 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Name of the page
edit"Gabonionta" seems to be an invention of the Vienna museum displaying these fossils, and is not found in the scientific literature. Therefore it may not be the best name to use on the English Wikipedia. MichaK (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps. Any idea for an alternate title? I don't think the organisms have been given scientific names yet, so the most accurate name might be "2.1Ga multicellular fossils from Gabon", which is somewhat unsatisfactory. Seems like this story would have gotten more press coverage, so it's possible that a different descriptor is used.--Animalparty-- (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Gabon macrofossils" might also be a contender. Press coverage:
uncited taxonomy
editTo the anonymous IP addresses from the state of Pennsylvania: please stop adding unfounded taxoboxes to this article. If you have credible sources supporting formal nomenclature, please cite it. Until then, your edits are essentially vandalism and jibberish: the phyla Diplonacrtrichea and Maturarculida do not exist. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
POV changes?
editUser:Hemiauchenia removed nearly every reference to the Francevillian biota being organic in origin, replacing every instance of "fossil" by "structure", despite the consensus - especially in light of the recent 2023 finds - being that they are in fact organic fossils. The use of "structure" each time, despite their claims, is definitely a POV choice which is not supported by majority consensus. I am of the opinion that this is misrepresenting the scientific opinion - while "structure" is technically a valid word, would we call a T-rex fossil a "structure"? Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you not understand the concept of WP:PRIMARY? We can't just take the word of El Albani et al. at face value. We need to look at the broader consensus of academics on the structures, which you completely and utterly failed to do. There is no broader consensus amongst academics that these structures represent fossils, I was simply correcting that. I've opened a discussion at FRINGEN, see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Francevillian_Biota. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia First, no need for this level of hostility or condescending attitude. I wasn't referring only to El Albani's team - in fact, many studies seem to support their results, and going all the way to put it on FRINGEN simply because the selection of sources you have disagree with it (chiefly one coming from an intelligent design institute, so not exactly the most reliable...) is not correct or reasonable behavior.
- For a few sources among many others accepting the evidence that these are in fact fossil lifeforms (most you'll find aren't discussing it specifically, just mentioning the fact - in the same way most articles about birds don't try to prove over and over again that birds are dinosaurs): [1] [2] [3] [4] Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I made no mention of Evolution News, so that is irrelevant, you can read the actual sources cited for yourself. The first two papers you mentioned are co-authored by Albani, and can be discarded as not independent. The third paper is authored by Retallack. Retallack is not a subject matter expert and has made widely rejected claims that the Ediacaran biota are terrestrial lichens, meaning that his claims can be considered questionable. The fourth paper is the only one that is remotely usable, but it just came out this month. The tone of the paper is cautious, and suggests that they are not widely accepted as fossils. Even when considering this paper, the idea that the Francevillian "Biota" represents fossils is highly controversial and disputed. Your original version was completely uncritical and treated the idea that they were fossils as fact, when there is no consensus in the literature that they are in fact fossils. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree completely with Hemiauchenia's analysis. I could not have stated the situation any better. Paul H. (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I made no mention of Evolution News, so that is irrelevant, you can read the actual sources cited for yourself. The first two papers you mentioned are co-authored by Albani, and can be discarded as not independent. The third paper is authored by Retallack. Retallack is not a subject matter expert and has made widely rejected claims that the Ediacaran biota are terrestrial lichens, meaning that his claims can be considered questionable. The fourth paper is the only one that is remotely usable, but it just came out this month. The tone of the paper is cautious, and suggests that they are not widely accepted as fossils. Even when considering this paper, the idea that the Francevillian "Biota" represents fossils is highly controversial and disputed. Your original version was completely uncritical and treated the idea that they were fossils as fact, when there is no consensus in the literature that they are in fact fossils. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)