Talk:Eve's footprint

A fact from Eve's footprint appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 8,400 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Footprints of Eve are the oldest known footprints of an anatomically modern human?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/September.

Wikipedia

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Comments

These are the first human footprints known as well as the oldest human footprints known to anthropologists.

What does this mean? Isn't "first known" and "oldest known" the same thing? AxelBoldt (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! I have corrected this to read "oldest known" to be consistent. Thanks for noticing. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also for consistency shouldn't we either choose American measurements or SI measurements? does WP have a take on this already, I'm American but i prefer the articles in meter, mm, etc. instead of feet and inches. I do believe having the other measurements in parenthesis are correct though MikelZap (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is if an article pertains to an area, we use that area's English (Big Ben uses British English, Statue of Liberty uses American English, et cetera). As this was a discovery in South Africa, we'd use their English and the metric system first. Otherwise we use whatever English the article was originally written in. Many editors use metric system when writting about subjects related to science regardless of other considerations, and this is probably a good idea. Boston (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pet lion and Eve

The {pov} I added due to substantial dating disagreement. I don't gonna brake the "nice story" (but the story may be enhanced:)

It looks like she (if she) was flowed by lion. (the closest imprint). There is no dimension given but estimating size of surrounding elements: the electric cover plate 5" tall, the strip on the wall 3" matching the flour tile size the wall depth, the standard poster size, window position and frame, etc. The width of the "footprint" is wide. It may be pet lion like Elsa from Elsa book,” Forever Free. or Born Free,Out of Africa etc. It may be of topic of the 'pet story', that it looks, like she turned out (the next "imprint") to save her live. If she had to be ancestor story she had to survive. Off course we can hypothesize that she was already very old grandmother and the lion do not had any impact on underling story. The story in pedia article have big potential for creative scrip writers but as entry in 'encyclopedia' I finding it a little too creative. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand the disputed points. Could you be more specific to the paragraph(s) that are in dispute. Each paragraph has references. Is any of the references in dispute? The story that she was followed by a lion does not seem to be in the article. Could you point out the text please. Is there a particular reference in dispute or the wording of a particular paragraph? Please be more specific as to what is in dispute that is written in the article so that it can be fixed. The article is well referenced, so if it is just a "general" dispute with the concept that the prints are over 100,000 years old then you will have to take that issue up with paleoanthropologist Professor Lee R. Berger. The article was written using references from reliable sources. Point out the exact text that is in dispute or the reference. You will have to be more specific as to what is wrong with the article or the tag will be removed.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take off the 'pet lion' is just my "original observation". What I intended to show is: the selection of sources which is biased to 'refrain'; the assumed date of mitochondrial Eve of 'known pale. prof.' Just the wiki article of Mitochondrial Eve and *also* presented there references clearly point that date 117Ky < "215,000 ± 75,000 BP" or "probabilistic studies[4], place her around 140,000 BP or even "171,500 ± 50,000 BP" or "Eve is believed to have lived about 170,000 years ago,". I think presentation of week wobbled thesis in authoritative manner may be misleading and thus POV. However i understand that the sandstone slab may be useful as tourist attraction as for example Loch Ness Monster.76.16.176.166 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what you are saying is that you dispute the figure of 117,000 year ago for the footprints. Technically I couldn't say if this is correct or nearly correct or the truth or not. However the article is based on references and the leading paragraph has 6 references from reliable published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and article is based primarily on these third-party sources as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources showing the 117,000 figure. The article was NOT based on original research, but on verifiable references. The article is written from a neutral point of view and you have not pointed out anything that is from any particular point of view. Therefore if you can not show specifically the POV in the article then the tag will have to be removed.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Eve' bit is irrelevant to the dating. I agree, nothing has been put forward to show that there is a public dispute about the dating, the tag should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed dispute tag since it seems to be resolved now. No response from 76.16.176.166 to show the exact article dispute.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitochondrial Eve

As a look at the relevant articles will show, Mitochondrial Eve is not the 'most recent common ancestor' of modern humans. The unknown ancestors holding those titles changes through time as various genetic lines go extinct. By definition, some creature is Mitochondrial Eve, so the title is not 'hypothetical'. It also needs saying that the range estimates for the time of Mitochondrial Eve is very large, covering many tens of thousands of years.

You can find some ignorant media articles wondering if the footprints are Mitochondrial Eve's (see references) but let's get it right here. Lovingboth (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eve's footprint. 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:

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) 14:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]