Talk:Avgodectes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Pterosaurs WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Pterosaur-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
[edit] My changes
The earlier version featured extraneous commentary on David Peters and his methods, so that was not good. The revised version, however, went 180 degrees and whitewashed any indication of disagreement, and also went off on its own tangents. Therefore, I've elected to annoy both sides and present the simplest incarnation I can of the topic. J. Spencer (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Should this "genus" be a nomen nudum? Or is publishing something in Prehistoric Times enough to make it valid (that would be scary...)? DP said on the DML: "Both Nature and Science were offered the anurognathid manuscript and both declined." I know firsthand that Prehistoric times will publish literally anything you send them and it's not peer reviewed. It's a fan zine. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Answered my own question: [1] Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jeholopterus' edits
I just wanted to make it clear why we're continually reverting you edits. For one, adding statements like "this is not true" to opinions reported in an encyclopedia article is clearly a case of inappropriate editorializing. Additionally, we need to give appropriate weight to each published opinion on controversial issues. For example, if Alan Fedducia attempted to re-write or re-frame the entire scope of the article Origin of birds the way you have done here, I would have a real problem with it, from an editorial standpoint (not because of the way I personally may feel about his results). This is how Wikipedia works, or should work according to its guidelines. Your opinions on this subject, no matter how valid they may be, represent a minority of one among published pterosaur research. If you can convince the scientific community at large that Bennett's rebuttal of your analysis is "not true", than it will certainly gain a dominant position in these articles. But this is a tertiary source, not a venue for argument on the subject. We report consensus here, and mention controversy where appropriate and with appropriate weight. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
