Talk:Archaeoraptor

NPOV of Taxonomy

and second, because they do not want Olson's attempted taxonomic sabotage to succeed.

I don't think this meets NPOV. It might be the view of "Most paleontologists", but then it should be mentioned that this is their POV. I propose:

and second, because they view Olson's name as "nomenclatural sabotage" and do not want to support it.

This same POV issue is present in the Microraptor article. I don't believe the articles should be merged, since one deals with the fraud while the other deals with a real specimen. However, there should probably be better consistency between the articles (a See Main Article on the Microraptor article would do the trick). - Jokermage 06:48:46, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

• Could be a good idea. Could you implement it? - Skysmith 11:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the proposed phrasing is an improvement. Please go ahead. Gdr 17:38:42, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Turns out there was already a link to Archaeoraptor in the text. I reworded the sentence and added the Main Article link, for style consistancy and clarity. - Jokermage 06:39:22, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Wrong category?

Why is this article under "Archaeological forgery"? Archaeologists deal with cultural and not natural remains, i.e remains of people. It is a common misconception that archaeologists are all interested in anything fossil or bone, and that they concern themselves with dinosaur remains as well as human remains. Dinosaurs are for palaeontologists, human remains for the archaeologist (there are, after all, a few million years between the two species). I therefore suggest the article be removed from the archaeological forgery category. --Grumpy444grumpy 08:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Status of Archaeoraptor

Storrs Olson not only failed to establish Archaeoraptor liaoningensis as a new taxon; his designation of the Microraptor holotype as the lectotype of Archaeoraptor is not valid. [1]

1. http://dml.cmnh.org/2004Jul/msg00009.html

Inconsistancies in article

I'm not an archeology expert, but two items in this article do not make sense to me:

1) The following passage appears self-contradictory:

"By January 2000 the fossil had proven to be fraudulent and National Geographic retracted their article and promised an investigation. In the October 2000 issue, the magazine published a retraction and an article about the case. A Chinese farmer had created the archaeoraptor fossil by gluing two fossils together, one of which was a Microraptor, the other one was a fossil bird now named Archaeovolans.

On November 21, 2002 Nature announced that the front end of the fossil was the Avialan species Yanornis martini"

Is the second fossil Archeovolans, or Yanornis? Are these names synonymous, or were there three fossils involved?

2)For me, the article does not adequately explain what Olson's alleged motivation was in naming the tail portion "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis." Am I correct in my interpretation that he disputes the dinosaur-bird connection, so he was trying to ensure that the clearly "dinosaur" part of the chimeric specimen, rather than the "bird" portion bore the name "archeoraptor," which would imply a relationship to dinosaurs with "raptor" in their names? But "raptor" is obviously a term applied to groups of birds too. I think this needs to be explained more clearly.

Also I added a low-res image of the first two pages of the NG article. I think this is legit fair use, and helpful to the article.

1) Archaeovolans was sunk as a junior synonym of the previously-named Yanornis. I agree this should be more clear.

2) Olson's motivation was that he didn't want a name widely known associated with a hoax in the paleorinithological literature, so he went ahead and dumped it on the dinosaur paleontologists (the whole issue could have been avoided if nobody used the name in an official publication, ever, which makes Olson's actions seem a little malicious). For this reason, among other, dinosaur paleontologists reject the name Archaeoraptor in favor of Microraptor, even though the former is technically valid, I assume in the hopes that Archaeoraptor will eventually become a nomen oblitum through disuse, officially making it an invalid name. Dinoguy2 06:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to better answer your question, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to speculate on what Olson's motivation was, especially given the circumstances--it would end up being both original research and POV. Better just to state what he did and when, rather than why. Dinoguy2 06:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the first part of the taxonomy section to eliminate speculation as to Olson's motivations, but hopefully more clearly describe their effects (in a manner relevent to the alleged motivations). The last part of the section ("nomenclatural sabotage") is still questionable from a POV standpoint though (needs attribution). Rustavo 06:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeoraptor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, except the lead.

2. Factually accurate?: Some statements need citations (see 'fact' tags).

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: Noo problem

5. Article stability? Stable

6. Images?: Ok

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Ruslik (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some comments:

1) The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs

2) Some statements need citations. I marked them with tags.

3) At the end of the first paragraph in 'The Dinosaur Museum Journal' there is an unformated ref (a web link). Please, format it using <ref></ref> tags.

Done it myself. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

4) The first ref in 'References' lacks journal name.

5) The book 'Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight' of Czerkases should be added to the reflist and cited where necessary.

6) In the last section I read "This action prevented the tainted name "Archaeoraptor" from entering the paleornithological literature by attaching it to the part of the chimeric specimen which was unlikely to be classified under Aves, rather than the portion which was later shown to represent a true bird species.". Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

7) If possible, include an image of the fossils.

Ruslik (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review, Ruslik, and your copyedits. I will work today to resolve these issues. On point #3, the web site does not verify the material in the paragraph. I believe it was meant as a link to Czerkas' traveling exhibit site, as an example of Czerkas' reconstructions. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the best image of the Archaeoraptor fossil I could find[1], from here[2], should it be added to the article (with fair use rationale, of course)? FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good image. It can be added. Ruslik (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Some observations:

:1) Please, take my point 1) seriously. I meant two real and long paragraphs. I did not mean the rudimentary paragraph made of two short sentences. Taking into account that the article was expanded, three paragraphs may be a good idea.

:2) I found several additional statements that need citations.

