Talk:La Brea Tar Pits

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Palaeontology High‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Park Layout

This web page continues to state that pit 91 is located inside the Museum. This is NOT TRUE. This confusion may result from some earlier maps having been made with a black square in the center of the museum. Inside the tar pits is an atrium, with a little lake, and some gardens. If you climb the top of the hill the museum is built around, you can look down into this atrium to see for yourself that it is not a tar pit of any kind. If you take the path near the LACMA Museum, you can find the Pit 91 viewing station. Pit 91 is outside of the museum. It also has separate hours from the museum, and is free. A third structure, the Observation Pit is older than the museum, and is rarely open to the public.

a fish?!

The list of specimaes from the pits includes a stickleback. Has anyone suggested a mechanism by which a freshwater fish could get stuck in a tar pit? (I can think of a few but has any scientist addressed the issue?) 165.91.64.114 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)RKH[reply]

Quite simple: water from stream runoff covers tarpit; sticklebacks and other freshwater animals swim in from the stream; water dries up, and sticklebacks get stuck in tar.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, as in the present, tar will tend to accumulate in the lowest parts of the land, as will water. Streams were known to have passed through the area. Stickelback fish, Green Turtles, wheel snails, and freshwater oysters are all known to have been trapped in tar. The lake pit at the tar pits today shows that tar will coat the bottom of bodies of water, and can form a skin at the top, where dust will accumulate until it is heavier than water. Tar can also get stuck to the stalks of aquatic plants, and will coat sections of the stalk as the water level rises and falls. A living fish might swim into any or all of these accumulations, and I am sure a dead fish could drift into them as well. Also, as fish are eaten by birds, and birds often dive onto the tar floating at the surface of the lake pit, this is another means whereby fish could get trapped in the tar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.49.215 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human remains asserted

"One human has been found in the La Brea Tar Pits, a woman." Is there any support for this statement, which is closely paralleled by the opening of Howard V. Hendrix' Better Angels 1999 [1]. The anon. editor User:68.6.58.171 has not previously contributed to Wikipedia. I am moving the statement here for vetting, for the time being. Can we get some details?--Wetman 05:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know for sure there's one on display in the Page Museum; I recall there was some sort of controversy about her origins (exact dates, etc) but she is there. -- justfred 08:56, 7 Sep 2005

Good enough. Work that into the reference when you return it to the article then. --Wetman

I added: "... who was apparently a victim of a homicide based on skull crush evidence with ref: http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news108.htm Tar pits still slowly releasing victims and ref: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-04-04/news/vw-1098_1_la-brea La Brea Tar Pits Facility Will Celebrate 10th Anniversary - Los Angeles Times " rkmlai (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the La Brea Woman, as she is known, is no longer on display at the Page Museum as the Natural History Museum of LA County currently prohibits the display of human remains. The story that she was murdered is now widely rejected by paleontologists including the head curator of the Page Museum Dr. John Harris and collections manager Christopher Shaw. Most believe that the crushing of the skull was created by "pit wear" long after death. I worked at the Page Museum for a year and would very much like to clean up this article.207.215.252.240 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ya, Do you have access to a citation to this assertion ? rkmlai (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section relating to "La Brea Woman" has been updated to remove references to her having been a homicide victim; the references cited for this are newspapers and other popular writing venues making claims that are not currently supported by the physical evidence. In place of this information is updated data on La Brea Woman herself, with appropriate citations of actual scientific literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.164.50.215 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's the la brea in fiction section, why is this named thusly? and would it be appropriate to reference the scene in 'my girl 2' where Nick taunts Vada -- saying that hes dropped her mood ring into the pits. As she attempts to sale a fence to get into the pits, he admits he still has it.

Feel free to mention it. Fewer details are probably necessary.

