Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:White Sands fossil footprints

Article: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/oldest-ice-age-human-footprints-new-mexico-not-that-old-2212969

Disputed

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Archaeology/Archive_10#White_Sands_fossil_footprints. – Joe (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence confirms agents

[1] Doug Weller talk 21:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot more convincing, but we'll have to see how the critics respond. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Fossil” footprints

The white sands prints are not fossils. All of the references to “fossil” prints in this article should be removed. They are impressions in sediment. 172.103.196.125 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. The term fossil includes animal/human traces such as these and are called trace fossils. See the article on fossil. Indyguy (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not trace fossils either. Trace fossils are still mineralized, which these are not. 172.103.196.125 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the dictionary definition of fossil, I would tend to agree with you that the footprints do not correspond to a simple definition of the word. On the other hand, you will see if you do a search of the references, that many of them use the terms fossil or fossilized to describe the footprints. How to reconcile the two? Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in several online dictionaries and most define a fossil as "A remnant, impression, or trace of an animal or plant of a past geologic age that has been preserved in the earth’s crust." The rest include the idea of an imprint made by an organism as it moved (which is what a trace is). There is nothing to reconcile. An animal's foot prints preserved in rock is considered a type of fossil. Indyguy (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trace fossils, like footprints or stomach stones still need to be mineralized to meet the definition of a fossil. A ground squirrel burrow from the Pleistocene is not a fossil just because it is from a different geologic age. 172.103.196.125 (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that mineralization is the characteristic feature of a "fossil". Also none of the scholarly sources cited in the article call them fossils, only media ones, and we can't rely on the latter to be precise with terminology. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite true, Joe. the Bennett et al. academic article in Science refers to fossils in relation to footprints several times ( search the text). likewise, the Editor’s summary in the Pigati et al article in Science refers to ‘fossilized footprints’. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my response in the section below. – Joe (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2024

White Sands fossil footprints → White Sands footprints – Per the discussion above; these don't meet the technical definition of a fossil (a mineralized trace) and the scholarly sources cited in the article don't call them one. – Joe (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an archeologist and am agnostic on whether this move is a good idea. I would simply note that it is not true that none of the scholarly articles refer to fossils or fossilized as an adjective for footprints. Two of them do, including the first academic article cited (the one that created the controversy about the age of the footprints. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2] talks about fossil footprints in general but doesn't call these specific footprints fossils, if I'm not mistaken. In [3] I believe you're referring the editor's summary, which is not part of the article and not written by a specialist. Fossil human footprints exist, it's just that these are not an example of them. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an archaeologist, but I do remember when these were first discovered, and seem to recall them being called "fossil footprints". The US National Park System calls them "fossilized footprints" [4], [5]; Science calls them "fossilized footprints" (but debates their age): [6]; National Public Radio calls them "fossil footprints": [7]; Archaeology Magazine calls them "fossilized footprints" [8]; the US Geological Survey calls them "fossil human footprints" [9]; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory calls them "fossil human footprints" [10], Smithsonian Magazine calls them "fossilized ancient footprints" [11], etc. It seems quite clear to me that there are enough reliable sources out there to confirm that they are referred to as "fossil footprints" or "fossilized footprints". Based on this I respectfully oppose the move proposal. Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, these are all media sources. It is telling that the scholarly sources, written by people who know and are careful about the terminology, do not call them fossils. We don't have to follow the exact wording that RSes use when that wording is demonstrably incorrect and other, more reliable sources do not use that wording. – Joe (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bennett article contains the following, exact word sequences (do a search!): ‘fossil human footprints’, ‘fossil footprints’, ‘fossil tracks’. You are right that the editor’s summary in the second source I mention is not part of the article but I suppose that the editor asked for the authors’ Clearance before publishing. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but they're not talking about these footprints. They're comparing them to other, fossilised footprints. – Joe (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No so, Joe (do a search!). Here is a direct quote from the Bennett et al article: "Many tracks appear to be those of teenagers and children.... Children accompany the teenagers, and collectively they leave a higher number of footprints that are preferentially recorded in the fossil record." Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am capable of searching (and indeed, reading) papers, thank you. The word fossil is used by Bennett et al. four times:

Fossil human footprints provide an alternative source of evidence for human presence when excavated from an in situ sedimentary sequence with good chronological control [e.g., (12–14)].

