Talk:History of the Burgess Shale

Gould
Leaving Steven Jay Gould right out of the text entirely: snobbism?--Wetman (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a deliberate decision - he simply wasn't mentioned in the sources I was using. I've never been a fan of 'in popular culture' sections but I agree that he probably deserves a mention, and that is the only way I can really think of him fitting in - if he does fit in the scope of the article.  What would you suggest? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have Wonderful Life handy, but it does have some marvelously phrased passages about the significance of the Burgess Shale - there's one likening the fossils to "holy objects" that sticks in my mind. Perhaps if we could find some way of quoting or paraphrasing him in the text, with a reference by name, that'd manage it? "The Burgess Shale fossils were described by Gould as ..." - there's bound to be something there about the "most significant" or something equally high-sounding. Shimgray | talk | 11:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From a scientific point of view Wonderful Life is "popular culture". The book was well out of date when published in 1989, since Gould presents the early 1970s view of the Burgess fauna and Briggs and Whittington had got interested in the stem group concept 1979-1981 (see Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale). --Philcha (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Source
This might come in handy for future expansion: Cambridge minds by Richard Mason, Cambridge University Press, pp. 127ff. -- JN 466  23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer. I've done what I can with the limited preview available with Google books... I'll see if I can hunt out a hard copy to fill in the blanks! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  05:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pleasure. As for filling in the blanks, the amazon preview will let you see the pages google doesn't. ;)  JN 466  12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip - wish I'd thought of that earlier! As it happens the other pages weren't particularly relevant to the article (but still a thoroughly good read!). Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Scope
I like the article and the attention it pays to the recollection of what it originally got, yet it makes me wonder if the page is specifically made with the intend to have one with no reference to equally relevant deposits, wich besides much preventing future disorder makes me wonder what actual intent it services. in the least it is a very narrowly defined view on something like a popular yet significant subject.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See Lagerstätte (linked in this article) for a list. The Burgess was the first discovered of the Cambrian lagerstätte, and still one of the most important scientifically. --Philcha (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on History of the Burgess Shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://burgess-shale.info
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://burgess-shale.info/program
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://burgess-shale.info/field-trips

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)