Bone Wars is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2009, and on August 19, 2017. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikipedia article on "elasmosaurus" contradicts what this article says about its involvement in Cope and Marsh's disputes. Namely, it says that Marsh never published a paper on plesiosaurs, and that it was actually Joseph Leidy that pointed out Cope's error with the head on the tail. Noclock ( talk) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have heard before from various sources, including my paleontology professor many years ago, that Marsh named fossilized dung "coprolites" as a way to attack Mr. Cope. I do not have sources on this at the moment, does anyone else?
I want to discuss this, because I'm curious to see what is correct as well. In my reasoning the lead shouldn't include "the" simply because if you replace "Bone Wars" with another term it doesn't make sense.
Here, the noun phrase "The Calpico" is actually the subject of the sentence, which would make it seem as if "The Calpico" is what you call the restaurant since the predicate ("is the name") indicates that the subject is a name. If spoken, this much is obvious. Then take a look at:
This is made complicated by the apparent plural in this article title. I'm thinking that it's similar to the case of "the" Netherlands, that makes you want to preface Bone Wars with "the", but I'm wary of the phrase used here, "is the name".
What do you think? ALTON .ıl 04:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm joining this kerfuffle some years after the above discussion. As one who teaches students studying English as a second language, and who found this article by chance, I was surprised to find "The" left off the title. "The" is the definite article in English and remains unchanged whether referring to the singular or plural. However, when used in reference to a plural noun "the" describes a single group ("the cars") or a series of events constituting a single event ("the Wars of the Roses"). Thus, "the" with a small "t" is the correct use of the definite article in a sentence: ("During the Bone Wars..."). It should be used in the title with a capital "T" because the initial word of a title is always capitalized. Therefore, without further ado, I am adding "The" to the title. If someone wishes to change this proper use of "T/the" please state your reasoning. American In Brazil ( talk) 17:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the article should have some link or reference to the Dinosaur renaissance of the late 20th century. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
i have read numerous sources calling this period in north american fossil discovery as "the great dinosaur rush" i won't add it to the article because i'm not sure if that is larger in scale than the bone wars between cope and marsh does anyone else have any thoughts on this? LazyMapleSunday ( talk) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
At one point, the reference to the Bone Wars card game was linked to the entry for James Cambias, one of the authors. But it's been subsequently edited to say "created by a biology professor", leaving off James entirely. If he's notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, shouldn't he be linked here as one of the authors? Ptomblin ( talk) 13:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Cope's Rule is not 'judged as having little scientific merit' and is regularly quoted in palaeontological papers, even discussed and revised. See: Hone & Benton, 2005. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20; 4-6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.38.116 ( talk) 15:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
In this article it is said that many of Marsh's Genera were valid, but Cope's were not. However, if you look at the article on Uintatheriidae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uintatheriidae It is apparent that a few of Cope's Genera are still valid while none of Marsh's are. I think the article needs to be edited accordingly. Edaphosaurus ( talk) 17:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The article presently begins
Referring to the time period as the Gilded Age of American History strikes me as inappropriate. The term carries a wealth of societal connotations -- are they really relevant to the topic at hand? If not, simply saying "the late 19th century" reads more clearly and allows the reader to continue the article without distraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.172.11 ( talk) 05:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I see this will soon be featured on the mainpage again, but after looking through the article, I noticed that quite a few sentences at the end of paragraphs lack citations, especially in the section "1877–1892: Como Bluff finds". That would not pass a FAC review, so should be fixed before the TFA date. Would you be able to add the citations, David Fuchs? Also pinging Mike Christie, who scheduled it. FunkMonk ( talk) 22:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
There was an episode of the The Real West in the early 1990s that featured the Bone Wars though it was not by name. The episode could be on DVD, but it could also be downloaded on YouTube. Chris ( talk) 13:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bone Wars. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I've just uploaded a spoken version of this Wikipedia article that I recorded a few days ago. Let me know any feedback you might have or if there are any mispronunciations. Cheers, -- Theayeaye ( talk) 01:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the lead section include some of the negative aspects mentioned in the Legacy chapter? Overall the lead gives the impression that it was a productive period, without mentioning the reckless methods used and destruction caused.
From the lead: "The products of the Bone Wars resulted in an increase in knowledge of prehistoric life, and sparked the public's interest in dinosaurs, leading to continued fossil excavation in North America in the decades to follow."