The authors state that fossil human footprints, in general, can be evidence of human presence. They do not say that the White Sands footprints are fossil footprints. The three papers they cite each describe much older footprints which are fossilised and which are explicitly described as such.

A geomorphometric comparison of a sample of WHSA tracks with a set of modern footprints (n = 356) and fossil footprints from Namibia (n = 78; supplementary text) reveals broad similarity (fig. S3). The WHSA tracks, similar to the fossil tracks from Namibia, are flatter-footed than the modern samples, similar to what is commonly reported for habitually unshod individuals [e.g., (21)].

The authors are making an explicit comparison to other footprints from Namibia, which again are older and meet the strict definition of a fossil. Note in particular this part, "the WHSA tracks, similar to the fossil tracks from Namibia [...]" – the WHSA footprints are just "tracks", the Namibia footprints are "fossil tracks".

Many tracks appear to be those of teenagers and children; large adult footprints are less frequent. One hypothesis for this is the division of labor, in which adults are involved in skilled tasks whereas “fetching and carrying” are delegated to teenagers. Children accompany the teenagers, and collectively they leave a higher number of footprints that are preferentially recorded in the fossil record.

The authors hypothesise that there is a general bias towards juvenile footprints in the fossil record (because the majority of other preserved footprints are fossils) and that this might explain the pattern they see at White Sands. They do not say that the White Sands footprints are part of the "fossil record" themselves. – Joe (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too can read and I disagree with your interpretation with respect to the final quote (about children and teenagers). Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, have read the above and agree with Joe's interpretation. Toadspike [Talk] 12:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe For the uninitiated, what is the difference between these prints and other prints that makes them not fossils? Is it that they're in dirt instead of rock? I couldn't find a clear explanation at fossil. Toadspike [Talk] 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A fossil is something that has turned into a rock with the passage of time, by one of various processes. Archaeologists don't usually deal with fossils, because most of these processes take too long, but remains preserved by other means. In this case, the footprints were preserved in sediment that is still sediment and not rock (which is lucky, because otherwise they wouldn't have been able to date them with radiocarbon). – Joe (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think this is one of those cases where a sizeable chunk of the sources are just wrong and we have to ignore them. I support this move to a technically correct title. The CRITERIA support it too: The proposed title is more concise, and therefore more natural and recognizable, and it is still precise enough to identify the subject. Toadspike [Talk] 21:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, the misconception that archaeologists typically deal with fossils is extremely common and that's probably why we're trained to be precise about the distinction. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my comment above based on Jens Lallensack's explanation below. I still maintain weak support for the move based solely on CONCISE and Station1's reasoning that if "fossil" is disputed, there's no need to keep it in the title. However, I do not believe I have the necessary expertise to judge whether the prints are fossils or not. Toadspike [Talk] 09:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at other trackway sites similar to this one (Wallys beach in Canada) which is 13k years old. Academics do not refer to this sort of sediment impression trackway as a fossil, because it isnt one. The only people calling these fossils are journalists and people who dont know the difference. 172.103.196.125 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Archaeology, and WikiProject Anthropology have been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, my point is that even if we conclude that they are fossils or are commonly referred to as fossils, that does not mean we should reject the renaming proposal. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my prior comments that seem unrefuted and are echoed in comments by Toadspike and Station1. Regardless of whether these footprints are fossils or not, there is no need to include that word in the article title. The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE and sufficiently unambiguous. The consideration of whether to call them fossils or not can be a matter of the article's content without needing to be decided for the article's title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The American Geologic Institute's Glossary of Geology Neuendorf et al. (2005) definition of a "fossil" states:
"Any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that has been preserved in the Earth's crust since some past geologic or prehistoric time; loosely, any evidence of past life"
There is a lack of any requirement that fossil has to be found in solid rock or petrified. In fact, Mesozoic and Cenozoic fossils often can be found in loose, unlithified sediments, and as unaltered hard parts. There is no specific time requirement. It is only they represent “...some past geologic or prehistoric time." By this definition, white sands prints are fossils.
Similarly, the "Texas Through Time: Lone Star Geology, Landscapes, and Resources." (Ewing 2016), published by the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, states that a fossil is:
"Any remains or trace of life preserved in rocks and sediments from a past time. From Latin fossil is, "to dig up."
According to this book fossils can be found in both rocks and loose sediments. All they need to be "....remains or trace of past life." By this definition, white sands prints are fossils.
If a person looks through other peer-reviewed publications, they will find differing, often contradictory, definitions of what a fossil is and a lack of consensus as what the specific definition of a "fossil" is. By some definitions, the white sands prints are fossils. By other definitions, the white sands prints are not fossils.
References:
Ewing, T. E., 2016, Texas Through Time: Lone Star Geology, Landscapes, and Resources: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Udden Series No.6, 431 p.
