Talk:Canyon Lake Gorge

Moved from ID page
Moved by User:JoshuaZ

Can people poke at ? I'm worried that there's too much weight being given to a fringe creationist movement in that article, though probably unintentionally. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks alright to me. The weight problem is probably because the article is undeveloped. Also... shouldn't thread this be on a project page somewhere?--Tznkai (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Just didn't want to deal with it myself. Have enough troubles in other areas =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did some googling, there are more references which should be added, and most of the YEC info belongs in the flood geology article rather than that one. So many diversions! dave souza, talk 17:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seemed like undue weight to me. I've removed it. Unless there are reliable sources talking about what the YECs are saying it is clearly undue weight. If there are reliable sources talking about what the YECs are saying about that canyon then it might make sense to include. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought of that but was wondering if it's worth a brief dismissive mention for the creos that will inevitably find the article. However, my googling didn't reveal any mention on NCSE, TOA or Scienceblogs, so no reliable secondary source found so far. . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That means that there are no sources about the matter responding from the perspective of mainstream science. That's a distinct claim from there being no reliable sources. But FWIW I can't find even a local newspaper mentioning the YEC connection about the Canyon so its not an issue. Maybe we should move this discussion to the talk page of the article so it doesn't clutter this one up (where it is a bit OT) and where it can be easily found for future reference? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it's claimed to be science, my view is that a mainstream source of some sort is needed, but as you say they're all primary sources so far, and nothing to establish notability. Good idea to move the discussion. . dave souza, talk 21:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)