Talk:Loggerhead sea turtle

One caption was slightly confusing

"Loggerhead sea turtle, Evelyn, is equipped with a satellite tag and a SeaTag-GEO solar powered, geomagnetic tag"--could some w-links be incorporated so that the reader can understand what some of the things are/do?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wlinked geomagnetic. SeaTag-Geo doesn’t have an article, I assume it is just the brand of the geomagnetic tag. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what it seemed like to me too. Thanks for doing that!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Er...

Concerning this edit, I'm curious what sources say?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that edit is because the sentence is not encyclopedic or to dispute the claim of the loggerhead being the largest hard-shelled turtle. The Galápagos tortoise gets larger (by weight) but is not as long. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Seemed like the person thought of another turtle that was larger. Not too too important either way, was just wondering if this was originally put in because someone had a reference for it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cretaceous?

How can this species be 110 million years old? Surely this is wrong! 199.76.184.26 (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The reference doesn't actually claim 110 million years old. It's suggesting between 10-65million years. I'll change it to 40million per the reference in the main text. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Article does not mention what happens when they die

Or did i miss this? I have heard Sea Turtles sink to the bottom of the ocean floor when they die. Is this true? 174.74.77.113 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative FA apparently inspired a parodic tribute

Web search turned up a July 2010 parody song tribute to the subject of this article, for which the article was apparently a substantial source. Nice compliment, in an unexpected form, perhaps, to those who worked so hard on the article. Good job, all. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

the Kuroshio Extension Bifurcation region

"The Kuroshio Extension Bifurcation region": does the editor who inserted this actually have any idea what this is or where? Can we get an explanatory phrase inserted?--Wetman (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Added a link to Kuroshio Current, which presently has a map that shows the location of its Extension Current. Info in that article describes various eddies, layers of different properties, mixing layers, etc. Presumably, the area of such divisions are what was referred to in the source cited, whose original text described the KEBR as "an area with extensive meanders and mesoscale eddies". Bifurcation = splitting in two, as many ocean currents do in various places. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonder what percent of edits are useful when unprotected on main page

I wonder what percent of the edits today are:

A. Vandalism and reverts of such.

B. Good faith edits that are still degrading (e.g. adding content that is covered in a different section, overlinking)

C. Helpful edits that are minor (a dash, a typo, an interwiki language link).

D. Strunk and Whitian copy-editing (commas, omit needless words)

E. Substantial rewrite (organization of a paragraph or even higher level structures).

F. Substantive content additions (at least a sentence with a reference).

TCO (Reviews needed) 18:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I am affecting the experiment by posting this, so you could do from on page until 1822, UTC. TCO (Reviews needed) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Origin of loggerheads

What is it, exactly, that you claim originated 40 mya? This species, or genus, or family, or...? Why don't you use more careful language, such as "morphologically-similar fossils"? Consider these points:

1. Does the term 'species' mean the same thing for a fossil as for a living species? (Many palaeontologists have said it's not)
2. Is DNA evidence available for fossil species? (No, or not that far back)
3. Are the same number of traits available for taxonomic analysis in fossil species as compared to living species? (No, not by two orders of magnitude)
4. Is it likely that it could ever be shown that a fossil of 40mya is the same species as a living species (No)
5. How did such slack wording appear in a featured article without discussion?

I think it reasonable to say "the first known appearance of the family... was 40mya" or something like that. Perhaps that's what was meant. Even to claim the genus appeared then would be a big stretch, in my opinion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Range shown in maps does not agree

The two maps shown in the article(one in the info box, and one in the "Distribution" section) do not agree. One states that the turtles' range includes the Pacific Ocean, and the other does not. This should be looked into, to see which of the two is correct or if some labeling should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.203.10 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Length of loggerhead

The length range of a loggerhead turtle is written as 70 to 95 cm (28 to 37 in) in the article. This is wrong. We tagged 140 female loggerheads in Shark Bay, Western Australia in Jan 2014, and the length of the carapace ranged from 80 to 108cm. Is a different reference known with more accurate length ranges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.16.16 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Length of loggerhead (part 2)

The maximum length of a loggerhead turtle is listed as 213cm. I realise that the reference comes from a book, but I think it is a misprint, as loggerhead turtles are rarely over 120cm long.

