Talk:Sinomegaceros

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A detailed rebuttal

I'm extremely annoyed that somebody would think that a scientific study designed to specifically answer a question with radiocarbon dating is less reliable than a firehose of sources that do not specifically answer the question. I have rebutted the sources as follows.

https://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/bunkazai/bunkazai-data-206120720.html as far as I can tell from google translate, it only says that the Yabe deer is OLDER than 12,000 years, not that it is 12,000 years old
http://www.i-manabi.jp/system/regionals/regionals/ecode:2/61/view/7559 extremely outdated, published in 1982, not relevant,
http://www.omnh.net/whatsnew/1120yabeotunojika%EF%BC%AF%EF%BC%AD%EF%BC%AE%EF%BC%A8.pdf makes no mention of radiocarbon dating
https://www.hm.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/20150731press.pdf again, no specific mention of radiocarbon dates
http://www.gmnh.pref.gunma.jp/wp-content/uploads/demeter_no01.pdf from 1997, outdated
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/294896893.pdf again, published in 2001, outdated.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I don't think my original version gave an accurate sense of the uncertainty involved in the original 2012 study. I have now rectified that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]