Talk:Ignatievka Cave

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ignatievka Cave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070810220113/http://www.northcongress.ural.ru/index/en/arh/public?r_id=504 to http://www.northcongress.ural.ru/index/en/arh/public?r_id=504

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Dating

User:Mr. bobby has been repeatedly spamming a newly published reference claiming a specific date for the cave and removing sourced information according to which scholars disagree on the date. The new reference appears to be reliably published and can be added, but as an addition to the debate, not as the only answer to the date. See WP:NPOV. We need to reflect the scholarly understanding among a preponderance of sources, not pick a single winner and hide all the other contradictory information to that one source. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User David Eppstein shows a clear act of vandalism here, as he repeatedly deletes a scientific and excellent source from the article. In addition, absurdly, it was I who first cited the older dating more accurately. And last but not least, Valdimir Shirokov is involved in both investigations. Since he favoured the dating into the Palaeolithic, it is also quite clear that a progress in knowledge has taken place here. Eppstein intervenes here without even having read the newer article - which is evident from the fact that he reverts my new entry within a few minutes. Mr. bobby (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please address the point more seriously, rather than lashing out with unlikely accusations. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Why did you remove the other sources from this topic from the article, and make it appear that the new date is definitive and that there is no disagreement on the date? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You have to read properly!Mr. bobby (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You're still failing to address the question. Why did you remove the reference to Steelman et al 2002? Also, do you have a conflict of interest with the newly added reference? All COIs must be declared by Wikimedia and Wikipedia policy. For that matter, why does your version state definitively that the date is Magdelanian while sources clearly disagree on that assessment, while that assessment is not given in the source you provided, and while even the date range of your new edit is consistent with other periods? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

1. In my version of the article, which was deleted by Eppstein, there are clearly two opinions on the age of the paintings. Both relevant sources - Steelman et al. (2002) and Dublyansky et al. (2021) - are used and referenced by me.

2. David Eppstein perpetually overlooks the fact that I also cite Steelman and yet accuses me of taking him out of the article. HE obviously does not read my contribution at all.

3. Shirokov, who has also published books about the Ignatjevka cave, is involved in both investigations (i.e. Steelman et al. and Dublyanky). So Shirokov and co-authors write in 2021 that obviously the old dating is wrong. The 230Th dating of the speleothems allows a safe estimation of the painting between 78 000 BP and 10 000 BP. Therefore, according to the authors, the radiocarbon dating must be wrong. Dulyanski et al. (including Shirokov) discuss this problem (p. 11 ff) and conclude that the dates of Steelman et al. are wrong and declare them „to appear tob e erroneous“(see p. 12).

4. Eppstein deleted my contribution based on the 2021 source and he even deleted the entire source, which is vandalism. He is neither read into the subject, nor does he allow any advancement of knowledge.

5 Dublyansky et al. (2021) clearly states an age of the paintings of 17 800 - 16 300 BP, which I have clearly and unequivocally referenced. This too has been deleted by Eppstein. He even insinuates conflicts of interest. What conflicts of interest does he have when he deletes a serious new source and ist results? The reader is now informed of the facts on the discussion page. The article strenghtens the the dubious results of 2002. Mr. bobby (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

New primary research findings can be incorporated into articles, but should not be presented as authoritative unless and until they are discussed in secondary reliable sources (such as a review article). Are you an author on the newer paper? JoelleJay (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You can insinuate all you want. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)