Every Trinidadian Knows and Tobagonian Knows that the La Brea is the Home of the La Brea Pitch Lake. Not the tar pits

I'm sure you must have noticed the first line of the article, "The La Brea Tar Pits (or Rancho La Brea Tar Pits) are a famous cluster of tar pits located in the Miracle Mile district of Los Angeles, California;" There appears to be a "La Brea Pitch Lake" in Trinidad, and you're welcome to write an article about that if you'd like, but this article is about the one in Los Angeles. Considering that "La Brea" is Spanish for "the tar", it's possible there are other "la brea" sites around the world. justfred 09:54, 8 Feb 2006

Sorry, I know this isn't the correct place but not sure on this page how to start a new topic. The reference to Chumash must be incorrect, as the Tongva (Gabrielino) lived in the Los Angeles area. Different language, different culture, and from some accounts, different color skin. Chumash were farther north, above Dos Pueblos in Ventura, I believe. I have heard a docent at the museum refer to the Chumash, but it doesn't seem likely. Both the Chumash and Tongva were excellent boat builders and had settlements in the Channel Islands, so that is hardly relevant in this article. I would like someone with more expertise than I to correct this mistake. Lmonteros (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Problem

Is it the Columbian Mammoth, or the Imperial Mammoth that's found in La Brea? My sources say that it's the Imperial Mammoth.--Mr Fink 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tarpits.org/research/mamtooth.html says its a Columbian mammoth. Coradon 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact that Columbian Mammoths have been recovered from the tar pits. As have some Mastodon specimens. It is entirely possible that more than one species of Mammoth has been recovered, but I only know for certain about the Columbian Mammoths being recovered from the tar pits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.49.215 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Workers at the La Brea Tar pits report that there is some debate in the scientific community over whether or not the Columbian and Imperial Mammoths were actually different species or not. Excavators assert that the vast majority of their specimens most closely resemble the Columbian variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.49.215 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something Useful

Someone who's good at this should add this link: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070510_tar_bacteria.html --Crid 21:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fiction" vs "Culture"

There's this section "La Brea in fiction"; because it is worded that way, it's inappropriate for a mention of the La Brea Tar Pits as the cover illustration for the seminal book on software engineering "The Mythical Man-Month". If no one objects, I'll change the name to "La Brea in literature" or "La Brea in culture" or some such, and add the reference to TMM-M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.95.226.224 (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On predator/prey ratio

"La Brea may be the only excavation site in the world where the predators found outnumber prey." It this in number of individuals or number of specimens? In either case, the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry probably also fits; I don't know about non-dinosaurs, but there are at least 46 Allosaurus individuals and another 7 individuals of other carnivorous genera there, out of at least 73 total dinosaurs (so 53 of 73 are carnivores). J. Spencer (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio of predators to prey at the La Brea tar pits is greater when measured by minimum number of individuals, number of identified specimens, and mass of identifiable bones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.49.215 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

†?

Multiple species of animal are listed with a "†" symbol, but there is no disclaimer stating what the "†" refers to. This really needs to be repaired. --Schmendrick (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was posted by an IP address on March 14. My guess is that it means "extinct", except the user forgot to indicate that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the same thing, except the llama is linked with a †, as well as a couple of other living species. So either this user made a whoopsie with those particular links, or the crosses mean something else. I'm willing to check all the links and make the † into extinct animals, if nobody objects. I'll be sure to place a legend should I edit. Besseme (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it refers to animals/plants/etc that are no longer native to the area (via extinction, or migration)? But I am also a bit puzzled over this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.185.110 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol always means extinct except in genealogies, where it means "died". The llama species represented at La Brea is extinct.--Wetman (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder it went extinct, if it was too dumb to stay away from tar pits. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In taxonomic lists, it's considered to be a dagger, not a cross. (I don't know about genealogies.) The species of llama from the pits could be extinct although other species of llama have carried on. I believe that it means "extinct" not "extirpated" so if the beastie were only found on a remote island elsewhere it wouldn't be entitled to a dagger. —Monado (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cruft list

