Talk:Divje Babe flute: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:45, 2 January 2007

Latest revision as of 23:38, 30 May 2024

(122 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=

==Neutrality==

{{WikiProject Archaeology|importance=Mid}}

Sorry, but I'm very suspicious of the risk that this article, being largely written by a strong proponent of the flute interpretation, gives undue weight to that interpretation. For instance, ''Summary of probability analysis'' isn't a summary - it's an extensive exposition of the contents of one 'pro' paper, where the 'anti' papers get a small paragraph each.

{{WikiProject Slovenia|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Musical Instruments|importance=Mid}}

}}

{{Archives}}

== Steven Mithen and another flute ==

See also [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]]: "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is ''strongly'' discouraged". [[User:Tearlach|Tearlach]] 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This was added recently:

--

:[[Steven Mithen]] (2006) proposes that the Neanderthals had an elaborate proto-linguistic system of communication which was more [[origin of music|musical]] than modern human language, and which predated the separation of [[language]] and [[music]] into two separate modes of cognition.<ref>Steven Mithen, ''The Singing Neanderthals: the Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body'' (2006).</ref> However some people argue that singing and playing flute do not relate at all. Another European bone flute dated to 37-30 kya was discovered on the other northern Alp side by Prof. Nicholas Conard. <ref>Archeologists discover ice age dwellers' flute [http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2004/12/30/Arts/flute-prehistoric041230.html]</ref>

As we wrote above: We thought articles by scholars about their work was permitted. Finding out we were wrong, we took Fink's data and rewrote the article. We removed every partisan remark Fink had in it, and relied only on factual content. We gave full weight to his critics by making sure we didn't "load" the dice against them. We could have written several sentences of formulas and math, but we wanted to make this analysis understandable to at least highschool students as well as other scholars. We can assure you that ALL the literature available on the subject is in our possession, studied and all the quotes and references are accurate. Furthermore, the "summary" is still far shorter than the mathematical set-up and discussion that can be located on our musicolgy website as well as in the "Studies In Music Archaeology III" conference proceedings.

I have a couple of questions:

The publisher of those proceedings is a noted publisher of world archaeology papers and international gatherings of scholars for years. They invited Fink to rebut those who believed the bone was made by accident.

1. Does Steven Mithen comment on this particular flute? What is his the link between his "proto-linguistic communication" and this (potential) artifact?

2. "Some people argue" is very [[WP:AWW|weak language]]. Who argues this, and why is it relevant?

3. The article about the much younger European flute does not specify whether it was made by Neanderthal or modern Human (they were co-habitant at that time), and also claims to be the oldest known flute. How should we treat this information in relation to the Divje Babe artifact? I don't think that simply mentioning that someone else found a definite flute that is 20,000 years younger doesn't really help us understand the Divje Babe's significance. There should be more to say on it, but I am not sure what.

-- [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 05:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you want? Is your suspicion founded on any specifics we can rectify? We'll comply to whatever you require to feel assured. Give us a word limit if we're too wordy for you. But we cannot quote the entirelty of the critics of Fink's views or their illustrations without infringing their copyrights. (BTW, one of "their" illustration ideas was "borrowed" without credit or permission from Fink's book, which we proved at http://www.greenwych.ca/paypiper.htm ) If I was you, I'd be suspicious of them, not us.

:The stuff about the singing Neanderthals is interesting but borderline [[WP:SYNTH]]. Birds sing but they don't make flutes. There's no obvious relationship between the two activities. As for the sentence about later flutes, it seems irrelevant. We know that flutes existed later, and the fact is alluded to in the quotation further down the article ("uncontested bone flutes from European Upper Paleolithic"). Perhaps a sentence or two on the dates of the earliest uncontested flutes would be desirable? [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be up to them to submit their work, or edit what we wrote if it is wrong or biased. Who else do you expect will write about this topic you say is worth an article?

::I'll just move it here to the talk page for now. Feel free to integrate appropriate parts back into the article. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 06:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fink has written reams about the matter since 1997, been published world-wide about it, including covers of magazines and journals: see http://www.greenwych.ca/reviews.htm. Fink served as a juror for Nature journal on ancient music, and is qualified. The others have retreated into silence after having written probably no more than 40 pages on the subject taken all together. Their earlier reputations carry the day for them, but their silence on the issues about the bone that to this day they refuse to address should not weigh more than those who do address the issues, we would hope. Finally, here's a quote that may help allay your suspicions from the editor, along with others, of the anthology published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press in 2000 "On the Origins of Music."

:::Mithen does comment on the flute (pp. 243-244) and doubts that it is a human artifact, accepting D'Errico's argument. This goes along with his doubt that Neanderthals had the ability to manufacture musical instruments, based on his interpretation of their cognitive abilities. In light of that, the removed material is basically an accurate description of his opinion of the musicality of Neanderthals, but its inclusion here seems to mischaracterize his opinion regarding this object. [[User:Rigadoun|Rigadoun ]] [[User_talk:Rigadoun|(talk)]] 07:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Bjorn Merker wrote a few years ago in a letter to Fink:

== A recent X-RAY COMPUTED MICRO-TOMOGRAPHY OF THE DIVJE BABE ‘FLUTE’ ==

Bob:

A recent article in Archaeometry (2012) describes a micro CT examination of the Divje Babe flute. Just thought you might be interested. It is available at

...I have not seen your argument against d'Errico - I guess that's the publication in Antiquity arguing

against the "flute" on the basis of thousands of bones, some with holes in them, yes?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00630.x/abstract <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Stevekirb|Stevekirb]] ([[User talk:Stevekirb|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stevekirb|contribs]]) 15:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I read it and was appalled at the bias that pervaded their write-up (and wrote Turk about it). Their bone

collection convinced me in favor of Turk, because the one thing they maintain studious silence about is the linear

arrangement of the holes - they do not have a single bone among those thousands which comes even close to

the striking linear alignment of Turk's holes (I gather from what you say that this is part of your argument against

them), and not to discuss this central and crucial issue is just bad scholarship and bad science.

:This reference has been included in the article. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But {there are} academic theories about the status of Neanderthals...at stake, and so they fight with the

fury of theologians... The strange thing about science is that it progresses despite the biasses of its practitioners,

but that can be a long process in which lives are ruined along the way....

==Paleolithic is still considered to be the French ___domain==

B.M. 1/9/2000 Sweden

I am trying to work out what exactly this is supposed to mean:

"Such bones were discovered also elsewhere in Central Europe, but in a much lower number, and it is unlikely that cave bears would make such holes only in Central Europe and only in a specific period. That these bones are still not recognised by international research community, Mitja Brodar attributes to the fact that most of the bones were found on the territory of France and the Paleolithic is still considered to be the French ___domain, although not a single bone with holes have been found there. The only one ever discovered bone point with a hole has been discovered in Potok Cave."

All you need do is check out the links we provided to know we are not falsifying anything. If the facts we are posting seem to make the critics look wrong to you, it would seem to us that the truth of the facts are alll that need confirming. Let the chips fall where they may if Fink's critics still look wrong, wouldn't you agree? Read the last paragraph of the article quoting Nowell and Chase, who are Fink's critics. They raise the importance of "probability."

It's clearly part of recent additions presenting the views of Mitja Brodar, which have been rather clumsily inserted into the article at various places. I think it's saying that the French believe they have some sort of monopoly on Paleolithic "high culture" and so finds from elsewhere tend to get ignored. But its all rather rambling and tangental. Should the passage "most of the bones were found on the territory of France" have the word "not" in it? [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Did we make a mistake in the math? Do you want a photo instead of a drawing of the object? Tell us how the story of this debate gets told in Wikipedia, please?

:Hi, I've been invited to comment here on the text I added back in March 2012.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=484426801] Frankly, I don't remember anymore about reading this article, but the relevant sentence actually states: "There are no holes in the west of Europe, and because the Palaeolithic is unfortunately still decided about by the French who have most of it, these holes are still not recognised as a human work." ([Na zahodu Evrope lukenj ni, in ker o paleolitiku žal še vedno odločajo Francozi, ki ga imajo največ, te luknje še vedno niso priznane kot človeško delo.]). --[[User:Eleassar|Eleassar]] ^{[[User talk:Eleassar|my talk]]} 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes, For Greenwich Publ.,

Terry Geebe and others volunteers here.

[e-mail]

---------------

Okay.

::The French control the paleolithic? Was that agreed to by the EU at some point? This sources seems on the face of it to be somewhat suspicious. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 15:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We have gotten more help, I'm not a great writer anyway -- and we very considerably reduced the material on the probability analysis.

==New paper 2015==

It's not our fault that Nowell, Chase, d'Errico et al, all wrote very little in the past seven years on the matter. About half of what they published are photographs and drawings, and almost all of the photos are of other bones and flutes, rather than of the Divje Babe flute. The ones that were relevant were placed in the Antiquity article by d'Errico to show that there are single or perhaps two holes bitten in some bones only by carnivores -- which looked something like the circular holes in Divje Babe. After 4 short pages of that, everyone gets the point, and no one denies the holes look alike anyway.

