Talk:Mary Leakey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture

Just a note is passing. The picture of her is quite unflattering and I would expect better of Wikipedia's scientific community. I feel that such an important women should at least have the honor to be captured in the right glory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.149.239 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Jaywick Sands

"In 1934 she excavated on her own at Jaywick Sands. She also published her first scientific paper."

I temporarily removed this as there seems to be a little hole here in the record. Jaywick Sands was first excavated 1934, no doubt. In 1937 Mary Leakey and Kenneth P. Oakley published a paper on Jaywick Sands, no doubt. There the certainty seems to end. Mary Leakey as Mary Leakey could not have been at Jaywick, as she did not become Mrs. Leakey until 1936. Let us say that Mary Nicol was there (which is by no means assured). She couldn't have been there alone. What about Oakley? She also couldn't have published her first scientific paper, as she was an archaeological non-entity, a student of Liddell. But, we hear from Morell that in 1934 she was still at Hembury, in her last year, and was also doing some drawings for Liddell! Louis used to pick her up at the excavation on weekends and the two would run around on poor Frida. Just when was she at Jaywick and when with Oakley? Oakley was a bigger fish than she was then and a senior associate of young Louis. Most likely Louis put her onto Oakley as an illustrator, but I do not know and no one else seems to know either, as they all want to refer to the scientific article of 1937 as an early work of the great Mary Leakey. I presume that is the scientific paper referenced by the removed statement. She and Louis were in total disgrace. I think she was 21 or 22. Oakley had some pity on them. Anyway, if anyone has ascertained the truth of this matter, please do restore the statement or clean it up or even expand on it!Dave 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.167 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Louis, Jane and Mary

It really is true, there is no privacy for known or unknown, rich or poor. The fight for privacy becomes all the more intense for the known. I suppose all people are basically alike and the ordinary people never tire of hearing that, like them, the rich and famous - or just famous - are NOT gods after all. So, these biographical details always have an interest. Nothing titillates us more than the fall of a supposed saint. The characters on the Leakey stage are certainly no different from all the rest of us. But, when dealing with facts, it is necessary to keep things straight. This isn't or should not be a gossip column. Like a large part of the rest of us men Louis eventually tried all the women in his vicinity and like all the other wives Mary was no longer willing to be intimate. If you really want a famous example, read the lives of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. Since we are mentioning the topic on WP in the interest of historical truth - we don't want any Gods in our history, at least not any longer - I must alter this statement:

"After Jane Goodall and Louis formed a romantic attachment in 1962, the intimate side of the marriage was effectively over."

Please, get it right. From what I read Louis tried Jane, just as he did most of the other women, and she said NO. NO is NO. Dian said yes, but it didn't work out. Neither yes nor no seemed to affect anyone's relationships much, except Louis lost his wife, and that after she had taken him away from his first wife. It is not up to us to judge anyone, especially as such judgement would be most hypocritical. We all get here somehow and such arrival is more attributable to deity than to the rational order of humans. Leave it up to the English clergy to drive Louis out of his career for his pecadillos. They drove him into his destiny. Our destiny is to create an accurate encyclopedia if we are allowed. So, I must insist on a reference for this statement about Jane. She was happy to say no and Louis was happy to have her happy and she did not seem to mind, as far as we know, that he took up with her mother. She went on working and he went on working without the animosity as far as we know (except for Mary).Dave (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources? 204.65.34.167 (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Excavations info is shallow

It's unfortunate that Google decided to feature Mary Leakey's 100th birthday today, because the Wiki article has 3 large sections about her childhood, education and her marriage, but very little about her excavations, and next to nothing about her theories etc. The significance of her discovering the first fossilized Proconsul skull is unexplained, and there's just a single scant reference to her having developed a system for classifying the stone tools found at Olduvai. I'd have expected a section on that. There is however a section on her "Floruit" - consisting of just two lines! What's a Floruit, anyway? Some Latin flower or vegetable, or what? If (as I suspect) it means the flourishing of her career, the two lines suggest it was a dull period! Oh, the more I study the article, the worse it gets! Note how the article says "She also discovered the Laetoli footprints." with no further explanation or reason for the info's inclusion. Compare the Louis Leakey article (a much larger, much better, and far more balanced article) for the relevance of Mary's discovery. In Louis's article it says Mary "made the noteworthy discovery of fossil footprints at Laetoli. Found preserved in volcanic ash in Tanzania, they are the earliest record of bipedal gait." You'd never know it from Mary's article. What a tragedy that the article on Mary is SO POOR by comparison to Louis, on the very day of her Google-featured 100TH BIRTHDAY. Other peculiarities: the article says she "discovered the first fossilized Proconsul skull". Sounds impressive, until one reads in the Excavations section that "The Leakeys unearthed a Proconsul africanus skull on Rusinga Island, in October 1948" - oh, hubby too? So the "she discovered" (ie. she alone) in the Intro now appears misleading. Cross-reference the Proconsul (primate) article and you'll find she (they?) wasn't the first at all (unless she/they found the first COMPLETE skull - is that what's meant?) Also there's no reference in Mary's article to the confusion over her Proconsul africanus becoming Proconsul heseloni (you have to read the Proconsul (primate) article to find that). Another glaring omission, it seems. It's such a pity Wikipedia wasn't forewarned of the 100th anniversary Google-feature, so that someone could have DUG DEEPER beforehand to do proper justice to her archaeological career. The bare bones of her excavations won't do! Poor Mary - in her article, even her HUSBAND's picture is bigger and better than MARY's picture. If I were a woman (which I'm not!) I'd almost suspect masculine bias. Can someone please do better justice to Mary asap.? Pete Hobbs (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You have to much time on your hands Pete Hobbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What matters time, in the great scheme of history... No, it's often worth recording what one finds (also rather similar to what archaeologists do, too). Interesting that the page has immediately improved slightly, within hours - the "floruit" section is gone (info merged upwards), the Louis picture has been resized smaller (suits the page far better now), and the skull image has been moved down slightly, and resized smaller, giving a far better appearance to the article start - thanks to Safiel for actioning. Doubtless other points mentioned will be taken into account by some future further improver. It's nice to know one's time isn't wasted. Pete Hobbs (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is she dead or what?

I came here from the google homepage which states today is her 100th birthday. However, this article states she is already dead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.112.2 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes just like Google did for Bram Stoker when they celebrated his 165th birthday. Just because a person has died doesn't make their contribution to humanity any less. 10/10 for tact by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.196.33 (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

She died and everything she known or loved died with her. Google is just drawing pictures to make people know who she is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.181.224 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship?

AIUI being a British citizen is a sort of congenital disease, you definitely catch it if you're born there, and until recently you literally couldn't give it up. Is there some actual reason for the "unknown"? - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request- field of study

If Mary Leakey excavated and studied fossils to determine organisms' evolution and interactions with each other and their environments she would be in the field of paleoecology not Archeologist. Archeologist is the study of human activity in the past, which includes artifacts. KK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:8:3400:1:9027:C0F6:513D:CD96 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually more like paleoanthropology. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Last Name in Family Tree

On a family tree, a women is normally represented with her maiden name, not her married name. The rest of the married women in the tree are, but Mary still has her married name for some reason. Should we fix this? 68.62.82.184 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I've therefore added her maiden name. She was however only "known" (ie. famed) under her married name, so I've adopted to put "Mary Leakey nee Nichol" rather than just "Mary Nichol". Pete Hobbs (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Birth year

Mary's birth year is listed as both 1903 and 1913 in various places throughout the article. Katiekatenyc (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)katiekatenyc

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brett.hamilton1, Brenda.truong, Tia 0330.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)