Talk:Ubirajara jubatus

Dinosaurs Mid‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brazil Mid‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article needs a map to be included.

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Controversy?

Should there be any mention of the controversy surrounding Ubirajara's description in the article? I'm still relatively new, so I'm not entirely sure if this should be brought up.

Borophagus (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the controversy is mentioned by reliable sources, it should be mentioned under the NPOV policy. That bringing up the issue might be painful to the scientists involved, is irrelevant.--MWAK (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. When I have time, I'll add a section discussing it.--Borophagus (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's already been added.--Borophagus (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've singled out the controversy in a section of its own because it has attracted and sustained significant attention in journals, magazines, and newspapers. As a consequence, the topic of "(neo)colonial paleontology" has become notable and justifies its coverage, either in Ubirajara jubatus#Controversy or in Neo-colonial_science#Examples_by_field. fgnievinski (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just reworked the section on legal issues a bit and added some references as it's been quite a while since the last edit. I think it would make sense to separate the nomenclatural issues (arising from the withdrawal of the study) which are now a bit dispersed from the legal issues strictly speaking. Palaeontolawgist (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid?

Why does it say its a nomen nudum? IS IT NO LONGER A VALID GENUS? Magnatyrannus (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here: [1] --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived here. fgnievinski (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Ubirajara jubatus ever be confirmed or will it stay invalid/dubious?

Since it was returned to its original location in Brazil, I doubt that it will ever be determined or confirmed as a valid species due to the controversy. BoiaBoiaMans (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly how it will become a valid taxon, because the proper authorities will re-describe it, most likely under a new name. It was never considered dubious, that's a different issue, just invalidly named. FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Species description in withdrawn paper

Should the description of the species provided in the withdrawn publication be included in the page? Palaeontolawgist (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the paper is withdrawn, it practically doesn't exist, hence we have nothing to cite. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this talk page section until reverting, but I stand by my argument here. The source has been rejected from the scientific literature. Regardless of the reasons why, it has been labelled as improper to continue existence as a valid source of information in the scientific record. If you follow the link in the citation you get to a page that will not show you the paper because you're not supposed to use it in the way we're using it right here. That's not a valid source. Presenting the paper's claims as valid science here on the page is not a fair representation of the subject matter to a reader. Sure, we can say their descriptions of the material are evidently still correct regardless of ethical concerns, but that is our original research judgement of the situation in lack of any valid publication on this animal. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the talk page after your edits so it's all good! I definitely see your point, I'm just wondering whether we could properly contextualise the information from the paper and still keep it on the page that way. It's just a lot of information about the species which is most likely reliable, and I feel like the current edit of the page pretends that we know less than we actually do. All of this presupposes, of course, than someone can find an archived version of the retracted paper which might prove difficult. Palaeontolawgist (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if we remove the retracted publication as a source, then we also have to remove reference no. 21 (Medium article from December 2020) because that one is exclusively based on the retracted paper, and since it's the only source for the sections on Description and Phylogeny, we'd probably have to delete these completely. Palaeontolawgist (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The publication was never really "retracted" because it was simply never published. Yes it is still accessible online, as a withdrawn paper in an "in press" issue. Because the paper itself never made it to press and was withdrawn before, it was never published. A news article talking about the withdrawn paper can theoretically be cited, but at this point yes I would say it can also be removed with those sections going with it. The original paper is in the same space as a manuscript that was submitted but not accepted, which can sometimes get news releases that end up their own secondary source. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]