In Legacy: "Despite their advances, the Bone Wars also had a negative effect not only on the two scientists but also on their peers and the entire field.[78] The public animosity between Cope and Marsh harmed the reputation of American paleontology in Europe for decades. Furthermore, the reported use of dynamite and sabotage by employees of both men may have destroyed or buried hundreds of potentially critical fossil remains." jonas ( talk) 14:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
his uncle started a bank with jp Morgan and gave Marsh a museum, what's the point of even mentioning his parents weren't rich, his uncle was very genrgenerous. you might as well say "he would have grown up poor, had his family earned $50,000 less than what they did earn each year while Marsh was growing up."
the paragraph this sentence appears.in gives the impression that Edward was the one handed his career and implies Edward looked down on Marsh because he was "poor" and uneducated, when Edward was the one who defied his father's wishes to enter the field of naturalism. Edward probably looked down on Marsh because Marsh was the one actually handed his career, his status via the museum and inheritance his uncle gave him, etc. it sounds like Edward was.kind of justified to not respect marsh.
it also appears Marsh started the feud by going behind edward's back to get the fossil's of edward's property. this article makes it sound like these guys were equally to blame, but Marsh was obviously jealous of edward. Marsh clearly started it.
"Marsh would have grown up poor, the son of a struggling family in Lockport, New York, had it not been for the benefaction of his uncle, philanthropist George Peabody.[6] Marsh persuaded his uncle to build the Peabody Museum of Natural History, placing Marsh as head of the museum. Combined with the inheritance he received from Peabody upon his death in 1869, Marsh was financially comfortable (although, partly because of Peabody's stern views on marriage, Marsh would remain a lifelong bachelor).[7]" 2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:D95F:DBDA:BF23:39E1 ( talk) 18:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
last paragraph of intro. some lofty claims here. no refs whatsoever
"but they made important contributions to science and the field of paleontology and provided substantial material for further work—both scientists left behind many unopened boxes of fossils after their deaths. The efforts of the two men led to more than 136 new species of dinosaurs being discovered and described" 2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:D95F:DBDA:BF23:39E1 ( talk) 18:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there a list of organisms discovered as part of the bone wars anywhere we can use a citation? Could be good information to feature. 146.199.215.57 ( talk) 03:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello David Fuchs, why I can't propose my improvements of changing refrences ? Knowing that this king of references is adopted in other languages. Cordially, Amirani1746 ( talk) 19:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
“Leidy also grew tired of the constant squabbling between the two men, with the result that his withdrawal from the field marginalized his own legacy; after his death, Osborn found not a single mention of the man in either of the rivals' works”.
Who is Osborn? The mention of this Osborn person comes out of nowhere, and I still don’t understand who Osborn even is. That section needs some tweaking. 24.153.50.101 ( talk) 17:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Bone Wars is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2009, and on August 19, 2017. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikipedia article on "elasmosaurus" contradicts what this article says about its involvement in Cope and Marsh's disputes. Namely, it says that Marsh never published a paper on plesiosaurs, and that it was actually Joseph Leidy that pointed out Cope's error with the head on the tail. Noclock ( talk) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have heard before from various sources, including my paleontology professor many years ago, that Marsh named fossilized dung "coprolites" as a way to attack Mr. Cope. I do not have sources on this at the moment, does anyone else?
I want to discuss this, because I'm curious to see what is correct as well. In my reasoning the lead shouldn't include "the" simply because if you replace "Bone Wars" with another term it doesn't make sense.
Here, the noun phrase "The Calpico" is actually the subject of the sentence, which would make it seem as if "The Calpico" is what you call the restaurant since the predicate ("is the name") indicates that the subject is a name. If spoken, this much is obvious. Then take a look at:
This is made complicated by the apparent plural in this article title. I'm thinking that it's similar to the case of "the" Netherlands, that makes you want to preface Bone Wars with "the", but I'm wary of the phrase used here, "is the name".