Neuendorf, K.K.E., J.P. Mehl, Jr., and J.A. Jackson, eds. (2005) Glossary of Geology (5th ed.). Alexandria, Virginia, American Geological Institute. 779 pp. Paul H. (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added note: The National Park Service calls the whote sand tracks as "...the White Sands National Monument Fossil Tracks." Also, the unaltered bones and tracks of mammoths and other mammals found in contemporaneous and younger unlithified sediments are also refered to as "vertebrate fossils". Paul H. (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By these definitions the Tollund Man (organic remains preserved in sediment) and Rosetta Stone (an imprint of an animal in rock) are "fossils". I don't think they're good or mainstream definitions, nor ones we follow in the vast majority of our coverage of prehistory. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wikipedians rely on what contextually-reliable sources say about something specific (it's a big pet peeve of mine when editors start invoking definitions to classify things themselves, rather than relying upon classifications by experts, which we're supposed to be using as references). In this context, the reliable sources are those publishing peer-reviewed articles about these footprints. If other normally-reliable sources (like quality news outlets) show terminology disagreement with the actual experts, then those sources have demonstrated their lack of reliability on the subject. They are contextually no longer reliable.
Has anyone brought forward a peer-reviewed article stating that these are fossilized footprints? Not that I can see, and that's probably because these aren't fossils.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the discussion below between Joe and Jens Lallensack, as well as those who have pointed to WP:CONCISE, I want to reiterate my support for this move. Even after one scholar has scoured the journals for a total of three articles calling these "fossils", there are still at least 40% more articles presented here already (five) that do not call them fossils. If this shakes out to a roughly-even split in the peer reviewed literature, following WP:CONCISE makes a lot of sense to me. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, based purely on WP:CONCISE. Whether or not these are fossils (I take no position), they are definitely footprints. This is simply the reversal of a redirect from a more concise title to a less concise title. That the less concise title is also subject to debate as to its accuracy is all the more reason to use a shorter, uncontroversial title. Station1 (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "fossil traces" and "modern traces" is important, and they are studied by entirely different disciplines (palaeontology and archaeology, respectively). There are of course many footprints at White Sands that are produced every day by both animals and visitors walking across the dunes; the article is only about the fossil ones. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Wikipedia does not have an article that discusses the everyday footprints of animals and visitors at White Sands; those are not noteworthy. Disambiguation is not needed about that. Wikipedia is written for general readership and should not be overly concerned about which particular -ology claims ownership of a topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (with the disclaimer that I am co-author on one of the White Sands footprint papers). These are "fossil" footprints and widely considered as such. First, a trace becomes a trace fossil when it pre-dates the Holocene, i.e. 11,700 years ago. It does not matter whether something is "mineralized" (trace fossils are not organic remains that could be mineralised to start with). See Bertling et al., 2022 ([12]), section "When does a trace become fossil?". Second, the literature is explicitly referring to these tracks as "fossil footprints" or "ichnofossils", see for example [13]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bertling et al. say, "we here propose to define 'fossil' as pertaining to biogenic objects which are 'not demonstrably post-dating the beginning of the Holocene'" – they're not describing an accepted definition, they're proposing a new one. The paper is 2022 so it seems unlikely to me that this proposal has already been accepted by a significant proportion of the scientific community. It would reclassify much of the material my field works with (in Palaeolithic archaeology) as "fossils", and we certainly didn't get the memo!
    And with respect, your paper linked here is the only peer reviewed source we've found thus far that explicitly calls the White Sands human footprints "fossils" (see discussion above). Even later papers by the same group do not do so. – Joe (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is simply not the case. Just do a Google Scholar search, enter the key words "white sands" ichnofossils, and you will find numerous papers referring to the White Sands tracks (both the human and animal tracks) as "fossil". The first reference in the WP article (the Science paper) is already an example. In fact, every article I looked at calls them "fossil". Here another Science article [14] containing "fossilized footprints from White Sands National Park".
    Bertlings "proposal" was regarding the precise wording; it does not change the fact that human tracks are widely considered "fossil" based on old age, irrespective of their lithification. If you don't accept that definition, where does your personal definition of "trace fossil" come from?
    And yes, archaeologist do things a bit differently I assume, but the White Sands tracks are primarily studied by ichnologists/palaeontologists/geologists. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but have you read the discussion above? We already went over those papers and they do not, in fact, call them fossils. Your quote is from the editor-added byline. It is not about whether I accept this definition but whether a majority of reliable sources (regardless of field) are happy with palaeontology annexing the entire Palaeolithic, and I do not think a single a proposal from 2022 demonstrates that. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How many more papers do you need to see? This is just from the first page of a Google Scholar search: Ichnofossils of extinct Rancholabrean fauna at White Sands National Monument – [15], Ichnofossils of extinct Rancholabrean fauna at White Sands National Monument [16], Ichnofossils of extinct Rancholabrean fauna at White Sands National Monument (WHSA) in New Mexico – [17], Ichnofossils of extinct late Pleistocene fauna occur widely on the margins of the playa – [18], … White Sands National Park, as moisture within the soil is being reduced by persistent droughts and rising temperatures, 23,000-year-old fossil prints of people …" – [19]. The sources speak for themselves, I really don't know what else to explain here.
    "are happy with palaeontology annexing the entire Palaeolithic"? That might be connected to your personal opinion/motivation here, but we have to go with the sources, which are, I am sorry, palaeontological ones. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see more than one paper calling these footprints "fossils", which is all you've provided so far. Of this latest batch of links: #15, #16, #17 are not about the human prints and #18 appears to be some sort of internal newsletter. To reiterate, none of the peer reviewed sources (written by a mix of palaeontologists, archaeologists, and geologists) cited in the article and discussed above call them fossils. – Joe (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even look at those papers? Just to cite nr. 16, which starts the "Introduction" with: Evidence of predation from vertebrate fossil tracks, whatever the age, is extremely rare (1, 2) and unknown for a human trackmaker. We present such an example from the terminal Pleistocene. Ichnofossils of extinct Rancholabrean fauna at …. Are you seriously arguing that these authors think that these are not fossil tracks? Your argument is completely contradicting the sources. And then you seem to acknowledge that the mammal tracks are "fossil", but refrain to accept that the human tracks, that occur in association with the latter, are fossils? Why? Just because they are human? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I read the quotes you so helpfully provided. Thank you for adding another one. That brings us up to two peer-reviewed sources that call them fossils, versus five that do not.[20][21][22][23][24], so considering that and the everyday understanding that a fossil is a rock, I remain unconvinced that "fossil" should be in the article title.
    Whether the definitions used by sources are consistent is not really our concern. But I'll answer your question with a question: if human footprints in 20,000 year old sediment are "fossils", then what about pits dug into similarly ancient sediment, or fingerprints impressed in clay, handprints on cave walls, carved stone, impressions of architecture and textiles, etc. etc.? Are these fossils, and if not why not? Just because they aren't tracks? – Joe (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have to accept that entirely different fields, such as archaeology and palaeontology/ichnology, use a different terminology. But it does not make sense to discuss that further as long as you ignore all the presented evidence. I already provided five papers that clearly call them "fossils" above, and you did not provide a single source that somehow implies that this term should not be used in this case. Just to cite from the first of the papers you just provided (nr. 20): Ichnofossils of extinct late Pleistocene fauna occur widely on the margins of the playa and include tracks of Proboscidea (mammoth), Folivora (ground sloth), Carnivora (canid and felid), and Cetartiodactyla (bovid and camelid), most of which are associated with human footprints. Again, it would be absolutely ridiculous to call the animal tracks "fossils" but not the associated human tracks, and I don't see any indication that the authors had this in mind. You may provide examples that do not explicitly call them fossils, but that does not necessarily mean that the authors do not consider them as such. You seem to insist that the sources call them "fossil" in every second sentence or so, but making this statement is not really their objective (I could cite dinosaur track papers that do not specifically call them "fossil", which of course does not mean that the authors disagree with that identification). Some of the sources call them "ancient tracks", which is simply a synonym of "fossil tracks", as demonstrated by the mentioned quote of that Science editor. A couple of sources that clearly state they are fossils, which I already provided, should be enough, really. But let's see what others say now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, your quote does not call these footprints fossils. I'm not ignoring anything – I read each source cited in the article before making making this article, presented a detailed analysis of each use of the word "fossil" in them in this discussion weeks ago, and have looked at every source you've provided since. But apart from the two mentioned above, they don't call these footprints fossils: your quote here doesn't call them fossils, it calls them "human footprints" associated with fossils – surely you can see that? If these are "widely considered" fossils, despite not meaning the ordinary definition of a fossil as a trace of prehistoric life in rock, such that it is "ridiculous" to say otherwise, then why is it so hard to come up with examples of a straightforward statement of this, such as "White Sands fossil footprints" (the title of this page), "human fossil tracks", and so on? As for "ancient" being a synonym for "fossil"... well, what do you think the fossil Greeks would have to say about that? – Joe (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Human footprints associated with animal footprints, made at the same time, with identical preservation in the same sediments – and you argue that the animal tracks are "fossil" but the human tracks are "not fossil"? As said, your interpretation of the sources here does not make any sense to me. Regarding the meaning of "ancient", that depends on context of course, as I believe you know. Here is another source btw, just for the record: [25] states that "non-destructive GPR for detecting and documenting fossil footprints in soft sediments, including human tracks. Ichnofossils of extinct Rancholabrean fauna occur widely at WHSA and include tracks of Proboscidea (mammoth), Folivora (ground sloth), Carnivora (canid and felid), and Artiodactyla (bovid and camelid), as well as humans." – So honestly, how many papers do you need to convince yourself? I gave you at least eight now. And yes, I do think this is becoming increasingly ridiculous, and this will be my last post here. Let others decide. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying anything about the animal tracks. I'm saying that the majority of scientific sources discussed here (now 5-3) do not call these tracks "fossils". – Joe (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the date under debate?

I thought radiometric dating was infallible. Even when there's strong evidence against it such as carbon-14 in diamonds, fossils, and coal. Or when there's far more helium than there should be in zircon crystals. Or the simple fact that rocks of known age give extremely incorrect inflated dates. So when something comes along and radiometric dating itself contradicts your made-up timelines for human history by 10,000+ years, instead of questioning your pseudo-scientific worldview, you sweep it under the rug? You are no different than the "scientists" who thought humans had 24 chromosomes for decades, even when they could see 23, because they didn't want to go against the prevailing consensus. 69.142.151.168 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some specific suggestion about how to improve the article? Is there some specific set of edits you're referring to? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Preface dates with "believed to be", "thought to be", "may be". Let readers know radiometric dating is a pseudoscience. I know you don't agree with this, that's fine, but why aren't you going around deleting random talk page comments all over Wikipedia? Why just mine? It's certainly not for the alleged reason you're claiming. Wikipedia echo chamber is so bad now this kind of behavior extends to talk pages, how about not doing that, how's that for improvement? 69.142.151.168 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion of similar comments:

Since you insist that this is "relevant to improving the page",[26] what is your suggested improvement? – Joe (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date have words like "speculatively", "may be dated to", "is believed to be".
(Like every single date not based on recorded history, but inferred by accepted consensus dates of strata via radiometric dating).
You don't have to agree, I'm not touching the article. Just leave my talk page comment alone please. 69.142.151.168 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTFORUM, the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss improvement of the article. Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subjects of the articles and are not for the purpose of publishing original thoughts. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have a general concern about the reliability of radiocarbon dating, which is a broader matter rather than one that is specific to this topic. Looking at the article on radiocarbon dating, I did not easily find support for your assertions there. The White Sands fossil footprints article already clearly identifies radiocarbon dating as the source of the measurements, so anything that affects the validity of this type of usage of radiocarbon dating would apply here. Per WP:FRINGE, statements about the validity of a theory or method must be based upon independent reliable sources, and a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Sands_fossil_footprints