Talk:Archaeoraptor

NPOV of Taxonomy

and second, because they do not want Olson's attempted taxonomic sabotage to succeed.

I don't think this meets NPOV. It might be the view of "Most paleontologists", but then it should be mentioned that this is their POV. I propose:

and second, because they view Olson's name as "nomenclatural sabotage" and do not want to support it.

This same POV issue is present in the Microraptor article. I don't believe the articles should be merged, since one deals with the fraud while the other deals with a real specimen. However, there should probably be better consistency between the articles (a See Main Article on the Microraptor article would do the trick). - Jokermage 06:48:46, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. Could you implement it? - Skysmith 11:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the proposed phrasing is an improvement. Please go ahead. Gdr 17:38:42, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Turns out there was already a link to Archaeoraptor in the text. I reworded the sentence and added the Main Article link, for style consistancy and clarity. - Jokermage 06:39:22, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Wrong category?

Why is this article under "Archaeological forgery"? Archaeologists deal with cultural and not natural remains, i.e remains of people. It is a common misconception that archaeologists are all interested in anything fossil or bone, and that they concern themselves with dinosaur remains as well as human remains. Dinosaurs are for palaeontologists, human remains for the archaeologist (there are, after all, a few million years between the two species). I therefore suggest the article be removed from the archaeological forgery category. --Grumpy444grumpy 08:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]