[http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/4/140022 ‘Neanderthal bone flutes’: simply products of Ice Age spotted hyena scavenging activities on cave bear cubs in European cave bear dens]

The big violation of logic for Prof. Blackwell, Ivan Turk et al, and all those who search for answers, is that d'Errico published without ever personally examining the Divje Babe bone -- unless Professor Turk is a liar. He did look at it later, but long after publishing. And d'Errico concluded that if the holes look alike, then the "flute's" circular holes must be made by chance bites too. Really. A reverse conclusion could be made with just as much logic, wouldn't you think? -- that the bones d'Errico saw maybe were not made by carnivores after all, because the holes Neanderthals made in the Divje Babe flute looked like HIS collection of bones-holes?

I've learned a lot about this stuff in the past few days that surprises me.

Its pretty sceptical.[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 19:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As for Nowell, most of her and Chase's scant several pages of text midst pics of other bones and flutes said *nothing* that Fink, Turk, Blackwell, Otte and many others, would disagree with anyway! So what's to quote from them?

I agree, this should definitely be included [[User:DGedye|DGedye]] ([[User talk:DGedye|talk]]) 22:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

So should we make up stuff to quote "equal amounts" of it from them? -- Or suppress our own views to match their silence and lack of inquiry? Many people are "mathophobes" -- so when one writes math in the form of words so it's easier to understand, one must use lots more words. But -- we edited them down. Hope it's good enough to save the article. But "probability" IS the issue, and someone did publiush a study we want read. Why else would anyone write anything?

:That work by Diedrich's has been included in this article. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no one else who follows this matter who has the intimate familiarity with all the literature that all the participants have. So either one of the debating participants writes the article, or NO ONE will. So do you want it or not? This issue may turn out very important in the history of human evolution.

==Citations of unpublished papers by Bob Fink==

You decide if you want a blank Divje page. The critics of Turk have withdrawn from the issue for years because perhaps they realize they made a mistake and haven't the moxy to face up to the math they should have done themselves. But why should research findings be quashed because they won't deal with them? Is that how they silence us -- with no ideas offered at all?

As best I can make out, the following sources have not been published in an authoritative source.

Fink, Bob, 1997. "Neanderthal Flute: Oldest Musical Instrument's 4 Notes Matches 4 of Do, Re, Mi Scale". Retrieved 2006-01-22.

As to fact, almost every significant claim written there is referenced to some reputable source, book, webpage, comment, or testable reasoning (like the math). If there is still unfairness suspected -- one has to find something specific to offer as to what's unfair now. We don't think any paragraph has any factual errors in it.

Fink, Bob (2000). "Odds calculated against Neanderthal flute being a chance product of animal bites". Archived from the original on 2006-05-27. Retrieved 2006-05-27.

Fink, Bob, 2002-3, "The Neanderthal flute and origin of the scale: fang or flint? A response," in: Ellen Hickmann, Anne Draffkorn Kilmer and Ricardo Eichmann (Eds.), Studies in Music Archaeology III, Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH., Rahden/Westf. Germany, pp 83–87. Probability analysis.

The first two are clearly unpublished. The last listing may inadvertently suggest that his "The Neanderthal flute and origin of the scale: fang or flint? A response" has been published in Studies in Music Archaeology. Checking the listing of authors presented by Verlag Marie Leidorf at http://www.vml.de/e/autoren.php?autor=F053, Mr. Fink's name does not appear, as far as I can tell. Although an article in that journal apparently cites Fink's analyses, the article itself argues this artifact is not a flute--in direct opposition to Fink's arguments from his research. Although being cited in an article in Studies in Music Archaeology may be testament to value of his independent research, the citation here should make clear the difference between Fink's analyses having been referenced vs. publication of his apparently unpublished "The Neanderthal flute and origin of the scale: fang or flint? A response".

''Regards,

''Sorry for the wordiness, but I'd hate to see our

''many hours of work go dowen the tubes.

''For Greenwich,

''Terry

I'll be delighted if we can ever feel more confident about the Divje Babe artifact being a flute, but at present, I think we must agree the jury's still out. In his personal research and correspondence about it posted on the web, it's clear Fink has worked hard to sort it out, and hats off for that. I don't mean to diss his work in any way, I applaud his efforts. But until his work is published in an authoritative journal governed by peer review, I suggest it's best considered as original research and at present, doesn't serve as a suitable reference in this article. Jacques Bailhé 19:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

::I'm a trifle busy at the moment, but can get on to some specifics next week. But the main problem is that it's just a bad dynamic, proven many times over here, to have a topic written by a person or company with an investment in promoting one viewpoint. Even with the best of intentions, people are rotten at writing about their own (figurative) babies objectively.

:I've made a heavy revision to the article in the past few days. The past version of this article had primarily been written by Bob Fink, and had initially contained lengthy inclusions of his self-published research, and obviously biased and leading arguments, especially using quotations of other authors that contradicted their actual conclusions. Bob Fink passed away in 2016, unfortunately, so it would be impossible to discuss this with him. What I found is that his 1997 publication about the diatonic scale theory was directly mentioned and referenced by many of the referenced articles. Nowell and Morley both made references to the argument as continued on his personal website too. However, the scale theory was disputed on the basis of bone length, and even Turk turned away from it, especially in favour of Dimkaroski's alternative reconstruction. So, while I have tried hard to undo his self promotion and manipulation of this article, I do think Bob Fink's theory was a relevant part of the argument, at least for the time, and is interesting enough to mention. I've pared it down to just the part I think is relevant, and I've removed most of the archived weblinks, but one or two remain in the references, worth keeping IMO because they do provide useful context for the history of the argument, especially for references made in Morley's 2006 article, and otherwise would be very hard to find in research. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 22:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

::I suggest, again, following the advice of [[Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself]]. The topic exists - sooner or later others will edit it. The advice at [[Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer]] is also helpful. [[User:Tearlach|Tearlach]] 11:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

--

Sorry, but i have to neutralize here a bit. Ready to talk ATB[[User:Wikirictor|Wikirictor]] ([[User talk:Wikirictor|talk]]) 21:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Terry has gone back home now, but a few of us remain and have learned a little about how your system works. We are likely to close down as publishers when our remaining stock sells out (not much money in this niche publishing area any more). We have nothing to gain or sell using Wikipedia. We only want the literature that exists to be summarized accurately and understandably.

:I have made a heavy revision recently. Please comment, if you have an opinion. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]])

We await any specifics in your concerns as we dearly wish to be as fair as possible, and will act on your suggestions. We can supply reputable verification for virtually ''any'' item that concerns you. Some people are searching the literature for more material to provide from those views you feel did not get enough exposure. Everything in this subject's literature (books from Turk & Fink, but very little from their critics) is in writing, and so accuracy can be assured by using participant's own words. We will guard against "picking & choosing" or quoting out of context, but we hope the other participants producing the literature involved ''will'' edit and contribute more, themselves.

== What supports the 43100 ± 700 BP date? ==

At present there are 3,210 words in the whole article. The "pro-flute" material has 33% of the article, mostly direct quotes, and their sources. The "Carnivore-Origin" view is now greater with 43% of the article -- almost all direct quotes from the literature and their sources. Descriptive or "agreed upon material," without dispute, takes up 24%.

Individuals: Nowell and Chase are 12%, and d'Errico et al occupy 31% of the article, directly quoting their published work & soureces. Fink has 16% and Turk and other miscellaneous "pro-flute" views use 17% of the article, describing or direct-quoting from their published work.

Reference 14 (<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20070109020434/http://carsologica.zrc-sazu.si/downloads/352/bonnie.pdf</ref>) does not give a date of 43.1k, it actually says "Initially, Lau et al. (1997) showed the flute to be > 43 ka."

If you have no further specific items of non-neutrality, please remove your tag?

The abstract for "Lau et al 1997" is at <ref>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6548%28199709%2912%3A6%3C507%3A%3AAID-GEA2%3E3.0.CO%3B2-2</ref>, and it says "The ESR ages limit the maximum age for the Mousterian layers and the flute to between 67 ± 10 ka and 82 ± 11 ka." (It's not completely clear if 67 ± 10 ka is a minimum, or if it's just a minimum value for the maximum.)

-- Thank you for your time and reply -- Candace

So in summary, maybe a minimum of 43k from carbon dating and a maximum = 82 + 11 = 93k from ESR.

:I sketched a note or two, but on reflection, the specifics aren't important. You're not grasping the central issue: the very fact of your producing the bulk of the article is problematical.

Also, the National Museum of Slovenia's current page for the flute is at <ref>https://www.nms.si/en/collections/highlights/343-Neanderthal-flute</ref>. It says "60,000-year-old Neanderthal flute", and then later on it says "60,000 years before present", and then even later on it says, slightly differently, "it is about 60,000-50,000 years old". It doesn't give any detailed references for those numbers.

:Read [[Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself]] again.

This all comes back to the debate about whether or not it is actually a Neanderthal flute, because modern humans existed in other European locations by 43100 BP, some of them not so far away from Divje Babe, whereas there almost certainly weren't any modern humans in that part of Europe 60000 BP.

:"Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is ''strongly'' discouraged ... Similar principles apply to articles about works that you are primarily responsible for — the company you run, the website you started, the book you wrote; any possible conflict of interest".

I also found <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003552118300633?via%3Dihub</ref> by Turk et al 2018, which is a summary of all the evidence for it being a Neanderthal flute - full article behind paywall. The abstract suggests that the article is mostly about the question of the holes being human-made or not, however it also refers to "chronostratigraphic, palaeo-environmental, and archaeological contexts".

