User talk:Joe Quick/Archive 5: Difference between revisions
imported>Robert W King No edit summary |
imported>Lee R. Berger (Kennewick) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I'm just curious, is your last name derived from "rapido" or is it just ''Quick''? Call it a long-standing curiousity... --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 21:57, 16 October 2007 (CDT) | I'm just curious, is your last name derived from "rapido" or is it just ''Quick''? Call it a long-standing curiousity... --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 21:57, 16 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
==Kennewick== | |||
Hi Joe, | |||
Just going through Kennewick - couple of things. I would personally not concentrate on the controversy, but on the anthropology. What I mean by this is that I would introduce the fossil (sub-fossil) first e.g. what it comprises, skeletal part representation, geological situation of the find, taphonomy etc. in a dispassionate voice. I would then go on to its significance and then its discovery. Only at that point would I delve into the debate around "is it or isn't it" and "what to do with it". Although I have a clear bias to one side, these debates are incidental to the fossils importance as one of, if not "the", oldest human remains from North America. At this stage, when I read this article, I get the feeling that the author has a non-reburial standpoint - not sure why but thats what I "sense" - and we do want to remove any aspect of non-nuetrality. I would add photos or even a scanned newspaper article to give the article some spice. If you have some of the data on the first bit and can add it, I'd be happy to weigh in. | |||
[[User:Lee R. Berger|Lee R. Berger]] 15:22, 22 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 15:22, 22 October 2007
thanks
Thanks Joe, by the way, two more students have put up articles Leopards as taphonomic agents and Bone tools - I would be grateful if you would weigh in and give encouragment, critique etc.
Lee R. Berger 05:54, 15 October 2007 (CDT)
Question
I'm just curious, is your last name derived from "rapido" or is it just Quick? Call it a long-standing curiousity... --Robert W King 21:57, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
Kennewick
Hi Joe,
Just going through Kennewick - couple of things. I would personally not concentrate on the controversy, but on the anthropology. What I mean by this is that I would introduce the fossil (sub-fossil) first e.g. what it comprises, skeletal part representation, geological situation of the find, taphonomy etc. in a dispassionate voice. I would then go on to its significance and then its discovery. Only at that point would I delve into the debate around "is it or isn't it" and "what to do with it". Although I have a clear bias to one side, these debates are incidental to the fossils importance as one of, if not "the", oldest human remains from North America. At this stage, when I read this article, I get the feeling that the author has a non-reburial standpoint - not sure why but thats what I "sense" - and we do want to remove any aspect of non-nuetrality. I would add photos or even a scanned newspaper article to give the article some spice. If you have some of the data on the first bit and can add it, I'd be happy to weigh in.
Lee R. Berger 15:22, 22 October 2007 (CDT)