Here are some references regarding size: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/loggerhead-sea-turtle.htm http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1763

Purpleturtle57 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

Vandalism on first line 90.253.249.181 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Colombian 1000 Peso Coin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hearsay converted into BS, BS cited bogusly, bogosity discovered, and BS re-cited bogusly

I was struck by the bogosity of the following:

Hatchlings use the journey from nest to ocean to build strength for the coming swim. Helping them to reach the ocean bypasses this strength-building exercise and lowers their chances of survival.[95]

Hey, any hatchling into pumping iron rather than frenzied scrambling for the water is going to get eaten.

So I started tracking this statement back a few tides ago.

A long time ago (2007) there was a semi-dubious statement

If you see a hatchling do not attempt to assist it by moving it to the water's edge. They need that travel to warm their muscles for the long journey ahead. If you really want to assist just quietly follow and prevent any birds or crabs from grabbing it before it can get to the water.

Oh look, copied from https:// active rain .com/blogsview/167459/loggerhead-sea-turtles-at-pawleys-island , also dated 2007.

Then somebody 'rephrased' it, to:

Hatchlings require the travel from their nest to the ocean in order to build up strength for the journey ahead, so interfering by helping it to the ocean actually lowers their chances of survival.

So uncited semi-BS becomes actual BS. (Yay?)

But uncited is bad, right? Must be, because someone added a {{fact}} back in 2008.

And in 2010 a reference appears!

Terese, Conant (August 2009). LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE (CARETTA CARETTA) 2009 STATUS REVIEW UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (PDF)

Of course, where this is mentioned in the report is uncertain. Ah, more specifically cited 25 April 2010:

39. ^ ^{a b c} Conant 2009, p. 13

Except, no, that page doesn't say anything like this. 'pipping', 'escape', 'emergence' are mentioned, and the next page continues the escape into the sea. But nothing about "building up strength" or warming muscles. This cite is bogus.

Then in 2012 someone notices, replacing the cite with a {{cn}} explaining in edit summary:

(Conservation efforts: removed citation - source does not verify claim)

Almost immediately someone adds a cite:

Whitmeyer, Steven J. (2009). Field geology education: historical perspectives and modern approaches. The Geological Society of America. p. 238. ISBN 9780813724614.

Really? Um, geology? Um, from the TOC, it really doesn't sound like beaches in view:

Field Experiences for Teachers

19. Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors at Georgia Southern University: Historical perspectives and modern approaches . . . . . 223

Gale A. Bishop, R. Kelly Vance, Fredrick J. Rich, Brian K. Meyer, E.J. Davis, R.H. Hayes, and N.B. Marsh

Whoa, mebbe it's real!? From abstract illegal pdf?

Fourteen teacher-interns per summer investigate loggerhead ecology, the human history, and geologic evolution of St. Catherines Island, and create natural history, collections for their classrooms. New skills, knowledge, and collections enhance teaching units on sea turtles and other endangered species that are developed in a spring follow-up course.

Well after reading the article, it actually does describe much around sea turtle nesting, including things like temperature-based sex biasing. But unless the illegal (?) PDF is grossly distorted, there is nothing like the text above that has me concerned. Until I or someone can get a clear copy of the article, this cite is bogus also. And the cite has remained since 2012 until now.

This has taken a lot of time to investigate. We see here hearsay converted into BS, BS cited bogusly, bogus cite discovered, and BS re-cited bogusly. This is greatly disturbing. How often does this happen here at Wikipedia? Shenme (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Shenme: Thanks for verifying that claim against cited sources; fact-checking is one of the most important and useful things that editors can do. I've encountered a number of citations that don't support the claims made, though I'd estimate the majority do. Seeing one in a featured article is a little more surprising. There is a 15-year backlog of articles where the citation is known not to support the claim (Category:Articles with failed verification), much less articles where this has not yet been spotted. The history of how the statement got in the article is perhaps not as relevant as whether or not the current citation supports the current claim; unless you are trying to recover a valid citation for a valid claim, skipping that historical digging may save you some time. I see you simply removed the citation; you can also use {{failed verification}} or simply remove the factual claim if you think it's probably bogus (or even if you don't, per Wikipedia:Verifiability). If I was unsure, I'd move the claim to the talk page or tag it with {{dubious}}. The reliability of the end result of our editing processes is discussed in detail at Reliability of Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed text

The text "although larger specimens of up to 280 cm (110 in) have been discovered." was in the wikitext, but commented out. Someone wrote "apocryphal! citation needed" next to it. Posting it here if someone is interested enough to track it down. -- Beland (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: BSC 4052 Conservation Biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Dashingdolphin.

— Assignment last updated by Josantosusf (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)