:Which bit of that don't you understand? I'm taking a break (new job), and am leaving it to Cleanup. [[User:Tearlach|Tearlach]] 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Pdorrell2|Pdorrell2]] ([[User talk:Pdorrell2|talk]]) 08:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

To Tearlach: Since you seem to be addressing me (Bob Fink), I'll respond personally.

:[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227587744_Mousterian_musicianship_The_case_of_the_Dive_Babe_I_bone Morley (2006)] gives a summary:

I didn't create the "Divje_Babe" page. The page was already there, but mostly empty, when I came on the scene. And, the article is ''not'' about myself, my business, my accomplishments, my publications or my books nor about Greenwich or its supporters. The article is about the Divje Babe bone, and the pros and cons in the published, verifiable debate about whether it is an artifact or an accident. There is no other issue about this find.

:{{blockquote|Recent Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) dating of the layer (layer 8) has dated it to around 60,000 years BP (before present) (Ivan Turk, pers. comm.; these findings are to be published in L’Anthropologie later in 2006/7, and in greater detail along with a climatochronological study in 2007). Layer 8 had previously been radiocarbon dated to 43,100 ±700 years BP (Nelson 1997); according to Turk (pers. comm.) the radiocarbon date is superseded by the more reliable ESR dates. These dates are in contrast to some erroneously quoted of up to 82,000 years (e.g. Fink 1997).}}

:There are the two references given for the 50-60ka estimate, apparently based on ESR dating. It seems that Turk insists that this overrides the previous estimate, though I have not found subsequent other publications that acknowledge it yet. I do not know that the dating would be disputed, as most arguments against Turk do not accept it as a flute in the first place, and you kind of have to do that before the dating becomes a critical issue. There was an assertion I have removed from the article that Mitja Brodar claimed that it was a Cro-Magnon flute instead, because I believe it was a misinterpretation of his writing. I do not believe he accepts it as a flute. (Even the most conservative 43100 seems to allow the "oldest known instrument" claim.)

:* Blackwell, B.A.B., Yu, E.S.K., Skinner, A.R., Turk, I., Blickstein, J.I.B., Turk, J., Yin, V.S.W., Lau, B. 2007, ESR-Dating at Divje babe I, Slovenia. In: Turk, I. (ed.), Divje babe I: Upper Pleistocene Palaeolithic site in Slovenia, Part 1: Geology and Palaeontology. Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 13, Ljubljana, 123–157.

:* Blackwell, B.A.B., Yu, E.S.K., Skinner, A.R., Turk, I., Blickstein, J.I.B., Skaberne, D., Turk, J., Lau, B. 2009, Dating and paleoenvironmental interpretation of the Late Pleistocene archaeological deposits at Divje Babe I, Slovenia. In: Calbet, M. and Szmidt, C. (eds.), The Mediterranean from 50 000 to 25 000 BP: Turning Points and New Directions. Oxford, 179-210.

: I've made other heavy revisions of the article recently. It could probably use some editing to clarify the current best known date, but it would help if there was some independent commentary to reference. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

== Featured picture scheduled for POTD ==

Which bit of that don't ''you'' understand? After others have removed and changed my words (as originally supplied by me before I learned that writing about one's own POV was not encouraged, and so I handed it over to others), the article is ''no longer'' fully my edits nor MY words. It presents all the viewpoints that ''exist''.

Again: Which bit of that don't you undertsand? Would you actually read the article, please? There was ''compliance'' with your concerns. In spades. Or is that irrelevant, too, and only ''I'' am now the excuse for your incomprehensible insistence on keeping a dispute? A dispute which now appears permanent and rigid despite the guidelines (quoted below).

Hello! This is to let editors know that [[:File:Divje Babe_flute_(Late_Pleistocene_flute).jpg]], a [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|featured picture]] used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day|picture of the day]] (POTD) for May 1, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at [[Template:POTD/2023-05-01]]. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the [[Main Page]]. If you have any concerns, please place a message at [[Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day]]. Thank you! &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 09:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:UpcomingPOTD -->

Here, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:NPOV_dispute#Removing_NPOV_dispute_notices it says: "Text already in the guidelines says:

<div style="margin-top:4px; border:1px solid #ddcef2; background:#faf5ff; overflow:auto;"><div style="margin:0.6em 0.4em 0.1em;">{{POTD/Day|2023-05-01|excludeheader=yes}}</div></div>

== Can this article please be reworked? ==

::"Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral. " So, Tearlach, this was done, or attempted, but ''now'' you say "the specifics [and the changes] aren't important" for judging whether neutrality has been acheived? Are you even following Wiki's own guidelines? You seem to be putting on blinders on this issue, pushing a temporary measure into an eternal POV of your own.

It's one of the most biased articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Incredibly one-sided, and thus unreliable. [[Special:Contributions/178.37.192.168|178.37.192.168]] ([[User talk:178.37.192.168|talk]]) 01:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

A question that you really, really must answer: Would you label ''all'' of the authors listed in this topic's literature -- shown in "References" and "Further Reading" sections -- as "problematical" -- not proper to have access or edits, or correcting or challenging facts in the article or in the literature? Or do you find I am the only problem?? If so, why? If you think the other POV should write it, you should know this: When the editors of the ''Studies in Music Archaeology III'' conference book invited me to write a rebuttal article, Nowell et al, with a written attack against my views planned in that same book, attempted to quash my article and censor my POV. But they failed to make it one-sided, and I remain a legitimate part of the scholarly literature on this issue. Do you deny that I am, or what? BTW, I don't believe in censorship. For proof, see [[http://www.greenwych.ca/poster.htm news clipping]]. (A case which I eventually won).

:So, 16 years ago I took note of this article because of a conflict of interest dispute with Bob Fink (see above) who has sadly since passed on, but I guess today I felt like taking a pass at improving it. The state of it has been bothering me for many years. :S So, I did a big revision. I tried not to remove anything that didn't seem completely redundant, or superfluous, or needless. The references that existed were good, but I noted many of the quotes were clearly cherry picked against the author's conclusions. I replaced those quotes with ones more indicative of their author's conclusion. I tried to reorganize everything to be easier to follow. All of Turk's rebuttal points are still there, but I tried to make it clear what's his opinion, and what's not. I tried to make the . Finally I removed some passages about Dimkaroski's reconstruction which seemed like self promotion. I'm not sure who added them to the article, but it was making claims (published by him) that this did things that no modern instrument does (extremely dubious), and needless superlatives like it can play any modern genre, etc. It's a unique instrument, and a fantastic bit of experimental research, but this article shouldn't feel like an advertisement for it. Of the articles I tracked down, the best one was Morley's 2006 comprehensive meta-review, which can be easily read here: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227587744_Mousterian_musicianship_The_case_of_the_Dive_Babe_I_bone Mousterian musicianship? The case of the Dive Babe I bone]. I would highly recommend that article to provide a firm basis for further revision to the article. Anyway, hopefully that puts it on a better track. We'll see if I haven't stumbled into another edit dispute decades later... - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 04:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anybody from the other POV would even include me if they wrote the article in Wikipedia. But if you think ''none'' of the authors qualify, then who is left that you think can or should write it? Should the writer be someone who doesn't care enough about it to even have a POV, or who is not part of the existing literature or expert in the topic? Of course. How stupid of me! What ''was'' I thinking? And that person just came in the door. "Here I am, Bob. I have a neutral view. I think the flute is an accident, rather than made to be a flute, but I think it was made to be a flute and not an accident."

[[File:Divje Babe Bone Diagram.png|thumb|Divje Babe Bone Diagram]]

At the Wiki URL about neutrality below, it says about tags: " ''The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please view the article's talk page.'' Use this when the bulk of an article is OK, but a single section appears not to be NPOV. You should explain what's wrong with the section on the talk page." Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV_dispute#How_can_neutrality_be_achieved.3F

:I was also annoyed that the "5th hole" on the rear of the bone was mentioned so many times but he have no photograph of it, so I made a diagram of it based on photographs in Morley's paper. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 05:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

:As a follow-up, today I searched through Wikipedia for references to the flute, and tried to review statements about the flute to present it neutrally, rather than factually a flute. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 22:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You said "too long.' So we made it much shorter. But you now offer NO further method nor means for achieving neutrality except now your solution is "Bob Fink, get lost." (And bite the newcomer.) Just because you're ''afraid'' of a slanted writing doesn't mean that has happened. ''Does it?''

Another Wiki URL says [[Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating_an_article_about_yourself]]: "Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable." That seems to say I am not ''prohibited'' from edits or participation and that verifiable matereial can be allowed about oneself. But again, I repeat:''This article now is not about myself.'' Get it? It is about the debate that ''exists in reality'', and exists in the official, scholarly, reputable, and published literature from many people (which happens to include me ''in fact''). Would you remove & hide me out of sight and make the literary record stilted, dishonest and incomplete? It is about the bone they found!

Like it or not, I am a major contributer to the reputably published record -- in some of the ''same journals and books'' and arena as the opposing POV. And after the changes made to Divje_Babe, it is downright false to still say the "bulk" of it is by me! Certainly even you yourself have influenced those changes. Again: Which part of ''that'' don't you undertsand? Do you even bother to read the remarks offered here?

