Talk:Fossil

FYI, I just sent this message to user 'Sceptic view." If they don't respond, at some point I'll delete the file link.

I hope this message is reaching user Sceptic view (pardon my newbie-ness). I'm messaging about your file "Fossil record gaps 20131028.pdf", used in the article "Fossil," under the heading "Limitations." As far as I can tell, this image is too small/low-res to read, and no larger image is available. Can this be fixed so that it does show a readable table?

Cheers, AmateurHistorian AmateurHistorian (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Perhaps we could also add a section regarding the fossils from the Ordovician fossils that can be found near Cincinnati, Ohio? --Totaroga (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment. This is an article about fossils in general and I think it would be more appropriate to add any details to the Geology of Ohio article and/or create a new article to describe the Ordovician fossils of the Cincinnati region. GeoWriter (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Wikipedia definitely has a place for good writing about regional geology, and the Geology of Ohio has a (unfortunately deserved) maintenance tag for lack of reliable sourcing. So there is room for improvement there. There is also a redlink to Cincinnatian Series in the section on Ordovician geology, and I'm guessing this is just the place to discuss these fossils if this article is created.

If there is something about the Cincinnati fossils that sheds particular light on some aspect of fossils generally, then a mention in this article (with reliable source that, among other things, establishes notability) is appropriate. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here is a recent, peer-reviewed publication describing, for the first time with in-depth chemistry, how biological cells and soft tissues preserve into the fossil record. Since this page is on fossilization, I think the information from this publication may be desirable to add. Here is the link to the actual article:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223000569#f0040

And here is a link to a news article that describes the peer-reviewed article in layman's terms:

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-dinosaur-tissues-deep.html 2606:A800:CD80:AD4:40F6:6C96:DD34:F7ED (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

We haven't heard back on the above comment in a while ^^ ...anyone have any thoughts as to what to do with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.244.11 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is a primary source that reports original findings or ideas, which has not been commented by other scientists. It likely is too soon to include it in Wikipedia until a reliable secondary source evaluates the research presented in this paper. Paul H. (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it’s published in a peer-reviewed journal to me. Earth-Science Reviews is a highly respected source in the geological sciences, and Elsevier is a reputable publisher. The information presented has clearly been vetted by other scientists. 152.7.255.224 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC):::Reply

Regardless of where its is published, is still a primary research that should be discussed in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources to determine whether it is notable enough to include in an article. That is Wikipedia:Too soon and WP:USEPRIMARY. Paul H. (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I’m the person who posted the original comment. The article clearly combines the two leading ideas for how original soft tissues fossilize, one by Dr. Mary Schweitzer and colleagues, the other by Dr. Jasmina Wiemann and colleagues. There is zero question this is notable.

And for whether or not it’s correct, it’s a review article, all the information in it is directly verifiable by reading it. There’s no data to analyze, meaning the input of so-called “secondary sources” will change nothing regarding the chemical theory. If you actually read the paper, what it’s saying is 100% correct. The chemical theory presented that connects Schweitzer’s and Wiemann’s hypotheses is inarguable regarding its correctness. 2600:1004:B266:86E8:E4C4:5A20:7A93:2066 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree with the OP of this comment thread, having read over the paper more in-depth. Looking over the paper, the part that connects the hypotheses by Schweitzer et al 2014 and Wiemann et al 2018 is certainly correct. This is not up for debate, it's like a mathematical proof, the theory is either right or wrong, and reading over it, the theory is correct.

The only question is whether it's notable. Both Wiemann et al 2018 and Schweitzer et al 2014 are notable publications, both are unquestionably highly cited. The paper in question, Anderson 2023, uses organic geochemical theory to show that both of these papers overlooked the big picture regarding how soft tissue fossilization occurs; this is to the point that Anderson 2023 was able to show that the chemical mechanisms presented by both papers are interconnected, often being identical.

I don't see how one could rationally consider Anderson 2023 to not be "notable", whether it was published yesterday or 5 years ago. This is likely why the paper managed to get published in a prestigious journal like Earth-Science Reviews. Not even the editor or academic reviewers were able to question its significance to our understanding of fossilization. 152.7.255.224 (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I does not matter that we as editors judge Anderson to correct. That is just the personal opinions of editor which do not count in Wikipedia. What matters is if we can find any independent secondary reliable sources that state in their publications that they accept Anderson as correct. Deciding what is either correct or not or the truth or not is not the job of Wikipedia editors. It needs to be stated by independent secondary reliable sources in their publications.Paul H. (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

If that's the case, then the soft tissue fossilization hypotheses from Schweitzer et al 2014 and Wiemann et al 2018 should, at a minimum, be added. Anderson 2023 certainly functions as a peer-reviewed secondary source for those two other papers.

Also, as is, some of the sections pertaining to soft tissue fossilization in the "Fossil" wikipedia article don't even have citations. I believe the "Carbonization" subsection is one. This needs to be fixed. 152.7.255.224 (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Note on primary sources: see WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Policy (or best practice, or even common practice, for that matter) does not state that primary sources cannot be used. They cannot be further interpreted by us; they do not form a suitable basis for entire articles, because they do not fulfill notability requirements; and they need more careful selection because of the lack of secondary corroboration. However, it is untrue to claim that we cannot use material from scientific articles "because it is primary". We do so in tens of thousands of articles. The threshold here is low because publication in a reliable journal implies that peer review has already happened (which is a form of secondary validation). Further, notability concerns do not apply below the indivual article level - those criteria are meant to determine whether a topic deserves its own article, not whether it deserves mention within another article. In summary, yes, this looks like it should be mentioned in the article because it is a topical, plausible finding from a reliable source. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• To add to what Elmidae is saying here, this paper seems to be summarising the work of two other papers from different authors, so I don't think this is a straightforward case of WP:PRIMARY. I'll look into it a bit more once I find the time. (unless someone else gets to it first, of course.)--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please do add the material supported by the paper as a citation, which we can then review and adjust as appropriate. I think we are agreed that the article in itself qualifies for comment not just because it is presenting primary data supported by secondary and tertiary observations but because it is a secondary source (verified by peer review). This discussion made me smile because I have published papers with less peer challenge than this suggestion (how many angels are we counting on the pinhead) and the comment (supported by this paper as a citation) hasn’t even been written yet, so the argument is perceptual. The topic the paper raises contributes to the breadth of the main article and increases its notability outwith whether we consider the source to be notable (which is not the right question imho). Geneus01 (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I see these needed edits still haven't been made. It has been a while since this discussion, I would help make them myself, but I do not yet have the ability to edit semi-protected articles such as the Fossil Wikipedia page. However, with as much discussion as has occurred regarding adding this specific citation, it does sound like it is needed and should be added as soon as conveniently possible. Winged Angel Fly (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see this topic has had a bit of discussion and the general consensus is the citation in question should be added. As I replied in the topic discussion thread itself, I would help do it but I don't have the ability yet to edit semi-protected articles. I am commenting here just so others are aware the addition of this citation still needs addressing. Winged Angel Fly (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply