Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(107,044 posts)

6. I can see the problem with Wikipedia - they cited the German publication article when adding the "bipedal" claim

Mon Jun 29, 2026, 03:30 PM

Jun 29

And that article is still being cited, in a Wikipedia article and elsewhere:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Biomechanical+investigation+on+the+postcranial+skeleton+of+the+Palaeogene+crocodile%22+%22bipedal%22

though I notice its abstract said "möglicherweise fakultative Bipedie" - "possibly facultative bipedal locomotion" - and the "possibly" didn't ever make it into Wikipedia.

It's very hard for Wikipedia editors to decide that a paper in what seems to be a respectable, long-standing (since 1807!) journal is not good enough to use information from.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

That's more than a few thoughts Fiendish Thingy Jun 29 #1

Not sure I agree. cab67 Jun 29 #3

It's the enthusiasts I mentioned. cab67 Jun 29 #5

Neues Jahrbuch has a checkered history. cab67 Jun 29 #7

also - cab67 Jun 29 #8

thanks for your thoughts mike_c Jun 29 #2