This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
dinosaurs and
dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
"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?--
Tiberius4705:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
The Ft. Worth Telegram-Star reference
I found it
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)Turden1937reply
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)reply
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,
talk21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)reply
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.reply
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.[1][2][3][4] 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.[5]
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)reply
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,
talk14:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)reply
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.reply
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,
talk18:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
dinosaurs and
dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
"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?--
Tiberius4705:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
The Ft. Worth Telegram-Star reference
I found it
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)Turden1937reply
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)reply
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,
talk21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)reply
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.reply
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.[1][2][3][4] 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.[5]
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)reply
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,
talk14:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)reply
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.reply
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,
talk18:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)reply