This article still has a trivial cruft list of evewy passing mention of La Brea. This needs to be whittled down and turned into prose text.--Wetman (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus rendering it unreadable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer bulleted lists, which are easier to read and take fewer "filler" words.--Monado (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Brea was an inefficient trap

According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, a tar pit would trap a sizable animal only about once per 100 years, or perhaps every 1000 years if a trapped victim attracted several predators or scavengers that also became trapped. However, I don't have a reference to any estimates. Anyone else? —Monado (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estimations by museum personnel also indicate that the rate of entrapment did not need to be particularly high to account for the number of bones that have been recovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.49.215 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional "forensic art"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor indefblocked for sockpuppetry

Resolved

– Editor blocked indef for sockpuppetry.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 01:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been removed a number of times:

===La Brea Woman Unveiled===

In the summer of 2009, the only human ever found at the Tar Pits was finally given a face. She is know as the "La Brea Woman" and has been aged at about 9,000 years. Forensic Artist, Melissa Cooper, created the first 2-Dimensional facial reconstrucion based on her skull. The museum has yet to exhibit it for unknown reasons. <ref name="Link to images of La Brea woman">{{cite web |url=http://www.mcforensicart.com/2d-reconstructions.html |title=La Brea Woman Skull Reconstruction</ref>

The material is lacking a reliable source and is promoting the work of a forensic artist. Without a WP:RS this promo bit does not belong in the article. Vsmith (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Promotional "forensic art"

The link displays the primary source: skull, image and all to provide the readers with an image for educational purposes. This is not promotional. Links to the LA Times article regarding the story are provided as well to provide more background and additional sources. User:Playdoh1845 —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC). This editor has been blocked indefinitely for obvious sockpuppeting. Please see here, thank you.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dead giveaway that it's promotional is the embedded editorial comment about the museum not displaying it. Maybe you should focus on persuading them to display it, and then it might be notable enough to post here. Posting here to try to persuade someone it's notable, is not proper use of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the museum displaying it. This article is about the La Brea Tar Pits and what has been found there, not the Page Museum. If it was about the Page museum, I would agree. This is a view of a facial rendering of a specimen found at the pits, therefore its not promoting anything besides giving the La Brea Woman a face and giving the public a way of seeing it. deredkdm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playdoh1845 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC) This editor has been blocked indefinitely for obvious sockpuppeting. Please see here, thank you.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it has nothing to do with the museum displaying it, then you need to lose the editorial comment about "the museum does not display it for some reason". That's for starters. Also, you need to find some authoritative source that gives some notability to that particular reconstruction. Simply posting its website is insufficient. Finally, you need to stop trying to add it back to the article, or you're liable to be blocked for edit warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the "authoritative source" would be the LA Times article that was posted and taken down by someone on here, probably for the sake of the museums reputation and them trying to hide facts. The website provides proof of the entire project. Factual information is being provided, not just opinion so this shouldn't even be negotiated. If it didn't keep getting deleted under false accusations, it wouldn't get reposted. I don't understand the argument. Playdoh1845 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC) playdoh1845This editor has been blocked indefinitely for obvious sockpuppeting. Please see here, thank you.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's trying to hide what facts, and what evidence do you have in support of that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the L.A. Times piece. It's a blog, so it's not a usable source. Beyond that, the only "controversy" about it is the one being stirred up by the owner of that website. And the last line of the blog makes it clear that they want to sell books. It is not appropriate to use wikipedia to try to sell books. Consensus is that it doesn't belong. Don't add it again, or you may be blocked for edit warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What book are you even talking about? Try doing some research. On the website there is an actual printed article from the Times, which is why the website was provided in the first place. If you actually took the time to look at the details, you would have seen the actual facts. Far from promo. Wiki is to provide the public with facts. For some unknown reason, you guys are blocking them. Edit warring?!: look at your actions. I'm just providing the facts I've found just like any other user on here. playdoh1845 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playdoh1845 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC) This editor has been blocked indefinitely for obvious sockpuppeting. Please see here, thank you.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no link to any news article, only the blog post, so maybe you could provide it for us. Also, maybe she's not trying to sell a book, but the blog post does say, "[Cooper] said she plans on selling limited editions of her work on La Brea Woman," so clearly something will be for sale. —DoRD (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was getting at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your guys' ignorance is ridiculous, if you look up this artist's website at www.mcforensicart.com it provides a link that has the scanned article from the LA Times. You guys are complaining that there is only an online blog provided and no article. The article WAS actually provided however you apparently deleted her website which showed that very article which shows as scanned straight from the paper. The whole point of this site is to provide information. Why are you people so adament on hiding this? You must be museum workers or something. layfor197— Layfor197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This editor has been blocked indefinitely for obvious being an obvious sockpuppet of Playdoh1845. Please see here, thank you.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the second user ID? Did you forget the password to your "Playdoh" account? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playdoh1845/layfor197: As you are the one trying to add something to the article, the burden is upon you to provide sources. Not, "on the wbsite," or "look at the artist's website," but actual sources. If you can't or won't provide a link, it is not the responsibility of other editors to do it for you. Furthermore, please stop making accusations. I'm fairly certain that Bugs doesn't work for that museum and I had never even heard of it until I got involved with this dispute.