The unique, nice thing about arithmetic is that there are no shades of grey: Even the most hideously biased ego-maniac author who is fanatically "pushing" his own self-interested POV, can say: "2+2=4" exactly the same way a "neutral" author would do that. Arithmetic is either right -- or it's wrong. The author is ''irrelevant.'' There is ''no way'' for a math example (the article's "probability analysis") to be "not-neutral" or unfair to any other POV. If it shows another POV may be mistaken, that is ''not the same thing'' as "unfair" -- ''Is it?'' And do you deny it's ''possible'' that such an author is capable (even though holding his/her nose) to quote accurately [from other POVs] things he/she doesn't agree with, and thus -- be fair?

In conclusion, let me point out that Leon Trotsky wrote the ''The Russian Revolution'' -- a major classic, definitive work of history recognized by any literary standard of objectivity -- despite himself being a player in the events (A [[Wiki_Sin]], without doubt). That kind of thing (someone being fairly objective) happens sometimes, even if not in your experience. Your [[Wiki_fetish]] about it should be mellowed -- otherwise you'll make it a nightmare for scholars (as my experience with you has been for me) to write for Wikipedia and improve its reliability -- i.e., Wiki's loss.

Well, hit and run -- go "missing in action" -- after refusing to offer any specific argument to justify continuing your attachment to your tag on neutrality. If it hadn't been for you, the article might not have been improved and made as even-handed as it is now. But if it wasn't for you, it would also not still be closed-mindedly disputed as "unfair." I'll be thinking twice before I ever have more to do with wikipedia. It's vision looks far shallower now.

Bob Fink

===Breach of Wikipedia:Autobiography===

I'm tired of being treated as the villain for defending a basic Wikipedia guideline. The latest edition of [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] is even clearer now:

:'''Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. Contribute on the talk page instead'''.

:''You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, and any other possible conflict of interest''.

:''Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself [http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2828]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|neutral stance]] and in avoiding the appearance of [[Wikipedia:Points of view|POV]]-pushing''.

You can bluster all you like: Bob Fink and/or Bob Fink's publisher should not be the maintainer and contributor of an article primarily about Bob Fink's work. [[User:Tearlach|Tearlach]] 16:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

:Hear, hear! The whole article needs to be cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia style, but more importantly we need some '''other points of view'''. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 16:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[NOTE: The above two posts appear to have been entered here when they likely were meant to be placed on the talk page for the [[Bob Fink]] page while its deletion was debated. The "history" of the article indicates POV issues are not relevant ( ("19:24, 2 February 2006 Rdos (Talk | contribs) (POV no longer relevant)" ), as the several points of views of other writers regarding this archaeological bone-find were already amply presented. Nor was this page ever "primarily" about any individual's biography and works.]

:Please sign your posts on talk pages per [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]. Thanks! [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== Unencyclopedic tag ==

I've tagged the article as unencyclopedic. This reads like a review of research, not an encyclopedia article. In my opinion the article could be about 1/4 its current length by trimming most of the disputed material. And I find the above discussion disturbing on a number of levels. --[[User:Craig Stuntz|Craig Stuntz]] 14:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

:This notation appeared in the History:

::"15:58, 14 April 2006 Kjkolb (Talk | contribs) (replaced tags with a general cleanup tag, the unencyclopedic tag is for articles whose topic is unencyclopedic, not content)"

== Mistake in probability calculation ? ==

The probability calculation states "there are 10 locations around the bone for each hole to be located, therefore there are 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 possibilies". I think this is a mistake, since the first hole can always considered to be "lined up" (with itself, since the first hole defines the line). Therefore there are 10 x 10 x 10 possibilies, for the remaining three holes, giving a figure of 1,000 and not 10,000 as stated. -- salsaman.

:You are right except there are limitations imposed on the set-up of the problem. The idea of the term "flute-like" is assumed here to be defined as being ''all'' 4 holes lined-up along the axis of the tube (or femur). If the femur was a true symmetrical cylinder, then the line-up could be rotated ''as a whole'' and produce the same "flute-like" condition in other locations on the tube. Those would be subtractable as you indicate. But the ___location of a mouthpiece (never found) or an add-on mouthpiece, would inhibit the ability to rotate any of the femur's hole arrangements arbitrarily anywhere on the circumfrence of the bone (or tube). So, by this set-up, the first hole must be included in the calculation (as would the plums, cherries, etc., for a gambling machine's results appearing in its similarly "fixed" ___location provided by the machine's windows), showing ''how many ways'' the four holes (or plums, cherries, or whatever) can be ''not'' lined up, or not be "flute-like."

:Further, it seems like you're saying that two people "standing side by side" could be said, by some mental acrobatics, to still be doing so even if there is only one one person present. To "line up" hole(s) on a ''given'' axis requires two or more of them in that set-up.

:In any event, being a rough calculation designed only to find the general order of magnitude of the odds, it isn't worth the refinement of subtracting the much smaller number of arrangements that could be repetitive. That matter loses significance because the results remain astronomically improbable to occur by chance regardless which calculation is used.

:Lastly, not included are the additional improbabilities of the 4 holes being approximately the same diameters, and a diameter size coverable by finger-tips, as are holes in most simple flutes. Calculating (if even possible to do) the many other hole sizes possible, if they were really randomly created, would make the final improbability odds almost an impossibility. --CN

== Two new articles (Fall, 2006) published ==

An article has appeared by Ivan Turk (who discovered the "flute" object) which describe the results from testing the object using a "multi-slice computer tomographic process," and another separate article appeared in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology (Nov., 2006) by Iain Morley reviewing the taphonomic evidence.

Both articles have been added to the references section.

A few lines have been added in the text to quote the new or significant points made in these two articles that bear upon or update the controversy. -- CN

- - - - -

We have reversed the vandalism. Whether we signed in or not, there ARE further 2006 journal-published materials from BOTH the finders of the object (Turk, et al), and from Morley, a scholar opposing Turk's views, published in the Nov. Oxford Journal of Archaeology. These are listed and a small updating quote from each is added.

The material is NOT added by the authors or anyone related to them. Your reference to "autobiographical rules" in the "history" is an absurdity, as neither author cited or quoted has done the edit.

There is more to come. We have been written to about *all* the latest publications known (from the Paleontology-Anthropogy forum "Palanthsci," and from others) on this object. There are other papers on the matter from Zoltan Horusitzki (France) which will also soon be listed when we finish reading them and formatting the citations.

Do you have some reason for preventing this literature from being known?

Learn to read the article itself, and to abide by the standards of readers' rights to know about new references & sources, and to aid scholarly completeness. Also look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes .

Removal again of this information and reading references is gross censorship, suppression of information, and/or vandalism, and will be fought to the bitter end if neceesary. -- CN

== Rainwarrior's edits Dec 26 ==

=== Reverted image removal ===

The image is not repeated elsewhere in the article as claimed in the history. The image shows the match of the bone's holes superimposed over a modern spacing of holes in a simple flute or whistle. Therefore, the justification given for its removal does not exist. No other image visually shows the match. -Bob Fink, [[User:65.255.225.41|65.255.225.41]] 15:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

:I don't know why you claim that this image (the one you restored a link to): [http://www.greenwych.ca/fl-mtch.gif]

:Is different from this image (the one that appears in the article directly below that linkg): [[:Image:Image-Divje04.jpg]]

:But they are clearly the same, making the external link to the former directly prior both confusing and unnecessary. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 19:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

=== What "all agreed to" ===

There are four holes (sometimes called "openings," or "perforations"). It doesn't matter what they are called, a hole, whether made by chance bites or by human agency, are still "holes," if you check your English dictionary.

Therefore the statement removed ("all are agreed" there are four holes, in-line, similar diameters, etc), ''is a truthful and factual statement'', and so there is no reason (so far) for removal of it. What is not agreed is that the end holes were human-made or carnivore-made. But that doesn't change the fact that the end-holes are ''holes'' NOR that the nature of the statement removed is factual. Untill a specific reason is provided, I am replacing those statements.

In any event, the recent CT scan of the bone seems to have demonstrated conclusively (unless some rebuttal can be supported) that the holes are indeed all four (3 for sure) made by human agency prior to carnivore action upon the bone. You can find this information in the article along with sources for it.

Further: The removal of the ''fact'' that I was ''invited'' to write a rebuttal appears totally gratuitous, since the fact has significance regarding that I was considered the logical scholar for presenting the alternative viewpoint (since I didn't attend the conference), and that I was reviewed by Chase and Nowell in their paper at the conference. Removal of that fact is designed to serve what goal? It is being replaced, pending a serious specific reason for removing it. -Bob Fink, [[User:65.255.225.41|65.255.225.41]] 15:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

:If you don't have a published citation for d'Errico, Chase, and Nowell stating that the bone has four holes in-line, then "all agreed" is not verifiable.

:I would like to review the information about the CT scan, but there is no information in it in the article other than it "...has produced results that indicate most or all holes were made before any carnivore damage. The damage had been cited to indicate marrow was present (which attracts carnivores), but the tomography results now challenge that conclusion." The link to Turk's article from your website is broken, and the "Arheoloski vestnik" journal isn't available at any library within driving distance for me at the moment. The only information offered here is that Turk (by his published article) and you (by your statements) find this conclusive. So this reference, while it may have very compelling evidence (but again, not being able to read it myself, I can't evaluate that), does not speak to the opinions of "all".

:The fact that you were invited to write a rebuttal is completely gratuitous. I removed it because it has no relevance to your argument. It's [[ad hominem]] (or pro hominem in this case?) and not interesting to anyone who is not studying you.

:Furthermore the fact that you are using this article to write directly about your own research is very much a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]], especially given that you have replaced the [http://www.svf.uib.no/sfu/blombos/pdf/11.%20FDE%20et%20al%20Origins%20symbol%20JWP%202003.pdf working link] I gave for the d'Errico article which opposes your view with a [http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:lb1j2F7CtlQJ:www.cognisud.org/documents/030919/derrico2.pdf+Otte+%22Divje+Babe%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&ie=UTF-8 broken one]. That action directly supresses a published opposing viewpoint. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divje_Babe&diff=prev&oldid=96746577 edit history]).

:- [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

.

::No, it doesn't work that way. The onus is on you to provide quotes and verifications that d'Errico, Nowell, Morley, et al ''deny'' the holes are in line, or are equal diameters, etc. ''You know perfectly well'' that if one side said the holes matched a scale, were equal diameters and in-line, and that if they didn't agree they'd be squawking to high heaven to express that. Silence connotes condoning, in this case. Can I satisfy you if it said instead: ''"None of the participants have objected to these observations"''? Anyone with eyes can see the line-up & measure the scale spacing, plus their writings are sourced already for this. They know "coincidence" is their conclusion but as it's not seen as a scientific explanation, they don't like to deal with that by mentioning this issue of line-up, etc. Even when asked, they avoid it. Most of the time, anyway.

::CT-scan: You are not here to be a censor. You need only to make sure proper verifications/references are provided. In wiki, a statement does not even need to be true (especially if based only on your opinion). As long as there is verification, the statement should stand if relevant. No wiki guidelines requires reference libraries to be within the driving range of Rainwarrior's residence to see if the reference content meets with your approval or agreement. The quotes and references will remain because they provide reputable sources and accurate quotes, unless you can provide better reasons.

::I spent $100 for that ''Arheoloski vestnik'' 2005 issue of Turk's article and can quote material as you'd like about the CT-scan, but what kind of quotes exactly do you need? I have letters written me by Prof. Blackwell, Zoltan Horusitzky, as well as more quotes from Turk's (also ''very'' similar is his paper in L'anthropologie, vol. 110 (3) 2006), if you want. Would that help? I'm not responsible for when temporary Internet links to PDFs and abstracts expire. Turk has no new site, and relies on Prof. Blackwell for communications in the west. I usually copy temporary data to a webpage I create for such material, but then, would you fight ''that'' link being cited as it would then be "my" webpage? Catch 22.

::Professor Blackwell wrote me this: "Tomography means taking a series of 3d xray slices through the flute to see how the holes are shaped in all directions. This basically shows that the holes don't have the shape that they should if they were made by teeth biting down on the bone. No other natural phenomena can explain them, so they had to be shaped by humans."

::The image you removed is ''not'' a repeat of any other. It shows what no other shows: The match to a unique modern scale spacing sequence. Not being a "repeat," the justification for its removal disappears. So it'll remain pending a better reason for removal.

::On the "Fink was invited" comment, you wrote: "I removed it because it has no relevance to your argument. It's ad hominem (or pro hominem in this case)...and not interesting to anyone who is not studying you." But: I notice you added my name as the source of an image. But in that case why doesn't your own statement also apply there as well? Namely: That my name being added is gratuitous and "has no relevance to the argument."? Yet you added it. To be "pro hominem"? Anyway, people ''are'' usually interested in the facts surrounding the players as well as the arguments, and it's most unusual that a non-archaeologist would be considered the proper scholar to ask for a rebuttal to one of the world's leading archaeologists, even though I didn't attend the archaeology conference. That rarely happens, and at least bears upon the relevance of the argument presented. Nevertheless, I won't fight you on that phrase. Remove it as you wish, although your reasoning for it is inconsistent, as noted.

::When you write: "Furthermore the fact that you are using this article to write directly about your own research...." that is ''not'' a "fact" at all. ''Directly'' you claim? False. You suffer from a severe loss of reality concerning the authors of this article (read the ''whole'' talk page). You also have an oversimplified view of the wiki guidelines, when in fact they provide various exceptions to your hard-and-fast view of the rules. I am allowed ''at least'' to revert vandalism, make or correct sources, citations, references, etc. Furthermore, the d'Errico et al quote is the ''entirety'' of the PDF source now broken. It's not my fault the link is now broken, but the journals involved only make them free for limited times. Then you have to buy the article. Or cite the title, which is sufficient for Wiki, if not you. If you could still reach that link, it would be exactly the same text as quoted in the article. There was ''nothing left out'' regarding Divje Babe.

::I apologize that your new link to d'Errico was broken by my revert. Maybe you shouldn't be so gung-ho to revert ''my'' edits without adequate discussion? I will search again for the workable link in history, and replace it -- or you can replace it sooner if you like. I want the link to work as much as you do. Bob Fink, [[User:65.255.225.42|65.255.225.42]] 04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:::The "gung ho" reversion was yours. I made edits to fix a link, improve formatting (large indents do not fit small screens very well), improve clarity, and reduce POV. You then made the summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divje_Babe&diff=96757370&oldid=96607056 reversion] of all of these edits after only evaluating a few of them.

:::Silence is ''not'' agreement. That's ludicrous. However, the very d'Errico article you have now twice broken the link for which I had endeavoured to restore is not silent about the number of holes. It states that there are "two or possibly three perforations on the suggested flute" (pg 37). At no point does it acknowledge a fourth hole (this is the same as denying the existance of such a fourth hole). He goes on to say "the object could never have been playable as its epiphyses were not completely opened" (same page).

:::In another cited document (Morley, 2006) writes "whilst there remain only two complete holes in the bone, commentators have frequently asserted that there may have originally been three, four, or even five holes made in the bone" (pg 48) indicating very directly here that the number of holes in the bone are IN DISPUTE. "All agreed" is untrue by this statement and by d'Errico's. Unless you have a citation that says that d'Errico, Chase, and Nowell all have agreed that there were four holes in this artifact. Silence can mean many things, but it is not automatically assumed to be agreement.

:::Even Turk, according to Morley, believes that "the damage at the ends of the femure, including the semi-circular hole damage, is consistent with carnivore damage...this, in all probability, leaves in under question only the agency responsible for the two complete holes in the bone." (pg 48)

:::The image that I attributed to you numbering the holes I attributed to you because you made it, and it is your work that asserts these four holes. And the written statement "Although just looking at the flute shows that it looks virtually identical to any other flute from prehistoric times" is completely POV. If it is true, the image itself will suffice. The reader need not be insulted with the assertion that "this picture makes it obvious"; the reader can think for himself. However, the identification of the holes is clearly part of YOUR argument, and not of d'Errico's, not of Chase and Nowell's, and not of Turks, and this is why I attributed it to you.

:::You have obviously NOT looked at the image link I removed, because everything I have said about it is completely true. The VERY SAME image appears INLINE in the article DIRECTLY BELOW the link. I can't fathom why you say different, but from the way you reverted my entire edit without addressing most of it, I must assume that you still haven't looked at it with care. Take a look.

:::As for myself not being able to get to the article you're citing, I'm not mentioning that for your benefit. I'm mentioning it because if it is possible for a third party to look this up, I would much appreciate the verification. I simply can't take your word for it, because I think you've got a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] in this article.

:::- [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 06:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::'''To Rainwarrior:''' '''FYI:''' Turk numbered the holes 1 to 4, and in his 2005 CT-scan article, p. 11, has a picture of the holes with numbers 1 to 5 (including the reputed "thumbhole"). An alternative numbering appears on p. 17 numbered 1 to 3. ''I did not invent the numbers used in the image you removed.'' Your claim that this numbering is ''my'' view of the matter, is based on the lack of your having the complete literature, which is not my fault. But you use that lack ''against me'' and to edit badly.

::Also, since I ''am'' a player in the world debate on this bone, you say that makes you conclude COI on my part, existing in reality in some ''significant'' way ''even though you haven't a shred of evidence in all the thousands of words I have already written here or anywhere than I have EVER misquoted or misrepresented any facts.'' If so, NAME THE SPECIFICS or stop accusing me falsely!!! That violation of standards of decency reveals your bias against me to justify your edits and ''to be willing to ignore my facts and push ahead.'' Along with your lack of knowing the literature inside-&-out, your behavior toward me shows an ''admitted'' lack of good faith with no specific or stated reason for it other than your subjective unfounded suspicions.

::'''FYI-2:''' D'Errico (on p. 69 of his ''Antiquity'' March 1998 article) lists all the ''same'' items and more that I list in the article that ''could'' show "an anthropic origin" of the 4 holes. D'Errico uses these words regarding the holes: "Aligned; finger sized; regular round shape; four (holes); absence of spongy bone (marrow)," and more. He doesn't dispute these observations in the paper, but ignores or interprets them as not "convincing" enough to conclude an anthropic origin. Further, on p. 77, he refers to one of the incomplete end holes as the "distal hole." ''Note -- he uses the word "hole" for the end hole!'' So again, it is not true to claim it's ''me'' that is forcing the word "hole" onto those openings. He also refers to the end holes as notches, perforations, and sometimes: holes.

::'''FYI-3:''' Morely (p.319 in the Oxford journal 2006) has also numbered the holes from 1 to 5, and 1-4 on the one side. Morely wrote (p. 321): ''''However, as outlined below, as far as Turk et al. (1997) are concerned, the damage at the ends of the femur, including the semi-circular hole damage, is consistent with carnivore damage.... This, in all probability, leaves under question only the agency responsible for the two complete holes in the bone."'' In this quote it is clear that all the holes are called "holes." The end hole is called a "semi-circular hole." See it? The ONLY dispute is ''how they were made,'' not that they were holes or complete holes or some other name. You seem to fetishistically think that the use of the word "hole" means also accepting the human origin viewpoint. WHY?? When Morley says there are only "two" holes, you well know -- or will, if you read the article carefully -- that he always means there are only two holes from the four (or five) ''holes'' which ''may'' be difficult to show have a carnivore origin. The rest he states are "almost certainly" (p. 324) carnivore-made. For Morley it is like a "blue" or "azure" issue -- not at all significant, regarding the colour of the sky. As for the line-up, Morley writes on p. 324 that the line-up of the holes becomes less improbable if two of the "semi-circular (end) holes" were never human-made holes. While I think that is a mathematically impossible statement to make, nonetheless, he ADMITS there is a "line up." See it?

::'''FYI-4:''' Nowell & Chase, in their paper in ''Studies in Music Arcaeology III'' p. 69 through 74, refer to the end holes as "partial holes," again -- using the word "holes." On p. 74, they write: "''There is little dispute about the observations that have been made on the specimen itself.'' There are, however, disagreements about the interpretation of these observations." Her use of photographs and an illustration she & Chase borrowed from my paper (showing the match in this article between the old bone and modern scale-holes) also ''shows her agreement to the alignment, size and shape of the holes.''

::You wrote earlier: "If you don't have a published citation for d'Errico, Chase, and Nowell stating that the bone has four holes in-line, then "all agreed" is not verifiable. " Remember that? Do you still hold to that? ...Well, I have ''now cited'' d'Errico et al, Morley, and Nowell & Chase all agreeing to the list of observations that exist in the article. ''So, three questions for you:''

:::1. Despite the evidence now presented, will you still insist on your edit and in denying, despite these citations, that "all agree" on those observations? If so WHY??? Or will you accept ''at least'' wording to the effect that "no one objects to those observations" as a compromise?

:::2. Just in case you're ''actually able to be specific'': What ''exactly'' is it about the CT-scan article that you "cannot take my word" for? That it even exists? Or that I quoted accurately from it? Explain please.

:::3. What is your definition of the word "hole?" Can it mean an opening made by carnivores? Webster says yes ("an opening in anything; break, gap, tear"). What do you say it means in the article (and why)? --B.F. [[User:65.255.225.52|65.255.225.52]] 05:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I think this reply is in the wrong section. (Edit: I have moved it to the appropriate place.) It would be helpful to all involved in this debate if you took a little more care with the formatting of your talk page edits. It is more difficult to read when you do this, and hinders the progress of the discussion.

::::I wasn't objecting specifically to the use of the word "hole", but rather the skew involved in the words used. Matters of bias are difficult to articulate, and you have (in this place and in our other argument) made lengthy attacks on specific words which I meant to stand for a more general issue than the word itself. You attacked my edits which involved the word "hole", and I responded by talking about holes, but I can see now that this didn't really get to my point; but I couldn't really predict how you were going to interpret my argument.

::::My issue is not really with the word "hole", but the sentence in which it was used--with the implications of the way you present it. If we write simply "it is undisputed that there are four holes, lined up" on this artifact, this statement leaves out that many of the participants believe that the incomplete holes at the broken ends of the artifact could not ever be conclusively demonstarted to be man-made. Even if the two complete holes are man made, if it is held that the incomplete holes are not, "lined up" is not relevant. There is no need for Nowell, d'Errico, or whomever to respond specifically to that claim if it's a non-issue to them. As I said earlier, silence is not agreement. I really wish you would stop asserting this.

::::I object to the use of the word hole in the context it was used, and made the edit to reduce the bias inherent in that wording. In fact, I think this presentation of four points like this, completely abstracted from the context upon which they may be "agreed" upon is completely biased toward your particular interpretation of the object's origin. "Nearly all circular" is very strange, given that of the two supposed end holes one has only half of its circumference intact ("nearly" circular?) and the other even less. A statement like "the two complete holes are nearly circular" in its place would be much more accurate, at least. I also think "like a flute" is a loaded statement. The wording of this whole passage is being used to imply things that are omitted. If a reader does not carefully review the entire article (and given its sorry state, that is quite likely), he might easily mistake these implication for undisputed truth (especially with words like "not disputed by participants in the debate").

::::You also [[Talk:Tonality#Justify removals|took issue]] with the minor change I made at [[Tonality]] removing the unqualified reference to the "do-re-mi" scale, which is part of the same issue. (I left a small response there, but I am making the same point more clearly here.)

::::Yes, at [[Trio theory]] I put your name to it because the article was intended to be about your work, which at the time the article [[Musical acoustics]] claimed was referred to as "trio theory". At present the goal of the article is left very nebulous due to your belief that the article should be about what the subject of your work is about, rather than about your work.

::::Here, though, I have added attributions to you, because when an issue is in debate, it is completely appropriate to identify the sources of an argument. To say "Bob Fink believes this is a man-made flute," is completely neutral. To say "This is a man-made flute," is not. (This is just an example.) Where claims are controversial the matter of which side the controversial statement is coming from is very important. I don't know why you think that attributing your claims to you somehow downgrades their importance, but this is not my intent. My intent is to make the nature of the dispute clearer.

::::- [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 09:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rainwarrior comment Copied from [[Talk:Tonality]]

You can attack the word "hole", but the real issue is that the status of the object is clearly in debate, and

my edits make this clear. The assertion that it is diatonic isn't even really the major problem, it is the

implications of it; For the presence of the diatonic scale (which is contested by Chase and Nowell,

whether or not you think you have a counter-argument) to be relevant we must already assume that it IS a

flute, and that it IS man-made. Both of these ideas are very much disputed, and to say that its holes match

the diatonic scale without qualification is directly misleading. Again, the argument is at Divje Babe, and

not here. - Rainwarrior 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

::'''To Rainwarrier''' Go to the trouble to get the literature and study it accurately so that you can stop inaccurate edits here (which you ''always'' defend to the death once made). I wasted my time and provided you quotes and sources for the "agreed by all" list. I knew your response would avoid commenting directly on them and change the subject to suit your "create-endless-dispute" syndrome. When do I get ''direct & specific answers'' to the 3 specific questions I asked you above? What is your comment on the quote from Nowell & Chase: '''"There is little dispute about the observations that have been made on the specimen itself.'''" --''Is she wrong or right?'' ...B.F. [[User:65.255.225.51|65.255.225.51]] 04:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I didn't comment directly on them because I don't think the hole argument is a useful one. I let you draw me into a debate about holes, but the edit I made was about POV, not holes specifically. "Hole" was just one of the words used. I would call it a mistake on my part that I wasn't able to explain this properly before you decided to spend a lot of time fussing about who said "hole" where and in what documents.

:::The mistake is due to the misleading nature of the words that I object to. To say there are undisputably four holes in-line implies indirectly that the same agent created all of them. Reading it, and feeling this implication, I told you that this information was in debate. No, you're right, everyone's talked about the four possible holes, etc. etc., but many only as an acknowledgement of a possibility. To say it the way it is said in the article is confusing language, and there is no good reason to be doing this. Do you think saying "it is agreed by all parties that there are four holes in line" is an unbiased and straightforward representation of the facts? I don't. It's misleading. I said in my last reply that saying "two complete holes, and two possible holes suggesed by notches in the end of the bone" would be completely acceptable in its place.

:::So, so far this was mainly a reiteration of my previous reply. It answers your question 1. I'm not even sure what kind of answer you want to question 2 anyway (so I didn't answer it before, but I'll try now). I said that I'd like to look at that article, and will do so when I can, but I have not yet made any comment on the content of that article which I haven't read. All I've said is that I can't do so at this moment. I don't really want you to start quoting the article at me, I'm in no position to dispute any of it (and I haven't as of yet). What I mean that I won't take your word for it is that I find you have a very biased way of explaining things, and I'd rather hear comments on it from a party that isn't directly involved with one side or other of the debate. This isn't intended as an insult, but I really don't find the way you present information to be helpful; if not even for the bias, the constant personal attacks and insinuations really make it really hard to get anything useful out of the things you say to me.

:::Question 3 I thought was mostly rhetorical. My last reply and this one have both addressed what I think is implied by the sentences that speak of four holes, so I think that much has already been answered (twice now). As for the definition of the word hole, the dictionary definition is fine. I've already said it's not the word that I mind, it's the POV.

:::If you think you're wasting your time on this argument, well, you may very well be. I think the direction of your argument about who calls what a hole and when wasn't very useful to anybody. Consider this: even if you were wrong about it (which you aren't, but hypothetically), if the other people really did object to calling those things holes; so what? Is your probability argument suddenly invalid? I don't think this really helps or hinders it at all. The edits I made to this change were extremely minor, addressing clarity. It should be clear what exactly is in dispute about this artifact. It should be explicit what four-holes-in-line is referring to, not implied. This is important to me. Is it more important to you that you be able to claim unqualified that "everyone agrees that there are four holes in line"? - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

== Major cleanup needed ==

This article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia as it presently stands. For starters, the title is '''Divje Babe''' but the article focuses exclusively on one item found there, and does not discuss the site. It's still too long, it's full of conflicts of interest, he-said/she-said back-and-forth which is interesting only to people directly involved in the debate, and collections of barely-formatted data. There needs to be more information about the site in general. Most of the discussion about the flute-like object needs to be on whichever facts are agreed upon by everyone, because [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, a soapbox, or an indiscriminate collection of information]]. Save debate for the journals, please. The discussion of the debate over whether or not Bob Fink's theories are correct should simply acknowledge that the dispute exists, not try to resolve it.

Above all we must remember we are writing an encyclopedia here, and keep the articles suitable for that format. I have no objection to scientific journals, polemics, or blogs -- in fact I like all of them -- but I don't believe those styles of writing are appropriate for Wikipedia. We need to keep our articles accessible and appropriate for the same audience served by paper encyclopedias.

I'm willing to take on some of the effort of revising the article, but given the high number of reverts here I want to make sure that if I do put in that time that I won't be setting off yet another revert war. So if anyone objects to the idea of a significant revision please say so now.

--[[User:Craig Stuntz|Craig Stuntz]] 14:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

=== Reply to Craig ===

I would be interested in seeing a much shorter article and welcome a serious re-write focussing on the betterment of the article and its information. In fact, since this one that was posted (not written by me, as the earlier discussion in this talk page shows), the newer 2006 material (Turk & Morley and possibly Horuistzky) may make many parts of the article obsolete, and they can be cut. (Nowell & Chase may be making a new paper soon.) The debate though, is still not resolved, and the areas of agreement are minimal, since one view holds it to be an artifact, another holds it to be an accident. That's like flat-earth vs spherical earth -- what are the areas of agreement there? :O) Both Nowell and myself agree that the issue of probability is of importance.

Personally, I always wanted the page to be called "Neanderthal Flute," but that title was never accepted at the time, and writers here were told to use Divje Babe which already existed as a stub. As a result, there was a shorter version somewhere on this computer made a while back, which I can post on Talk, and perhaps we can work together on it? Or have I become too demonized to deal with?

I know the literature inside-out, and I own copies of almost all of it. I can supply large amounts of it by e-mail text to you (but not all, unfortunately). You can write the material as POV free as you like (so long as you will not try to remove accurate and relevant statements that can be verified, or cited). Of course, the suppression of the existence of relevant literature and views by any legitimate player in the debate is not wiki-condoned, and I will always draw a line against that whoever is shunned.

Morley, Nowell & Chase have argued against Turk and myself in their published papers. Rainwarrior has tried to make this ''only'' a "Bob Fink" article with his false exaggereated characterizations, even trying to add my name in extra places, as he did also at the [[Trio theory]] page. Like he's ''wanting'' it to look like personality-pushing -- so as to more easily condemn it later? I am also willing to compromise regarding wordings in dispute. But they must be accurate to the literature. Are you interested in seeing the shorter version (which should add the 2006 information from Morley & Turk, and possibly, when later available, Zoltan Horuitsky and Nowell, et al)? -- Bob Fink, [[User:65.255.225.52|65.255.225.52]] 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

: OK, you raise a number of issues. Let's take them one at a time. The guiding principle here will be coming up with an article which has an encyclopedic tone and which will be perceived by the reader as having a neutral point of view

: '''What should this article cover?''' As far as I can see, the choices are the Divje Babe site and the bone fragment or just the bone fragment. I personally favor the former as there's a stronger case for [[WP:N|notability]]. Since Divje Babe exists and since it's not strictly a [[Wikipedia:Places of local interest|place of local interest]], I think it's notable enough for the article. In considering the notability of the bone fragment we could look at [[Wikipedia:Notability (science)]], but keep in mind that this is currently a ''proposed'' guideline, and thus is a work in progress. Nevertheless, I think it the bone fragment is notable under they "hypothesis" section but not the "scientific theories" section, mostly because the citations given are almost exclusively journals and the popular media coverage is fairly minimal. It's not really worthwhile to debate which section of the proposed guideline that theories about the bone fragment fall under, however; it's sufficient to say that it's probably notable enough for inclusion here.

: I think that neither the site nor the bone fragment require such lengthy encyclopedic discussion that separate articles are justified, and I think that having a discussion of both together benefits the reader by providing context.

: '''What should the title of the article be?''' If we decide that the article should cover both the site and the bone fragment, then I think the existing title is fine. If we decide that the article should be about the bone fragment only (and, again, I don't think that's a good idea) then I have to strongly object to your proposal of "Neanderthal Flute," because that is [[WP:POV|POV]], in ways you probably do not intend. It implies that there is one, single Neanderthal flute. I'm not sure you actually believe that, but this is what the proposed title implies. As you correctly note, however, "The debate though, is still not resolved, and the areas of agreement are minimal, since one view holds it to be an artifact, another holds it to be an accident." I've been using the term "bone fragment" as a NPOV alternative, but should we decide to make the article about the bone fragment only we can consider other proposals which do not give undue weight to one "side" of the debate or the other.

: '''Editor motivations and the ongoing edit war.''' It is in my opinion a waste of time to discuss what your motivations or Rainwarrior's are. The only thing which matters is the quality of the article, and right now, it is quite frankly a poor read for a non-specialist.

: As the lead author of several of the references used in this article, you, Bob, indisputably have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. ''This implies nothing about your motivations, it's just a fact.'' Because this article includes your theories it is by extension to some degree about you or at least your work. That doesn't make what you write automatically prejudiced, but the fact is that people are going to read what you write as prejudiced whether it is in fact prejudiced or not. The fact that you have been involved in an [[WP:EW|edit war]] with Rainwarrior only reinforces this. ''It is in everyone's interest, including yours and Rainwarrior's,'' that the article we create is perceived as honest and [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]''; indeed, Wikipedia official policy requires this. ''Please note here that I am not saying that you write out of personal self-interest or that you have done anything dishonest.'' I am strictly mentioning the fact that you, as a published author of some of the references here, have a conflict of interest that "Rainwarrior" does not appear to have.

: The [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|Wikipedia guideline on autobiography]] notes, "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]." Whether or not Rainwarrior "wants" the article to "look like personality-pushing" is, in other words, a relatively small issue in comparison with the reality that people are going to read anything you write about yourself (or anything I write about myself, etc.) as inherently conflicted.

: I would like to strongly suggest that you'' '''do''' continue to participate in the discussion here on the talk page'' but ''do not edit the article.'' You need to trust other Wikipedia editors to follow the NPOV policy and you can use a number of means of [[Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes|dispute resolution]] should we let you down on that. We '''do''' need your expertise on the subject matter and we need to make sure that your contributions to the scientific literature are accurately described.

: '''How should the debate be covered?''' Since, as you state, the question of who or what made the holes and what the purpose, if any, of the bone fragment is, is not settled science, it's important that we do not try to settle it here since Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. We should, in my opinion, note that the debate exists, give concise descriptions of what the various participants have published, and give references for readers who want more information. This should be a matter of a few paragraphs, not the entirety of the article.

: '''Proposed article structure'''

:* Divje Babe

:** History of place

:** Archaeological explorations

:*** Archaeologists who worked at site

:*** Bone fragment

:**** Case for flute /scale theory

:**** Case against flute/scale theory

:*** Other archaeological findings

: --[[User:Craig Stuntz|Craig Stuntz]] 15:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

.

::I very much like this proposed structure. It will make it much easier to read and understand, and clearly delineate where the opinions from one side or other of the argument begin and end (which will be of great help in solving POV problems). - 09:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rainwarrior|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

'''To Jerome Kohl:'''

Just to clear up a detail causing confusion in the history: In the book of papers from the 2000 archaeology conference in Berlin, Nowell and Chase did take up Fink's case about the diatonic scale in the paper she presented there. However, their paper was also earlier published on the Internet in 1998, two years prior to the conference. ''Because of the date it was pre-published'', 1998, that is probably why you mistakenly looked to find mention of me in her ''Current Anthropolgy'' article ''of the same date.'' Of course, her critique of my views was elsewhere. Her Internet publication was not listed in the reading references or notes. But rest assured, she took up my views in her paper and they appear in the '''Studies in Music Archaeology III,'' pp. 73 thru 81. I would make all this literature accessible on my webpages, but I don't have the copyright to do so.

:Thanks for clearing this up on this talk page. I'm surprised that a person with a degree in musicology needs to be told how to clear it up in the article itself, but since you seem to: add this second 1998 publication to the reference list, and differentiate it from the other one by adding letters to the years (Chase and Nowell 1998a, Chase and Nowell 1998b). If the second 1998 article is no longer accessible on the web, then cite the later, 2000 publication and mention in the text its earlier appearance, if relevant.--[[User:Jerome Kohl|Jerome Kohl]] 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So that Craig, who is doing rewrite & cleanup can immediatly see and know what's proposed, I'll reply regarding citations at the bottom of this Talk page. New reply is there. Bob, [[User:65.255.225.33|65.255.225.33]] 01:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

=== Reply to Craig 2 ===

'''To Craig:''' The outline you have proposed sounds good to me.

