Talk:Oreopithecus

message: Why does wikipedia take sides in a scientific dispute over the origins of this fossile? Is it really in wikipedias interest to take sides? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.28.23 (talk • contribs) .
:The taxobox is used to give readers a quick overview of the taxonomy and provide quick access to key taxa. The article body itself spells out the questionability of the Oreopithecidae family, as would that article once it gets written. It's appropriate to leave the link in the taxobox and let the more inquisitive reader read further than the taxobox. the question mark I can live with. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: The 3rd hot link appears to be inactive. Jbottoms76 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: broken external link

message: Article has no inline cites (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations). Please provide good inline cites for everything in this article. Paleontology of Hominoidea is always a controversial subject. (WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:CITE#CHALLENGED) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did what I could to find sources for this article online.  Per May 2006, when most of the present content was added by , only Alba 2001; Carnieri 2003; Rook 2004; and Spoor 2003 were used as references, so most of the content can probably be attributed to those. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: *Sigh*, I first thought this article was a copyvio of  last updated April 2010, but their article is apparently a dump of this article from that date. "All rights are reserved" of course. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Including typos such as Tarsius bancamus instead of Tarsius bancanus and "Jens Lorenz Franken" instead of "Jens Lorenz Franzen".  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites, please 

message: Fossil sites include East Africa as well as Tuscany.  The evolutionary history section states that the species died out when the island they existed was joined to the mainland but if the range of this species was much larger than just this island how can this be? Mikebrophy (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to EB Oreopithecus has been "found as fossils in Late Miocene deposits in East Africa and Early Pliocene deposits in southern Europe (11.2 to 3.4 million years ago)" so my guess is it disappeared from Africa first and then from Europe.  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: And that this information comes from EB. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency between sites of fossil finds and extinction described in Evolutionary History section

message: I removed
*
as a reference from the article since I couldn't determine if this work resulted in any knowledge at all. Does this, ultimate, conclusion mean anything:
: canine reduction could be also alternatively (although not exclusively) interpreted as an aspect of generalized microdontia?
Correct me if I'm wrong. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alba, David M. et al