Lastly, please refrain from using multiple accounts as they are forbidden except in rare circumstances. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even more lastly, Playdoh1845/layfor197 is now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

Socks blocked, socks were only ones in support of material, consensus is obviously against them. Time to archive this? If you agree, please let me do the archiving, I have a specific resolved label in mind.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, just reverted anon sock attacks. Vsmith (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

La Brea Woman

The May 28 issue of the LA Weekly has an article about the only human remains recovered out of the tarpits -- a 9000 year old specimin. This probably has enough information to spin off a separate article riffic (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

online version here - http://www.laweekly.com/2010-05-27/news/sticky-situation-at-the-tar-pits appears to be identical to the printed version I read earlier today. riffic (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jurupa Mountain Cultural center claims to have a cast of the La Brea Woman's Skull on display. Photographs of this occasionally appear, despite the facts that 1: The cast is at a different museum. 2: Museums belonging to Los Angeles do not show human remains, or casts of human remains out of respect for the dead. 3: The cast has an intact face, and perfect teeth, whereas the real La Brea Woman is known to have a chip out of the face, and canines which point almost straight out. Due to the inaccuracy of the cast, and the wishes of the museum, it would be best to not place such images on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.49.215 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some citation urls need updating

Hello. I have formatted a couple of citations, and updated the url for one from 2009, when it was a headline url, to what it is now, an archive url. A quick look at another url said page not found. It's also from 2009, so likely exists but with a changed url. I may or may not have time to update the url, but it's usually easy enough to do.

I found this article by the way, courtesy of a Gary Larson Far Side cartoon. It shows a couple of people sinking into a carpet in a lounge room, with the caption: "And down they went: Bob and Francine - two more victims of the La Brea Carpets". I'd never heard of La Brea anything before, but I realised Larson must be alluding to something. I assumed perhaps some famous or infamous deep pile carpet. A quick Google search led me to this article, which was not only enlightening, but of course immediately added to my enjoyment of Larson's cartoon and word-play. While I was here, I thought I'd format a couple of citations. There's more to do. Don't tag them. Just amend them. And thanks to those who created the article. See if you can find Larson's cartoon for yourselves. You'll love it. Wotnow (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fossils

The remains found at La Brea are considered fossils. Fossils are not simply bones that are mineralized... they are evidence of ancient life. Ref: Fossil:

"Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. The totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago."

Thus, I have removed the "La Brea remains are not considered "true fossils" statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.198.242 (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horses

The large horse from Rancho La Brea, Equus "occidentalis", has occasionally been listed here with the common name "Hagerman Horse". This is incorrect. The scientific name for the Hagerman horse is Equus simplicidens (see Hagerman Horse). The correct common name for the large Rancho La Brea horse is "Western horse", a literal translation of the species nomen.