There are some points and some corrections I would like to mention here that differ from your view (but they should not be a deal-breaker here).

First the "object" is commonly known throughout the world, including by huge numbers of the lay public, as the the "Neanderthal Flute." Whether it should be known as such or not, we are stuck with that fact -- and the student will search for it under that name, made famous by the media which blitzed the discovery 'round the world. On the other hand, by comparison, virtually no one knows the name "Divje Babe," or even "femur." I would hope that if the name Divje Babe is kept that we also keep the redirect from the "Neanderthal flute."

Also, when writing for the layperson, as a journalist, I learned that one should not change the common usage and language to the degree that while changes make it become scientifically or technically accurate, it may sound awkward and be further removed from the common reading and comprehension level when we start using phrases like "the bone object" or "purported flute" or "so-called" flute -- which has a POV tinge of its own.

It's a "New Jersey" thing: The name "New" is in New Jersey, but there is no longer anything "new" about New Jersey. This happens in the language many times, but we cause chaos if we keep renaming things and shift the ground out from under readers' feet. I would prefer we keep using "Neanderthal flute" -- but early on, when that name is first used, it could be done that we'd add the modifier "reputed" or a phrase like "the object, commonly known as the Neanderthal flute." Once the dispute (about whether it's a flute or not) is clear to readers, the common name will lose its POV problem. That's my opinion on that.

Second, I didn't write the article that exists now. When I started to write one over a year ago, and started putting it into the wikipedia, I was jumped on, and withdrew my initial text and asked that it be rewritten by people here who knew the subject and the literature. And I advised them of the Wiki rules about POV and giving equal space to the points of view. (If you get time, you'll see all that in the bulk of the "Talk" which here was initially from Terry, Ms. Norton, my publisher, and a few others who followed the subject), and they agreed to make the article conform to wiki POV rules. There are very very ''few'' people anywhere who follow the details of the subject of ancient and prehistoric music, and so I had to rely on people I knew and who knew me.

Actually it was their idea that the body of work I had done "should get into wikipedia," just because it seemed to them to belong. I hadn't even been much aware of the phenomenon of wikipedia until they approached me. I was busy trying to get into more and more journals (and still am), and would rather do that anyway, except for the relentless efforts since made by some editors to push that published work back out of wikipedia. I'd had enough of that with the "town vs gown" barrior that I have finally broken through a bit in the past decade. It has made me somewhat suspicious or sensitive at times that merit was not the operative factor in the advancement of knowledge. I had hoped Wikipedia would be less of a barrior. But there was no one we could find who would be independent of some relationship to me.

But now -- there's you. So maybe it can finally be done accurately and free of the appearance of conflict of interest, even unintentionally.

I have remained an editor since then only regarding grammar, factual things like dates, citations, updates, and about new literature, and I note in COI guidelines, that some editing along those lines is clearly permissable, and I would like to maintain that right for convenience -- but always providing justifications and comment in Talk, and aware that even those kinds of edits may be reverted if I have failed to see a POV here or there (and all of us here have agreed to several edits on that score). But not all claims of POV are POV, in the recent past, in my opinion. I do agree there is an ''innate COI,'' but I'm glad you wrote it doesn't automatically mean a person's integrity has collapsed.

Regarding literature, let me know what you may want to read, and I'll try to find way to send relevant pages if not whole 700 page books to you. -- Bob Fink [[User:65.255.225.42|65.255.225.42]] 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

=== Article citation notes ===

:I don't recall anything ''definite'' about a name except the title of Turk's monograph (''Mousterian flute'') -- Turk and others seemed, to my recall, to always carefully say "presumed," "suspected," or "putative" flute, or a word to that effect (even before anyone challenged that it was a flute). Also his terminology was consistently to use the word "mousterian" instead of Neanderthal (not that it matters to me). But technically, though, the paper by Nowell & Chase (placed 1998 on the Internet) titled: "Is a cave bear bone...a Neanderthal flute?" and later presented at the 2000 Archaeology conference in Germany, is the first actual use of those exact words that I've seen -- again not that it matters to me who termed it so.

:Turk in his current papers (2005-6) takes pride that he always examined the facts as being supportive of possibly human-made and possibly carnivore-made whenever there was any doubt at all. Indeed, his recent papers severely criticize d'Errico for not pursuing any experimenmts or examinations that could lead to (or rule out) anthropic conclusions, claiming that d'Errico assumed the carnivore conclusion (in ''Antiquity'' journal March 1998) from the start, which BTW, was published before d'Errico ever examined the bone first-hand. Turk praised Chase & Nowell for at least openly recognizing that both possibilities were indeed possibilities. Just info -- I can probably copy the Antiquity article and the Nowell archaeology conference article and mail it to you (snail mail) -- I'll need an address, though. -- Best, Bob Fink, [e-mail], [[User:65.255.225.51|65.255.225.51]] 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Turk calls it a "Neanderthal flute" (with scare quotes) in [http://www.uvi.si/eng/slovenia/background-information/neanderthal-flute/ this article]. I've added the scare quotes in my last update in order to more closely match his phrasing. That said, it's not uncommon to be more precise in wording for journal articles than for "popular" media.

:: I don't think Nowell and Chase can be credited with the term, especially since they phrase it as a question and answer "no."

:: That said, I don't want to credit Turk with something which is anomalous in his work, especially since others could have edited the cited article. If nobody's willing to take credit for the phrase we should probably say something along the lines of "sometimes referred to in the popular media as..."

:::--[[User:Craig Stuntz|Craig Stuntz]] 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me, about the name. BTW, I would and could have put the d'Errico ''Antiquity '98'' article info & pictures into this article, except for the restrictions of copyright which probably Antiquity/d'Errico would not relax for me. But judicious quoting from it and permissions ''sought by others'' (not me) might get some permissions (Or not?). But d'Errico's ''Antiquity'' article has been ''described'' in this wiki article. We earlier got as much into the article by d'Errico as possible. The two journal items represent the entirety of d'Errico's Divje Babe writings on that bone. What was quoted from d'Errico was a small part of his Journal of World Prehistory article, and probably "fair-use" applies without permsission req'd. --Bob [[User:65.255.225.51|65.255.225.51]] 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

''To Jerome Kohl:'' (updated) I don't know why the confusion arose about the Nowell paper, or who originally wrote any mistaken reference in this wiki article about Nowell's challenge of my view about the diatonic nature of the bone (other than in the '''1998''' Blake Edgar item -- the date of which must have been somehow confused with Nowell's paper?). Her & Chase's paper, was actually "officially" published in 2003, after the conference heard it in 2000 in Berlin. That 2003 citation is already in the list of readings ''(Studies...III)''.

Adding that her paper appeared on the Internet is up to you and Craig. I see no point in it now, as nothing in the article now refers to that Internet version or that strange 1998 date you saw somewhere in the article. I searched the Internet archives and found her paper was pre-published (prior to 2003) on the internet in July 2001 (see: http://web.archive.org/web/20010723082322/http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~pchase/). It could have been published even earlier and seen earlier by me under a different URL which I don't now have to search with. The proceedings hadn't been published yet, and that Internet version was the first I saw of her paper by an accidental search result (as I didn't attend the conference). --Bob Fink [[User:65.255.225.33|65.255.225.33]] 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

P.s. To Craig, and anyone: Now that I found the archival copy, the URL for archival info just above provides the full text (but images were not archived) of the Nowell paper later published in the 2003 ''Studies...III''.

:I notice you have now added a citation to something called "Nowell et al., 2003", but there is nothing in the reference list under that name. Did you mean to cite "d'Errico et al. 2003", the "et al." of which includes Nowell, or is this a completely different item?--[[User:Jerome Kohl|Jerome Kohl]] 05:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to this one under "Further Reading" -- (Both Nowell citations should now be moved to references): Chase, Philip G., and April Nowell. 2002-2003. "Is a cave bear bone from Divje Babe, Slovenia, a Neanderthal flute? The Divje Babe specimen and the diatonic scale" in ''Studies in Music Archaeology III.'' [Place]: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. ISBN 3-89646-640-2

== Not disputed by others ==

I changed "four holes" to "at least two holes" in the "not disputed by others" section since d'Errico is explicitly cited and d'Errico, ''et. al.'' say this on p. 37 of the 2003 paper:

: "The presence of two or possibly three perforations on the suggested flute..."

--[[User:Craig Stuntz|Craig Stuntz]] 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also on p. 37 of the above, d'Errico ''et. al.'' write:

"Moreover, the correlation between the maximum and minimum diameter in this sample indicates a clear tendency towards slightly elongated holes, the same pattern that we observe when measuring the two complete holes of the suggested flute."

So I've removed "Are nearly all circular (unlike bites which are ''usually'' oval);" from the list of points "agreed by all." d'Errico and his coauthors are clearly stating that their observation is that the Divje Babe bone and their "comparative faunal sample" have the same shape holes, whereas the section I removed asserted that everyone, including d'Errico in particular, agreed that the Divje Babe bone's holes were differently shaped than a typical bite.

I don't have a problem with attributing this similitude to people who support it, but it seems pretty clear to me that d'Errico does not.

--[[User:Craig Stuntz|Craig Stuntz]] 17:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)