![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article reads like a JVP publication. It needs to be wikified and completely re-written to be understood by general audiances. It also leans heavily towards the work of David Peters without giving proper context (much of this work, especially the ridiculous skeketal image, is accepted by only an extreme minority of pterosaur researchers--i.e., Peters himself, who wrote the present article). Dinoguy2 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with Dinoguy2's estimating that the article is still too technical, I definately think this article has graduated beyond stub status, & have removed the template from the main article. Congratulations to everybody involved! -- mordicai. 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
“ | None of the features recognized by Peters have been recognized by other scientists because no one else has published on this taxon since 2003. The hairy tail, along with other soft tissues were noted in the original description and so are not 'bizarre'. Bennett's attempt at debunking has been arguably personal in nature, [1] as is the author of the above defamatory paragraph who sought only one side of the story and did not consult the original author or examine those images. -- User:Jeholopterus | ” |
I've moved this here as I don't feel it is appropriate or NPOV for the article itself but may have value for discussion. -- mordicai. 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's the deal guys: The original authors of the Jeholopterus papers found all sorts of wonderful things in that fossil, including hairs, hairs that were on the tips of plumes that were originally compared in the popular press with feathers, and a hairy tail plume. Plus two long teeth. So when DinoGuy2 quotes Bennett or comments himself that what I 'see' in the fossil is 'bizarre' (i.e. beyond reality), I think it is okay to point out that these structures were described originally. Thus the bizarre attribute needs to be correctly stuck on the fossil, not on me or my methods. The comments by DinoGuy2 and the exclusion of published data on Jeholopterus do not follow Wikki mandates or policies and probably should be reported to the authorities. So, fellas, be nice. If you had studied the fossil even for an hour and come up with opposing conclusions, I would respect your right to publish them. I only ask for the same courtesy.
Jeholopterus 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the skull in the illustration by Mike Hanson (the wings up one) is largely imaginary. No pterosaur has a wide flat parietal, no pterosaur has such a flimsy palate (and what bones are those anyway?) and no pterosaur has an orbit at mid skull. All anurognathids have a deep jugal, not the one Mike shows. Plus the two big teeth are missing! Even the original authors saw those! If you're going after guys who are making stuff up, why did you choose to let that illustration remain? If you guys can't speak with authority on this subject, why would you silence someone who can?
Jeholopterus 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've left some substantial modifications to the text, while not actually changing other comments, I've added a new section and have expanded the rest. I have also uploaded an image of the skeleton to underscore the crushed, partiality, and broken-ness of the type specimen.
Qilong
20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
References
why is it considered "unlikely" that jeholopterus was a vampire? personally i think it's a neat idea. 76.102.94.69 ( talk) 01:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There's now a small edit war over whether to keep the section that debunks David Peters' theories or not. As I mentioned in my edit summaries: "If people read the vampire theory and checked Wikipedia for confirmation, they would find nothing, and keep believing it. It's much better to debunk it. Just like the Compsognathus article debunks the flipper theory" and "It needs to be debunked, what better place than here? If it has been reported in notable sources, it is out there, and needs to be refuted". Perhaps we should discuss it here instead of "warring"? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
considering that he backs up none of his claims with evidence, i think you made the right choice.-- 50.138.213.207 ( talk) 02:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Am I misinterpreting this [2] image, or is the eye placed in the wrong opening? FunkMonk ( talk) 12:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone who can update the Spanish, Serbo-Croatian, Dutch and Chinese version of this article? Monsieur X ( talk) 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article reads like a JVP publication. It needs to be wikified and completely re-written to be understood by general audiances. It also leans heavily towards the work of David Peters without giving proper context (much of this work, especially the ridiculous skeketal image, is accepted by only an extreme minority of pterosaur researchers--i.e., Peters himself, who wrote the present article). Dinoguy2 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with Dinoguy2's estimating that the article is still too technical, I definately think this article has graduated beyond stub status, & have removed the template from the main article. Congratulations to everybody involved! -- mordicai. 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
“ | None of the features recognized by Peters have been recognized by other scientists because no one else has published on this taxon since 2003. The hairy tail, along with other soft tissues were noted in the original description and so are not 'bizarre'. Bennett's attempt at debunking has been arguably personal in nature, [1] as is the author of the above defamatory paragraph who sought only one side of the story and did not consult the original author or examine those images. -- User:Jeholopterus | ” |
I've moved this here as I don't feel it is appropriate or NPOV for the article itself but may have value for discussion. -- mordicai. 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's the deal guys: The original authors of the Jeholopterus papers found all sorts of wonderful things in that fossil, including hairs, hairs that were on the tips of plumes that were originally compared in the popular press with feathers, and a hairy tail plume. Plus two long teeth. So when DinoGuy2 quotes Bennett or comments himself that what I 'see' in the fossil is 'bizarre' (i.e. beyond reality), I think it is okay to point out that these structures were described originally. Thus the bizarre attribute needs to be correctly stuck on the fossil, not on me or my methods. The comments by DinoGuy2 and the exclusion of published data on Jeholopterus do not follow Wikki mandates or policies and probably should be reported to the authorities. So, fellas, be nice. If you had studied the fossil even for an hour and come up with opposing conclusions, I would respect your right to publish them. I only ask for the same courtesy.
Jeholopterus 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the skull in the illustration by Mike Hanson (the wings up one) is largely imaginary. No pterosaur has a wide flat parietal, no pterosaur has such a flimsy palate (and what bones are those anyway?) and no pterosaur has an orbit at mid skull. All anurognathids have a deep jugal, not the one Mike shows. Plus the two big teeth are missing! Even the original authors saw those! If you're going after guys who are making stuff up, why did you choose to let that illustration remain? If you guys can't speak with authority on this subject, why would you silence someone who can?
Jeholopterus 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've left some substantial modifications to the text, while not actually changing other comments, I've added a new section and have expanded the rest. I have also uploaded an image of the skeleton to underscore the crushed, partiality, and broken-ness of the type specimen.
Qilong
20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
References
why is it considered "unlikely" that jeholopterus was a vampire? personally i think it's a neat idea. 76.102.94.69 ( talk) 01:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There's now a small edit war over whether to keep the section that debunks David Peters' theories or not. As I mentioned in my edit summaries: "If people read the vampire theory and checked Wikipedia for confirmation, they would find nothing, and keep believing it. It's much better to debunk it. Just like the Compsognathus article debunks the flipper theory" and "It needs to be debunked, what better place than here? If it has been reported in notable sources, it is out there, and needs to be refuted". Perhaps we should discuss it here instead of "warring"? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
considering that he backs up none of his claims with evidence, i think you made the right choice.-- 50.138.213.207 ( talk) 02:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Am I misinterpreting this [2] image, or is the eye placed in the wrong opening? FunkMonk ( talk) 12:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone who can update the Spanish, Serbo-Croatian, Dutch and Chinese version of this article? Monsieur X ( talk) 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)