![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 quotes, 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.
Further, the references are certainly one-sided. IMO, there should at least be a creationist site added that will "discredit" the "footprints" as well (there are many).
If there can be found any credible sources of agreement of "young-Earth creationism" finding the "supposed human footprints", should they not be included as well?
I am fairly new to WP, so please bear with me as I learn the ins-and-outs of this great project. -- Codron ( talk) 05:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'm planning on doing some big edits on this article in the next few days. My plan is to add a section specifically about the footprints and the debunking of that evidence. I may also add some information about the river itself if I come across anything useful. I may also try to address some of the neutrality issues. Hopefully it will help the article out a little bit. If anyone has any ideas about what else to add or any useful references, please let me know. Thanks! Dani.buchheister ( talk) 00:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The website talk.origins is the private property of Glen Kuban who wrote this debunking article. I cannot find any evidence that Glen is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. I'm tempted to remove the citation. Wjhonson ( talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead says "these anachronistic "human" footprints have been determined to be mistaken interpretation or hoaxes." It seems to me then that the paragraph called "alternative interpretations" should be first, without a label, and then any ideas about it being authentic human footprints, either 6000 years old or over 66 million years old, should be in the "alternative" section. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 14:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The scope of this article is the river itself, not the dinosaur tracks, even though most of the article is currently about them. Since we also have an article about the Dinosaur Valley State Park, which was created for the tracks, it would appear more appropriate to cover the tracks in depth there, and only leave a short summary here, and let this article mainly deal with the river. Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Deor: you might be interested. [1] Doug Weller talk 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 quotes, 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.
Further, the references are certainly one-sided. IMO, there should at least be a creationist site added that will "discredit" the "footprints" as well (there are many).
If there can be found any credible sources of agreement of "young-Earth creationism" finding the "supposed human footprints", should they not be included as well?
I am fairly new to WP, so please bear with me as I learn the ins-and-outs of this great project. -- Codron ( talk) 05:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'm planning on doing some big edits on this article in the next few days. My plan is to add a section specifically about the footprints and the debunking of that evidence. I may also add some information about the river itself if I come across anything useful. I may also try to address some of the neutrality issues. Hopefully it will help the article out a little bit. If anyone has any ideas about what else to add or any useful references, please let me know. Thanks! Dani.buchheister ( talk) 00:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The website talk.origins is the private property of Glen Kuban who wrote this debunking article. I cannot find any evidence that Glen is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. I'm tempted to remove the citation. Wjhonson ( talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead says "these anachronistic "human" footprints have been determined to be mistaken interpretation or hoaxes." It seems to me then that the paragraph called "alternative interpretations" should be first, without a label, and then any ideas about it being authentic human footprints, either 6000 years old or over 66 million years old, should be in the "alternative" section. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 14:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The scope of this article is the river itself, not the dinosaur tracks, even though most of the article is currently about them. Since we also have an article about the Dinosaur Valley State Park, which was created for the tracks, it would appear more appropriate to cover the tracks in depth there, and only leave a short summary here, and let this article mainly deal with the river. Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Deor: you might be interested. [1] Doug Weller talk 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)