Entrapment method

This page occasionally is edited to say that the tar formed pits, with water accumulating over it, and that animals "fell in," became trapped, and "sunk" into the tar. This picture is not particularly accurate, or complete. The ancient tar pits were on fairly level ground, and were probably only a few inches deep. They could be covered by water, or by leaves and dust, as they often are today. Entrapment would occur when an animal stood still on them long enough for their feet to become stuck. There would rarely, if ever be an animal that fell into tar. "sinking in" to the tar pits would usually occur only to very small animals, or only after the animal had died, and was separated into pieces of bone small enough to sink into a thin layer of tar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.49.215 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"George C. Page Museum" or just "Page Museum"

The museum web sites seem to consistently use the name "Page Museum" rather than "George C. Page Museum". I assume that "George C." was dropped from the name at some point. I haven't found a reference for this though. Nurg (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This picture shows the full name, "George C. Page Museum", and although the official site just calls it the "Page Museum" for short, their own photo of the building likewise shows "George C. Page Museum". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Map?

The article could use a rough map or an aerial view or something. I came here because I was wondering how extensive the pits are, over what geographic area. Not at all clear to me if there it is essentially one localized thing or an extensive series of things spread across an area. 71.190.70.163 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map on their official website[2] indicates one large tar lake and a number of small pits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title name

Does it disturb anyone else that "La Brea Tar Pits" translates directly to "The Tar Tar Pits"? Canadafreakazoid (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is "disturbed" by that funny little oddity is way too easily disturbed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that the name of the place was "Rancho la Brea", or "Tar Ranch". "La Brea Tar Pits" is a later invention. This is similar to the baseball team "The Los Angeles Angels", which translates as "The The Angels Angels". Or the Phillies, whose full name is essentially the Philadelphia Philadelphias. Or the now-extinct minor league baseball team in Montreal called the Royals, hence "Mount Royal Royals". All members of the Society of Redundancy Society. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Brea links to the English Pitch (resin), perhaps it should be mentionned in the article. Noliscient (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition photoshopped into panoramic shot

Take a look at the full panoramic shot "La Brea pano 001.jpg". If you look at it full res there is a man who appears to be going up the stairs on the left-hand side that is almost certainly added in. Probably some kind of prank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.252.224 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to post this exact same thought, the guy in the red jacket has clearly been photo shopped into the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.192.174 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 September 2012

Removed per obvious problem noted above. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's photoshop him out then, FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other Tar Pits

I like the way the information is worked into the Carpinteria Tar Pits article better, in that it doesn't have a stub of a section dedicated to the information way below, it states that it's 1 of only 5 in the opener. When I started to read the article the first thing I wondered was how many of these things are there? Perhaps a sentence in the opener like "The Le Brea tar pits are the most famous of the five known asphault lake areas in the world." But here, I finally scrolled down far enough to find the information. Again, I think the Carpinteria Tar Pits article does a better job of naturally informing this important fact in the opener, where I think the information is valuable enough to belong. Dancindazed (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Age of La Brea Woman at time of death

Hi! There seems to be an inconsistency regarding the age of La Brea woman at time of death. This page says from 17 to 25, while the wikipedia page for La Brea Woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Woman) says 25 to 30. Both estimates have a source backing them up, but the one that says 25-30 is much more recent, and probably more reliable.

I am inclined to change the range to 25 to 30, but I would be more comfortable leaving this change to someone more knowledgeable on the matter.

Thanks! 76.118.176.33 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template image

A tar bubble is such a unique event but, I wonder if the template image should reflect a more broader description of the "Rancho" instead of just the tar. The category in Commons has several such images. Any objections in relocating the bubble down to the body of the article and add a new template image? Bobjgalindo (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What replacement do you suggest? FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Brea pano 01.jpg is my favorite. It's small so it keeps the template high enough for more images to fit in the body of the article. Unfortunately the thumb version is tough to see details.

