Talk:Cabazon Dinosaurs

Deletion of information on Claude Bell (the creator of the dinosaurs) and all but one photo
I disagree with some of the deletions made on September 25, 2021 to the article "Cabazon Dinosaurs" by Magnolia677.

Magnolia677 justified his/her deletions by stating that the article is about the Cabazon dinosaurs, not Claude Bell (who built those large concrete structures). Magnolia677 then deleted about a third of the text relating to Claude Bell, stating that Bell's work at Knott's Berry Farm is irrelevant, even though that is where he honed his craft of creating life-size figures out of concrete, and he spent 35 years of his life working at Knott's, and he was working there while he built the Cabazon dinosaurs.

Magnolia677 also deleted most of the photos in the article, including the only two photos of Claude Bell!

By Maganolia677's logic ("This article isn't about Claude Bell, it's about the Cabazon dinosaurs...") then an article about the first moon landing should not include any photos of Neil Armstrong in it.

Sheesh.

Now, the article has a grand total of only ONE picture in it... Not good.

Appearance in The Wizard?
Anyone know if this is also the dinosaur sculpture that is shown in the movie The Wizard starring Fed Savage and Christian Slater? Just curious. CoachMcGuirk 20:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Bell dinosaur?
Is this T-rex one of Mr. Bell's creations?  User:David Jordan

Article Name
It's nice to honour Claude Bell by calling the article what it is. But nobody's calls the dinosaurs that or the location that. It's called "Cabazon Dinosaurs" by everybody. --MarsRover 06:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. How can the article title be changed? --Kimchifan 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I renamed the article. --MarsRover 04:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Rex's slide inacuracies
I'm not sure how to incorporate this into the article, so I'm leaving it here. But the blurb about the slide in Mr. Rex is inacurate. The slide WAS installed (from the beginning, I believe), just never opened to the public. The slide was built, including the entrace door inside Mr. Rex. After many years of not being opened to the public, it was eventually filled in with concrete, but you can still see the seams where the slide was. As a kid I used to climb up the slide from the bottom, and then slide down it because that was the only way to use it since it wasn't technically open. Ever since the attraction has been turned into a creationist museum, Mr. Rex has been opened to the public and you can see where the original entrance to the slide actually is, there's still a door and everything. Granted, if you opened it you would now just be met with a concrete wall. Bdsmchs 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo?
Is anyone interested in finding a usable photo of Dinny & Rex for this article? It's a shame the one that was here previously has now been deleted. Not having a photo just seems wrong for this article - having one gave the reader a a better "picture" (no pun intended ;-) of what the dinosaurs are like. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got a few photos of Dinny but if I uploaded them, they would get deleted. The problem is that the dinosaur is a sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama in the U.S. regarding outdoor public sculptures. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One of Claude Bell's daughters is a personal friend - I might see if I can get her to let me scan a photo or two of the sculptures. I don't think there would be an objection to including pictures taken by Claude Bell himself, would there?  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good question... did Kanter and company purchase the rights to all former and existing photographic representations of the dinosaur sculptures when they bought the site for expansion and development? I don't know. Binksternet (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bell obviously wouldn't sell his personal photo album. --MarsRover (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How to present the promotion of creationism?
It appears to me that some editors wish to describe the attraction as promoting creationism and arguing against evolutionism, and others wish to describe it as an explanation of "what is known and not known about dinosaurs, man and the creation of the world in a practical, factual and fun way." I feel that the labels "creationism" and "evolutionism" are accurate and much more helpful to the reader than the "factual and fun" explanation which avoids labeling the beliefs that are being promoted or argued. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Binkster. Also note V. We are writing from reliable third party sources, not from primary source material or our own interpretations. Amerique dialectics  21:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "evolutionism", except in the minds of cretinists- er, Creationists.--24.151.181.213 (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm Chistian and I believe that creationism, as far as what the creationists expound, is absolute and utter crap. As far as they are concerned belief trumps evidence, and if you believe in something hard enough it becomes true. --Yankovic270 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of the evolutionism vs creationism displays
On the Cabazon Dinosaurs official website, there is a page which states their position on commercial photography, preventing commercial use of images without permission. The IP editor who has been edit warring with a conflict of interest on this page has repeatedly removed an image of Mr. Rex depicted on a poster inside the Dinny souvenir shop. I believe the image is allowed as its use here on Wikipedia is not commercial.

On December 20, 2009, during a roadtrip, I took several photographs of the evolution vs. creationism posters at Cabazon, but my camera's flash doesn't work and the images didn't turn out very good. I have been putting the Mr. Rex image into the article, but any one of these might be substituted:

Any preference? Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The entrance photo and the "Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" sign are my preferences. Whatever you add, the entrance should be included.  The rest of them would be too much, and really don't add anything to the article that isn't already stated.  Oh, and the use of "posters" to describe the signs is really not very encyclopedic.  Could you come up with something else? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It all might fall under copyright. A pic of Dinny should be restored though, as the fact that he's been hollowed out into a museum should qualify him as a building exempt from freedom of panorama restrictions in the US. Amerique dialectics  21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the freedom of panorama restriction can be avoided by saying that the roadside attraction is a building, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, I did not take a complete photo of the building with any of its entrances in view. Here's the most complete one I took which includes an oval window in the belly near one leg. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's great! If it's challenged on commons, just say it's like all the other buildings in novelty architecture. Amerique dialectics  22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Peewee
I would point out that: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) A blog makes a very poor secondary source.
 * 2) Per in popular culture (and WP:INDISCRIMINATE), we are not meant to 'simply list appearances' but rather "explain the subject's impact on popular culture".
 * This is about this content, originally added by User:TexianPolitico. Hrafn's point #1 is, of course, correct, but not applicable, since the source isn't a blog, but the film director's commentary on official film DVD, which is a fine source. In addition, I believe the supplementary source I added, isn't a blog, but Moviefone, which is a respected site owned by AOL. Point #2 is merely a matter of phrasing; the fact that this roadside attraction played a prominent role in a major motion picture is clearly notable for the article about it, whether we choose to put it into a "popular culture" section or just as part of the main article. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The bit of pop trivia was amply supported by the DVD's commentary made by the director. However, various bits of pop culture have been previously removed from this article. Some of them are:
 * Both Dinny and Mr. Rex can be briefly seen in the background of the Tears for Fears video for "Everybody Wants to Rule the World", in Brad Paisley's music video Welcome to the Future, and they are prominently featured in the Tonio K video Without Love as well as on the cover of his album Notes From The Lost Civilization. They appear on the U.S. version of the Oasis video Supersonic.
 * The dinosaurs appear in the motion pictures Revenge of the Cheerleaders, Paris, Texas, Pee-wee's Big Adventure, The Wizard, and Grand Theft Parsons, and even a Coke commercial.
 * The video game Fallout: New Vegas has a dinosaur statue that resembles Mr. Rex, called Dinky the Dinosaur.
 * Even though I'm not a fan of the pop culture section, I don't see a giant reason to keep such stuff from this article, as the topic itself is a pop culture roadside attraction. I'm not the one who removed all of the above. I argue more strongly against pop culture references when the topic is historically important, and the presence of a pop culture section diminishes it. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to remove image
I think the image on the left should be removed from the article because it is a blurry, out of frame, close-up of a sign. It does not capture the entire sign, you can't read any of the sentences on it which makes it difficult to verify what the sign is about.

I want to suggest replacing it with these two images on the right, looking up at the dinosaur sculptures from underneath them. I believe these images showcase a unique perspective of the architecture.

However, if these images don't meet the standards of this article I still request the other image be removed with no replacement, because it simply provides no purpose. @citymorgue 05:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The image on the left confirms the creationist emphasis taken by the owners, seen in the gift shop run by the owners. The images on the right are unremarkable, and they don't add anything to the article. As you can see in previous discussions here, there were several choices for which image to use for the creationist stance, and the one on the left won. If you would like people to reconsider which creationist image should be used, then I'm open to that question. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't the ridiculous beliefs of the owners, it's that the image of the sign doesn't confirm anything. It's blurry and all the sentences are cut off. If you had a clear photograph of the sign in it's entirety I wouldn't have a problem with it being used in the article. But at the moment it's completely useless and quite horrible to look at. And if my images are unremarkable that's fine too. I'm not here to fight over my images, your image however is even more useless than mine. While mine showcase the architecture of the dinosaurs, yours is out of focus and nothing can be proven from the incomplete sentences. It's just a sloppy close up word jumble at the moment. @citymorgue  23:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The picture literally says: www.cabazondinosaurs.com Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossib utionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologi formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescrib sult. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins to found in DNA and RNA today, a variety even-carbon sugars @citymorgue 23:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for update
It's possible the information about the creationist museum may be out of date now. My family and I visited the site around the winter of 2004 and were surprised by the creationist propaganda in the gift shop. Most of the images of the signage inside look familiar to me. However, my wife and I just visited the gift shop again yesterday (2018-09-19) and were both surprised to see a complete absence of any creationist (or religious) propaganda anywhere in evidence. We looked all over the gift shop and were unable to find anything resembling what we'd seen in 2004. We did not pay for tickets to entry into the open air museum or Mr Rex so I can't speak to that.

The newest source cited by the article appears to be from Slate.com in 2017. Perhaps this change is recent? I noted that the claim of ownership at the bottom of the new web site for the attraction is now listed as Copyright 2018 by World's Biggest Dinosaurs. That's rather different from the owners that had taken over in the 90s, at least in name.

What is needed to confirm the changes and make changes to the article? I realize the changes would be significant since the creation museum section's tense would need to be changed and new info on a change of ownership would be needed if that turned out to be the case. Cardinalsmurf 19:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've heard the same; a friend visited the other day and said he couldn't find any creationist displays. However, I can't find any primary sources (newspaper articles, etc) to confirm that ownership has changed hands or that the displays have changed, which I believe would be needed to update the article. Perhaps someone should reach out to a newspaper like the Desert Sun or Record Gazette to investigate. --Academician (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Y'all are correct, we will need a WP:SECONDARY source describing the change of style and likely change of ownership. Right now I don't see any news updates. Keep an eye peeled... Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Red Eyes
The article says the Red Lights in the Brontosaurus's Eyes were never installed. I saw them for a number of years while traveling through there several times per year. The Brontosaurus was completed in 1975 and the Red Lights in the Eyes were there for possibly Five Years. Actually only one eye could be seen from the road so I can't guarantee if there was one Red Light or two. 2600:1012:B165:69D1:A9A5:EF0A:DD96:440A (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Source 38
Source 38 now seems to lead to a foreign football/soccer website. 2603:9001:6000:A78C:7D69:C072:82BA:7954 (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)