Talk:Bone Wars

Elasmosaurus mistake

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)

Coprolite

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'm not sure, but it seems slightly fishy - copro is a latin prefix dealing with dung, seen in other contexts. It may have merely been a lecture joke - they never need be funny. WilyD 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do know that Marsh specifically named Mosasaurus copeanus after Cope.--Mr Fink 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the same thing (about coprolites) in a book on the Bone Wars. It deserves a mention at least, I would think, even if it is just a false rumor. I can't remember the name of the book, but it could be one of the books mentioned on this page. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As coprolite was coined decades before by either Owen or Buckland, it's all but impossible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"The" Bone Wars

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.

The "Calpico" is the name given to a restaurant downtown.

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:

"Calpico" is the name given to a restaurant downtown.

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".

The Netherlands is the name given to a country in Europe. — what this article uses (regardless of fact)

Netherlands is the name given to a country in Europe. — what I propose

What do you think? ALTON .ıl 04:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's The Bone Wars; this isn't Russia where one can eliminate articles entirely. Take a look at other sources as well: The Bone Wars. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I wouldn't say "During Bone Wars they ate sandwiches". My question is whether or not this particular sentence needs "the". To take another example, from some of the articles on your page:

The Plainclothesman was an early American television program...

Battles of the Ages was an early American television program... (made plural for this example, to preserve accuracy in analogy)

which is obviously correct. The first one, the name of the show is "The Plainclothesman". In the second one, the name of the show is "Battles of the Ages". This I understand. Now, putting those names in this context, we get:

The Plainclothesman is the name given to a tv show.

Battles of the Ages is the name given to a tv show.

Now, if the second one above is correct, then this article shouldn't have this extraneous "the" in front of "Bone Wars", which is analogous to:

The Battles of the Ages is the name given to a tv show.

which I don't think is correct. Even in my explanation above I do this:

"The name of the show is Battles of the Ages" not "The name of the show is the Battles of the Ages".

which I hope is correct English otherwise I've been misspeaking all these years.ALTON .ıl 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article I linked isn't entirely consistent, but whether the sentence reads "The Bone Wars" or "the Bone Wars", the is included. I don't see any instance of, eg., "Bone Wars were caused by..." As far as the two articles linked on my user page go, I created Battle of the Ages in May in one edit, and no one has ever edited it since, while The Plainclothesman has only three edits. It's quite possible that the grammar could be improved in either article, though I tried to use correct grammar when editing the articles in question. The sources used The for The Plainclothesman, but not for Battle of the Ages; the is used for The Bone Wars. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: Battle of the Ages is a single battle, while the Bone Wars apparently were more than one incident of fussin' and a-feudin', so I'm not sure the above examples are entirely applicable here. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I even mentioned that I would use "the" in most cases. I inserted an -s to show Battles as plural, but if that doesn't gel, then disregard my examples. I'm not even really concerned with what the source says, although I hear what you're saying about frequency of the the article-less phrase. This particular instance here is the specific one that I'm asking you about. Here:

The name of the period is Bone Wars. / The name of the period is the Bone Wars.

Which one sounds right to you? It's just one word, and I'm not going to push it further, but it does not sound right.

If it is the case that you decide to go with the third choice "The name of the period is The Bone Wars", then the rest of the article should be made consistent, using capital 'T' within every mention of the title. And then it seems to me that the article title should be moved, as in "The Plainclothesman" (it's not at "Plainclothesman"). ALTON .ıl 07:44, 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)

Ok, I could not add "The" to the title. I invite any editor who is more knowledgeable than I to do so. "The Bone Wars" is the correct title. American In Brazil (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dinosaur renaissance

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)

Why? The only relation between the two is that there was a lull between people's interests in dinosaurs during the Bone Wars/Gilded Age, and the resurgence of popularity. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

alternate name

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)

I haven't heard of the name before. Do you have book sources that use this term? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The name is commonly used. Here's a google book search on it. It what we call it in school (geology school). --KP Botany (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a mention; from the looks of it, however, the name is also used to describe a later period of Canadian exploration, so I think it's best we stick with this name. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, i wasn't sure if the "bone wars" was a subset of the "great dinosaur rush." Like KP Botany I have taken a university geology class that referred to cope and marsh's discoveries and conflict as occurring during "the great dinosaur rush." I think now the article adequately reflects this, thanks. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bone Wars card game

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)