File:Tar-eleph-pano.jpg same with this one: not too much detail under a thumb restriction. But such a good picture.

File:LaBreaTarPits01.JPG so, for the sake of detail, this image might be better qualified.

File:La brea exhibition LACMA.jpeg similar image but not as inclusive.

- Bobjgalindo (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years, middle of a city, and still no better main article photo than of a nondescript tar bubble? A pity. Article header photos matter, and that one is one of the worst I have ever seen. Technicality nitpicker (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to replace it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pueblo?

"The original Rancho La Brea land grant stipulated that the tar pits be open to the public for the use of the local Pueblo. Initially, they mistook the bones in the pits for the remains of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) or cattle that had become mired."

The word "Pueblo" is linked to New Mexico's Pueblo people. Not sure if this is intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.222 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

waggler?

It says

Various combinations of asphaltum and waggler have since filled in these holes

but I can't figure out what "waggler" means. I would suppose it's a specialized term, in which case fine, but then let's link to the definition. Problem is, Wiktionary has two meanings for waggler: 1) something that waggles, and 2) a type of fishing lure specifically. And the Oxford dictionary (which we can't link to anyway, but I suppose could add as a ref for a [note], also only has these meanings.

And it's not impossible that there's no such meaning and we're being trolled. Anyway, I've marked it with {{Clarify}}, and if anybody knows what it is, maybe a parenthetical explanation at least would be nice. Herostratus (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find another meaning, either. I did find, as often happens with WP articles, that other websites have copied the phrase without defining "waggler". I would give it 6 months for comment, then delete. WCCasey (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was made by anonymous user 205.126.54.230 on Jan 30, 2017 and replaced water with waggler, without giving an explanation. Another website entry on the tar pits has the phrase "The tar is often covered with dust, leaves, or water". Given a waggler is a float used by fishermen, you could imagine the term being used to meaning the floating dust and leaves. Waggler is used in this blog on the pits, which doesn't seem to be a copy from wikipedia. Either way perhaps saying the pits became covered water, dust and leaves would be clearer even if waggler means that. If we can't find the meaning in an online dictionary, it's likely that few readers of the article will understand. Jts1882 | talk 07:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The file LA Brea Tar Pits and Museum Photo by Socialbilitty.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tautological place name

A user recently deleted this text from the lead because it's not important enough. I agree, and put it in a footnote instead. Then a different user reverted that edit because "citations should not be in the lead". That's not a hard-and-fast rule (MOS:LEADCITE), but whatever. I don't think there's enough to warrant a new "etymology" section, so I'll put the deleted text and citation here:

"The La Brea Tar Pits" is an example of a tautological place name; "the La Brea Tar Pits" literally means "the the tar tar pits". <begin citation>Merriam-Webster (1998). Merriam-Webster's Spanish-English Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster. ISBN 0-87779-165-1.<end citation>

Although this information is not very important to this particular article, it points out a common problem with the Americanization of Spanish place names. Maybe another editor will find a place to use this in a future expansion, or in another article. WCCasey (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That factoid — trivial as it may seem — absolutely belongs in this article, IMO. (As a matter of fact, I came here today specifically to see how we described it, and was disappointed to find that we don't currently mention it at all.) I'll see if I can find a way to slip it in that the objectors won't object to. —scs (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

LA Brea Tar Pits famous Mammoths Drowning in Tar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

LA Brea Tar Pits famous Mammoths Drowning in Tar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

La Brea SW07.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth sculpture

This article needs a photo of the sculptures of the mammoth family with one stuck in the tar. That is the most iconic image for the tar pits. 2603:8001:FF3F:FFDD:802C:F74B:D854:FB67 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama for such artworks in the US, so there are no freely licenced images of it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]