What do you think? ALTON .ıl 04:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm joining this kerfuffle some years after the above discussion. As one who teaches students studying English as a second language, and who found this article by chance, I was surprised to find "The" left off the title. "The" is the definite article in English and remains unchanged whether referring to the singular or plural. However, when used in reference to a plural noun "the" describes a single group ("the cars") or a series of events constituting a single event ("the Wars of the Roses"). Thus, "the" with a small "t" is the correct use of the definite article in a sentence: ("During the Bone Wars..."). It should be used in the title with a capital "T" because the initial word of a title is always capitalized. Therefore, without further ado, I am adding "The" to the title. If someone wishes to change this proper use of "T/the" please state your reasoning. American In Brazil ( talk) 17:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the article should have some link or reference to the Dinosaur renaissance of the late 20th century. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
i have read numerous sources calling this period in north american fossil discovery as "the great dinosaur rush" i won't add it to the article because i'm not sure if that is larger in scale than the bone wars between cope and marsh does anyone else have any thoughts on this? LazyMapleSunday ( talk) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
At one point, the reference to the Bone Wars card game was linked to the entry for James Cambias, one of the authors. But it's been subsequently edited to say "created by a biology professor", leaving off James entirely. If he's notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, shouldn't he be linked here as one of the authors? Ptomblin ( talk) 13:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Cope's Rule is not 'judged as having little scientific merit' and is regularly quoted in palaeontological papers, even discussed and revised. See: Hone & Benton, 2005. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20; 4-6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.38.116 ( talk) 15:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
In this article it is said that many of Marsh's Genera were valid, but Cope's were not. However, if you look at the article on Uintatheriidae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uintatheriidae It is apparent that a few of Cope's Genera are still valid while none of Marsh's are. I think the article needs to be edited accordingly. Edaphosaurus ( talk) 17:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The article presently begins
Referring to the time period as the Gilded Age of American History strikes me as inappropriate. The term carries a wealth of societal connotations -- are they really relevant to the topic at hand? If not, simply saying "the late 19th century" reads more clearly and allows the reader to continue the article without distraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.172.11 ( talk) 05:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I see this will soon be featured on the mainpage again, but after looking through the article, I noticed that quite a few sentences at the end of paragraphs lack citations, especially in the section "1877–1892: Como Bluff finds". That would not pass a FAC review, so should be fixed before the TFA date. Would you be able to add the citations, David Fuchs? Also pinging Mike Christie, who scheduled it. FunkMonk ( talk) 22:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
There was an episode of the The Real West in the early 1990s that featured the Bone Wars though it was not by name. The episode could be on DVD, but it could also be downloaded on YouTube. Chris ( talk) 13:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bone Wars. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I've just uploaded a spoken version of this Wikipedia article that I recorded a few days ago. Let me know any feedback you might have or if there are any mispronunciations. Cheers, -- Theayeaye ( talk) 01:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the lead section include some of the negative aspects mentioned in the Legacy chapter? Overall the lead gives the impression that it was a productive period, without mentioning the reckless methods used and destruction caused.
From the lead: "The products of the Bone Wars resulted in an increase in knowledge of prehistoric life, and sparked the public's interest in dinosaurs, leading to continued fossil excavation in North America in the decades to follow."
In Legacy: "Despite their advances, the Bone Wars also had a negative effect not only on the two scientists but also on their peers and the entire field.[78] The public animosity between Cope and Marsh harmed the reputation of American paleontology in Europe for decades. Furthermore, the reported use of dynamite and sabotage by employees of both men may have destroyed or buried hundreds of potentially critical fossil remains." jonas ( talk) 14:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
his uncle started a bank with jp Morgan and gave Marsh a museum, what's the point of even mentioning his parents weren't rich, his uncle was very genrgenerous. you might as well say "he would have grown up poor, had his family earned $50,000 less than what they did earn each year while Marsh was growing up."
the paragraph this sentence appears.in gives the impression that Edward was the one handed his career and implies Edward looked down on Marsh because he was "poor" and uneducated, when Edward was the one who defied his father's wishes to enter the field of naturalism. Edward probably looked down on Marsh because Marsh was the one actually handed his career, his status via the museum and inheritance his uncle gave him, etc. it sounds like Edward was.kind of justified to not respect marsh.
it also appears Marsh started the feud by going behind edward's back to get the fossil's of edward's property. this article makes it sound like these guys were equally to blame, but Marsh was obviously jealous of edward. Marsh clearly started it.
"Marsh would have grown up poor, the son of a struggling family in Lockport, New York, had it not been for the benefaction of his uncle, philanthropist George Peabody.[6] Marsh persuaded his uncle to build the Peabody Museum of Natural History, placing Marsh as head of the museum. Combined with the inheritance he received from Peabody upon his death in 1869, Marsh was financially comfortable (although, partly because of Peabody's stern views on marriage, Marsh would remain a lifelong bachelor).[7]" 2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:D95F:DBDA:BF23:39E1 ( talk) 18:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
last paragraph of intro. some lofty claims here. no refs whatsoever
"but they made important contributions to science and the field of paleontology and provided substantial material for further work—both scientists left behind many unopened boxes of fossils after their deaths. The efforts of the two men led to more than 136 new species of dinosaurs being discovered and described" 2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:D95F:DBDA:BF23:39E1 ( talk) 18:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there a list of organisms discovered as part of the bone wars anywhere we can use a citation? Could be good information to feature. 146.199.215.57 ( talk) 03:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello David Fuchs, why I can't propose my improvements of changing refrences ? Knowing that this king of references is adopted in other languages. Cordially, Amirani1746 ( talk) 19:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
“Leidy also grew tired of the constant squabbling between the two men, with the result that his withdrawal from the field marginalized his own legacy; after his death, Osborn found not a single mention of the man in either of the rivals' works”.
Who is Osborn? The mention of this Osborn person comes out of nowhere, and I still don’t understand who Osborn even is. That section needs some tweaking. 24.153.50.101 ( talk) 17:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)