Gibbzmann (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"freedom of discourse" is no excuse for being a moron. Sure, it means you can legally be a moron, but that doesn't take away the drawbacks and public ridicule your moronic behaviour will earn you. --dab (𒁳) 07:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about. There are people (luckily a minority) in Academia who would simply do the worst things imaginable in order to achieve recognition. Those are the real morons, the ones to damage Science, not the people who do everything (or almost) under the light. I leave this page, it appears many editors are approaching the problem from a sentimental/emotional point of view. I'll just implement my own channges, eventually, from time to time, when I feel like. --Gibbzmann (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me just add this. I'll say it because I'm worried that there might be a little bias in this page toward the authors of the article that justifies the existence of this WP entry. In my opinion these people have let an important item for Science surface from underground, which wouldn't have happened otherwise, and after some work they made it readily available to every single scientist on the planet with profusion of useful material. They did a big service to Science, not a disservice. If they became over enthusiastic (which is humanly understandable) or pushed it too far in the aftermath it's what I'd call a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Regardless, they are making it possible to be challenged by their own community right away. Things will happen because they made it happen in the first place. There's no need to agree with the media underpinnings to recognize this fact. If these are Science's real enemies and morons then I'd dare say Science is finished. --Gibbzmann (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a genuine scientific disagreement, in that Beard, Switek and others think that conclusions have been announced and publicised without the scientific backing and analysis needed to justify these conclusions and see this as undermining the announcement as well as creating an inflated price for the fossil with the presumption that the hoopla wil cover it, while Hurum justifies his actions as necessary to get this privately held fossil made public and believes that when the research is published in around a year's time it will back his hunch that Darwinius is ancestral to humans, rewriting phylogenies. I think we cover both views, if you feel more is needed please edit accordingly or suggest improvements here. . . dave souza, talk 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good thing to remember that Switek, for all his splendid thinking and writing is not a primate palaeontologist, and that Beard bases his condemnation of Franzen & al. on his own work on an isolated ankle-bone and a jaw, which may or may not come from the same individual (or species). They bout came forward with their critique of the paper only a day or so after it was realised, accusing the authors of jumping to conclusions. Draw your own conclusions on the genuinely scientific nature of their critique. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions discussed below. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dave: "if you feel more is needed please edit accordingly or suggest improvements here". Boy, I'm experienced enough to expect to be treated here as a mature person and not be played around as a kid. So please don't patronize me, I don't need it, instead defend your attitude (see my latter changes just proposed and multiply revereted by you) to censor almost any change to your artcile. It's three of us - by now - who have expressed BIG concerns and you're just being totally indifferent to it. Since you're unwilling to accept changes, why exactly do you suggest to make some? We don't have much time to waste here. --Gibbzmann (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've revised the paragraph with the aim of meeting your concerns. There are clearly two aspects to this issue, the scientific debate on taxonomy which essentially awaits the full analysis promised within a year, and the story about the publication with a fanfare of claims going beyond the PLoS paper, and responses to that fanfare in which Switek played a much noted part as well as giving uncommonly informative and lucid statements. Hope that helps, . . dave souza, talk 11:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't help, because it has become clear by now - to many of us - that your view is both an opinion and the only possible way this article can be written on Wikipedia, irrespective of what I or anybody else thinks. It is thus completely irrelevant, at this point, that you continue to argue about something you don't think is debatable. Save your time, and save mine! --Gibbzmann (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that dave has finally budged on the Switek issue and will now allow (!) the article to reflect the fact that Brian Switek is an undergraduate student. This should never have been an issue, nor should it have been considered a "slightly derogatory description."  It was and is a relevant fact, so I'm glad to see that logic and reason have prevailed here.
 * I hope that this turn of events is not just an isolated incident, and that dave has decided to take a more collaborative approach to editing this article.130.13.161.148 (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the time since this was first raised, there has been no reliable source presented that Switek was an undergraduate student at the time of writing the article, and his self-description was and remains as a science writer. That description makes no claims to be a primate palaeontologist. His current description at Rutgers is as graduating in 2009, and he has stated that he has an associate’s degree in education from Union County College, so the statement that he was an undergraduate at Rutgers was simplistic and appears to be superseded. Accordingly, I've changed the description to "science writer". . `dave souza, talk
 * Hahahaha, you're really having a problem with this one, aren't you? You really should check out the wikipedia article on undergraduate education.  I've given you the link before, so you really don't have an excuse for your ignorance this time:  "In the United States of America undergraduate refers to those who are studying towards a bachelor's degree... Some students choose to attend a community college for two years prior to further study at another college or university. In most states, community colleges are operated either by a division of the state university or by local special districts subject to guidance from a state agency. Community colleges may award Associate of Arts (AA) or Associate of Science (AS) degree after two years. Those seeking to continue their education may transfer to a four-year college or university."  In other words, he's still an undergraduate.  And apparently, you are still opposed to anyone reading this article knowing that.  Aren't you an admin here?  Shouldn't you be above this kind of ownership nonsense?130.13.161.148 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Switek's self description of him-very-self was "Rutger undergraduate student" on his very blog. It remained as such for a few days into the Darwinius era, well after he wrote his piece, before he then self promoted himself to the status of science writer, probably as soon as he realized he was receiving tons of visits from this very wikipedia page (the whole chronology can probably be checked through internet engines somehow). One more notable case of the internet making self-fullfilling prophecies. --Gibbzmann (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Gibbzmann, I notice that you've removed the paragraph altogether from the Publication section, which is reasonable as we discussed earlier. The main issue is the question of inadequacy of the cladistic to support the claims, and we've now covered that issue in the Taxonomy section. Switek's article is very clear and informative, so I've merged a brief mention of it into the Publicity and media coverage section as discussed earlier, and have merely described Switek as a ScienceBlogger. My recollection, like yours, was that he was describing himself as an undergraduate up to the publication, but it's not clear when and if he ceased to be an undergraduate and per WP:BLP my view is that it's best to err on the side of "do no harm". On the day after the relevant post, Nature.com's media analysis blog described him as "Paleontology writer Brian Switek", and well before that date he'd already been writing articles under editorial control for the Smithsonian's Dinosaur Tracking blog page. His posts on Darwinius already had widespread coverage by the time he was used as a source on this page, so your estimate of Wikipedia's influence seems a bit exaggerated. . . dave souza, talk 12:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * His posts on Darwinius already had widespread coverage by the time he was used as a source on this page. I think if you check the chronology you'll find out that the time-lapse between when his piece was delievered and Wikipedia citing him was just a few hours. I wouldn't invert the consequencialities so lightheartedly. Anyway, this change in the text is a ten-fold improvement. I wonder why such resistance before, since it was months ago when we agreed on that change. --Gibbzmann (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)