<s?>:3) Ref.7 lacks any information about punlisher and/or journal. It is not possible to find it.

Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I sure appreciate you taking another look, Ruslik. I'm used to the old-style GA format, and didn't notice your new comments here until just a few minutes ago, so please do not think you were ignored. The page just simply wasn't on my watchlist (I don't have 'automatically add pages I edit to my watchlist' selected because I'd have too many pages watchlisted)

Citations have been provided for all of your fact tags. We appreciate the opportunity to have addressed those. I did take point #1 seriously, although it was just three short sentences. More can certainly be added, and we have worked in the past 24 hours to expand the lead more. I will work to clarify the sentence in point #6 today. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review—passed

I think now the reached GA level, and I am going to pass it. Ruslik (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We appreciate the comments, requests for clarification, and copyedits. Thanks for your thorough review, Ruslik. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

New Lead

Firsfron, don't you feel that the intro sentence is a run on, and that it could be made into three succinct sentences? You know, just so that there aren't, like, six subjects in each sentence.Jbrougham (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to rework it, but it's only 32 words, man. :) *Shrug* I didn't think it was bad at all. I've seen some 90+ word sentences that should be broken up, and I know some editors (and Veropedia) recommend breaking up a sentence after 50. Ruslik above states that the lead is still too short, and that some of the sentences are too stubby. If he prefers longer sentences, I guess we should accommodate him. But as I said, feel free to rework. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually said that the lead is too short. I did not mean that the sentences were stubby. One of my concerns with this article was that a number of sentences were too long and complex. Some of them were unreadable. Though I split majority of them myself. Ruslik (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately-timed wikibreak

I am going on a business trip tomorrow and may not have time to address further issues. I do apologize for leaving everyone in the lurch. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bon voyage!--MWAK (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Olson

There are some difficulties involved in determining what Olson exactly accomplished. The normal interpretation would be that his attempt was unsuccesful merely because he presumed that "Archaeoraptor" had been named already. I refer to the relevant ICZN articles:

• Article 73.1.5. If a subsequent author finds that a holotype which consists of a set of components (e.g. disarticulated body parts) is not derived from an individual animal, the extraneous components may, by appropriate citation, be excluded from the holotype. —This is what Olson assumed he was doing. However there was no holotype in the first place, because the National Geographic article did not validly name.
• Article 16.1. All names: intention of authors to establish new nominal taxa to be explicit. Every new name published after 1999, including new replacement names (nomina nova), must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new. —This condition is not met. Therefore it cannot be succesfully argued that Olson by default created a new name and assigned a holotype to it.

I am aware that Olson denied the correctness of this interpretation, but I don't have the papers in which he does so. Could anyone provide this information?--MWAK (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Czerkas

Could someone explain to me how the section about their travelling show is related to the Archaeoraptor controversy? It's interesting, yes, but doesn't seem too relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.133.223 (talk • contribs)

The "Archaeoraptor" fraud was one of the fossils in the traveling exhibit. The fake highlighted the fact that fossils are leaving China illegally. Qiang stated 1/3rd of the fossils in this exhibit were illegal, and they apparently have not been returned. Which part isn't relevant? The hoax gets most of the attention, but there's more to this controversy than just a hoax, right? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fossil infobox

Take a look at for example the Kabwe cranium article, it seems that articles about specific fossil hominid specimens have a "fossil infobox", should that maybe be used on articles about other specific fossil specimens, including Archaeo, as well? FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Travelling exhibit

Hello. What happened with the travelling exhibit? The article says, that "Through March 2009 the show is scheduled for the Fresno Metropolitan Museum of Art and Science in California." However, this museum has been closed for financial reasons, so I think that the exhibit had to move somewhere else. Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is a GA one, but I see several lines apparently showing bias. Although evolution is generally accepted by the scientific community, showing that there is no other possibility other than evolution is not neutrality.

• Although "Archaeoraptor" was a forgery, many true examples of feathered dinosaurs have been found and demonstrate the evolutionary connection between birds and other theropods.

• That birds are derived theropod dinosaurs is no longer the subject of scholarly dispute.

• Furthermore, the authenticity of "Archaeoraptor" would not have been an essential proof for the hypothesis that birds are theropods, as this is sufficiently corroborated by other data.

I don't think this article retains a GA status. 110.55.3.22 (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you confuse the question of whether there has been an evolution or not, with the problem of the evolutionary origins of birds. The statements you object to, already presume, as does the entire article, an evolutionary context. They are opposed to an alternative hypothesis, that also presumes evolution.--MWAK (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no viable alternative to evolution because 1. evolution has been directly observed over and over again, and 2. no creationist has ever provided any theory that comes even close to explaining the centuries of robust evidence in favor of natural selection. No, the Bible is not scientific evidence. Promoting creationism as "science" would be inexcusably biased. 2601:441:5000:ADF0:7D82:AFEC:99DA:4C96 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"Not a deliberate hoax"?

"However, contrary to the Piltdown Man, 'Archaeoraptor' was not a deliberate hoax."

Does the cited source really say this - and if it does, what exactly does it mean? 85.255.233.216 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be removed because it sounds nonsensical. A forgery must be something done deliberately, and the intention is to deceive. There cannot be a hoax that is not deliberate since deception is the intent. Hzh (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It is now explained somewhat better, I hope.--MWAK (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we need the outdated userbox any more?

I added a section to Travelling Exhibit about its inclusion in a recent exhibition about which I intend to write an article. Do we need the outdated box any more?TomBarker23 (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)