Talk:Dinosaur Valley State Park

Untitled
"The young earth creationist Carl Baugh claims to have found human and dinosaur footprints together there"
 * ...just how old is this Carl Baugh, anyway? (Wetman 2 July 2005 20:16 (UTC))

Is there an article that has information about these human/dino footprints and the surrounding controversy and research, as well as possible explanations?--Tiberius47 05:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ft. Worth Telegram-Star reference
I found it |&p_product=ST&p_theme=realcities2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_site=dfw&s_trackval=ST&s_search_type=customized&s_dispstring=(dinosaur%20fossils%20AND%20%22just%20carved%20more%22%20AND%20zana%20douglas)%20AND%20(%22good%20sculptor%22)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(dinosaur%20fossils%20AND%20%22just%20carved%20more%22%20AND%20zana%20douglas)%20AND%20(%22good%20sculptor%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=_rank_:D&xcal_ranksort=4&xcal_useweights=yes| here searching on the terms Zana Douglas, dinosaur fossils, and the strings "good sculptor" and "just carved more." I do hope this will be acceptable as verifying the reference, unless we really do delete reliable journalistic sources once they move into a paid archive. Auntie E (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's true, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure this issue has come up prior to now on WP, I'd like to see some guidelines that cover it. Auntie E (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I asked in the discussion on the article Talk:Paluxy_River, I am confused as to why so much credence has been given to Zana Douglas' testimony when there is virtually no information that can be found about her on the internet. There are LOTS of posts that contain her quote, but that does not make her a credible source.  Does she have an axe to grind?  Is she an evolutionist?  Does she feel that the folks that are currently "selling" something in her "hometown" are taking something that she rightfully deserves?  There are a few pages that turn up on a Google search that seem to discredit (or at least insinuate that he has an agenda) the author (Bud Kennedy) of the story as well.  Understandably, the author is a writer, and all writers have critics.  But this article seems to take the words of Zana at face value. --Codron (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Got references? What "few pages..." (reliable sources please)? Your use of the word evolutionist says quite a bit, just what is an evolutionist? Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will spend the time to find the "few pages" as soon as I am able. However, that does not touch on the initial question.  My use of the word "evolutionist" is merely to point out that Zana may be trying to debunk the young-Earth creationists evidence against evolutionary theory without further proof.  Whether she is a theist or atheist is irrelevant to the question of reliability. --Codron (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What we appear to have (but unfortunately the link appears to be outdated) in this wiki article is an eyewitness statement taken from a properly cited mainstream news source. Such a source should be presumed reliable unless another at least equally good source can be found that contradicts the first.  The journalist apparently (again, I don't have the article to consult) wrote that:  1) Zana Douglas is a relative of people who used to produce false footprints, and that 2) she made a certain statement about her father and grandfather from personal knowledge.  Unless someone can come up with a reliable citation that she is not who the article says she is, or that she did not make the quoted statement, then the paragraph should stand as is.  Of course, if someone can come up with a cited source that impeaches Zana Douglas as a reliable source on her own family, that should be added to the article to aid the reader in judging the facts. Plazak (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted the reference to the newspaper article on the page. Since this reference cannot be examined, anything it says is now hearsay. If anyone can find a reliable source for this statement . . . please add it back in.TDurden1937 (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Turden1937
 * You are free to access the article in their online archives. There is no requirement that a newspaper/book/paper have a non-print version to become a reliable source.  If you need instructions on accessing the archives to validate, please let me know.  Kuru   (talk)  20:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed creationist claim based on SPS
This edit introduced a creationist claim, presented as fact, with no other source than a self-published creationist website. This clearly fails WP:V and WP:PSCI, and I've removed it. If reliable secondary sources can be found we can cover this claim, but due weight must be given to mainstream views of this claim. . . dave souza, talk 21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with keeping the information. The accusation of "creationist" is, IMO, unwarranted: creationism is a widely-held belief and thus, per wp:weight et al., of encyclopedic value. Your use of the word "claim" needs to stay in check: see wp:npov for recommendation to Wikipedia editors on avoiding that word (in articles, not in talk pages where you have greater flexibility).


 * The only problem I do see with the edit in question is lack of a citation. Everything else appears encyclopedic and constructive. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Blogs and websites are usually not considered WP:RS for controversial content unless the author is a recognized expert in the field. Compare the deleted content with the corresponding entry in Creation Evidence Museum:


 * The "Alvis Delk Cretaceous Footprint", allegedly a human footprint partially overlapped by an Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur footprint in Glen Rose limestone.   This was deemed "not a convincing human footprint in ancient rock" by biologist Glen J. Kuban and called a "blatant fake" by biologist PZ Myers.


 * The above is much better referenced as to the facts, and includes a contrary mainstream science view lacking in the deleted section. Although the criticism is from a blog, the blog is apparently authored by people with some credentials in the field (unfortunately, it appears to be a dead link). There is nothing wrong with citing creationist websites to present their opinion and reasoning as to why the footprint is genuine, but it should be balanced by the contrary view, and should certainly not present the controversial creationist opinion on the footprint as settled fact. Plazak (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the dead link, and found links to the Kuban article: presumably this was previously cited, but the citation had gone missing, so I've revised the article. There are probably still too many creationist websites or credulous articles in the local press being cited, but at least the issues are now covered a bit more. . . dave souza, talk 14:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are both saying the same thing, just differently. So long as all major sides are included, there wont be an NPOV violation. Science has its share of unproven beliefs, they are called theories. Religion is based on a lot of proven evidence, but also on a huge amount of unproven beliefs, some opponents call them myths. Neither religion nor science has all the truth, and they are both constantly in search of additional truths.  Both sides need to be presented in a fairly balanced manner for the encyclopedia to be successful. That's why WP:NPOV is one of the pillars. Single sources like Kuban and Myers are meaningless in attempting to disprove what millions regard as evidence. But of course, they are recognized authorities in their fields and their opinions count - just like the opinions of other equally recognized experts in their field but who may be claiming the opposite. The end result is that both sides need to be presented in equal share so long as they are supported by RSs.   My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * Oh dear, you really don't seem to know much about science: proof is for maths and whisky. Science tests theories, which are accepted when they are solidly supported by evidence. Religion in general is based on beliefs. WP:NPOV includes WP:PSCI, which applies to creationist claims, and "what millions regard as evidence" is irrelevant, what counts is reliably published expert opinion. Creationists such as Baugh have a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy, we have to take care not to give "equal validity" to such claims. .. dave souza, talk 18:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)