No reason not to link him in the text, and I have just done so. The reference, however, should not be to a book by him or by the company producing the game. We seek independent, secondary sources as references.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's great, except you still have it wrong. The game was created by Jim Cambias and his wife, Diane Kelly. Diane is the biology professor, not Jim. Jim is a science fiction writer. Ptomblin (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the bone wars reference says "Johansen" - no one with that name is listed as a contributor for the game - This confusion may simply be a mispelling of Johnson (Bryant P. Johnson was the artist) - however the full reference says "Johansen, Bruce", "Silenced!: Academic Freedom,Scientific Inquiry,and the first amendment under siege in America". I'm sure it is a fine book and all, but I'm trying hard to see how that reference has any relevance to either the article as a whole or the specific instance it is associated with. The reference directly prior to the bone wars game is 'Waggoner, Ben' - while this is obviously appropriate in the context of the article I find it hard to see how this would be directly related to a fictional work about dinosaurs and aliens. Dinobass (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read our policies regarding Wikipedia:Verifiability. In short: you're coming at this from the wrong end. I suggest you become familiar with Wikipedia's policies before editing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dinobass, here's a less abrupt version. The text referenced is, as a whole, about academic freedom, not about Bone Wars itself; but if you go look at the book itself, at least as it appears on Google Books, you'll find that on page 45 there is a brief discussion of the game. TJRC (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I scrolled down instead of scrolling up and couldn't see the reference. I apologise for any fuss Dinobass (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to make sure you weren't misinformed :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any source that can verify that this card game is inspired by the war between Cope and Marsh, rather than just sharing an incidental connection by name? The given source only tells of what the game is, not the connection between the game and the subject of this article. Jappalang (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.zygotegames.com/bonehistory.html, from the web site that was the initial source that was used in the article. TJRC (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have, in my hand, the game itself. To start playing one selects one of the four palaeontologist cards, Barnum Brown, Edward Cope, Othniel Marsh and Charles Sternberg. There are event cards, each card refers to (as far as I can tell) an actual event from the bone wars period, or has a quote from the period. All the dinosaur cards contain parts of skeletons which are appropriate for the period. This is clearly not just a coincidence. Dinobass (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That deserves a source to show the connection (I presume the desire is for a secondary source, else the primary would have been used). The review in Palaeo Electronica or the mention in New Scientist might serve this purpose. Jappalang (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cope's Rule

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)

Uintatherium synonyms

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)

Do you have any sources on the classifications? The wiki article is rather bare. Secondly, the source only makes a statement of contemporary classification, not how the species are named today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, neither of the pages for Bathyopsis, Tetheopsis or Eobasileus have any sources. In fact it could be the case that these only still have articles as no one has done a study to suggest they are synonyms yet. I just think it would be worth pointing out that while at the time Marsh's Genera were seen as valid, today none of them are. Edaphosaurus (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gilded Age" in opening line

The article presently begins

The Bone Wars, also known as the "Great Dinosaur Rush", refers to a period of intense fossil speculation and discovery during the Gilded Age of American history, marked by a heated rivalry between Edward Drinker Cope (of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia) and Othniel Charles Marsh (of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale).

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)

Sentences missing citations

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)

I try to check that before scheduling, but evidently I missed the issues here. Since it's a rerun, if the sentences can't be cited and need to stay in the article I'll just substitute another for it. It would be nice to rerun it, though; it's a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, worthy of a rerun, I only noticed because I did some polishing of the images. Should be an easy fix (there is also a sentence without citation under "Personal disputes and later years"). FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Some of them are definitely followed up by the next citation in the following paragraph, but some are unclear. Unfortunately the books I have aren't at my current location, and I'm not going to be able to check them until at least the end of the month. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, in that case, at least the ones that have citations in the next paragraph could get their citations? FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just for future reference, the sentences "During the winter of 1878, Carlin's dissatisfaction with Marsh's sporadic sending of payment reached a head, and he began working for Cope instead." and "Soon after, Cope's chance to strike a critical blow at Marsh appeared." still needs refs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't know if this can be cited, but pp. 152-153 here: [1] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it would do, maybe David Fuchs has some thoughts. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible "The Real West" episode on this in early 1990s

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910045053/http://www.centerwest.org/publications/pdf/science.pdf to http://www.centerwest.org/publications/pdf/science.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100101153430/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1971/5/1971_5_4.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1971/5/1971_5_4.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028061316/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/dinosaur/player/ to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/dinosaur/player/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Spoken Article

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)

Skipped through and sounds like you hit the technical/scientific terms I heard. It's a very nice recording, thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead paragraph and neutrality

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)

The lead in its entirety doesn't shy away from mentioning the negatives, e.g. Each of the two paleontologists used underhanded methods to try to outdo the other in the field, resorting to bribery, theft, and the destruction of bones. Each scientist also sought to ruin his rival's reputation and cut off his funding, using attacks in scientific publications and Cope and Marsh were financially and socially ruined by their attempts to outcompete and disgrace each other. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Marsh would have grown up poor, the son of a struggling family in Lockport

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)

citation need

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)

List of Organisms discovered during the Bone Wars

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)

I'm unaware of a specific listing versus the general aggregated numbers of dinosaur species (I also don't know if those numbers count the differences since then, for example some species being declared invalid, merging or separating from other genus, etc.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Changing (a little) some references

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)

You can propose your changes. But per WP:CITEVAR, that should be done on the talk page instead of randomly doing it. I don't know what you mean by "king of references". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

David Fuchs, thanks for the response, sorry about the "king of references", i wanted to says "kind of references". It was a bad translation on my part. Amirani1746 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Osborn?

“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)

Osborn is Henry Fairfield Osborn, who is mentioned first earlier in the article in Personal disputes and later years section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)