Talk:Paluxy River

NPOV

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)

I second that. The article creates the impression that the "human foot prints" are kind of a settled matter with scientists having consensually decided against them. While some scientist indeed deny the foot prints others don't. Citation for both sides of the controversy should be given. --196.30.31.182 (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is adequately written given the material provided. However, since the star-telegraph link is dead, and all the Zana Douglas hits I found on Google look like they came from this article, I am removing the content sourced from that article. As for the one-sided references, if you have any other relevant citations please feel free to add them. Crag (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think science is probably the most neutral point of view we have in this world. If these prints were shown to be real it would turn everything we know about geography, biology, and countless other fields on their heads. There would be a Nobel prize in it for the person who had actual evidence pointing to their validity. It is a joke that this article is flagged for NPOV, and it is only the result of people who are either ignorant or dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartimien (talk • contribs) 02:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The flag should be removed. The references support the text, and the content of the page is in line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Major Edits

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)

This new, free paper may be helpful: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0093247 FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Glen Kuban

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)

Please don't. No time tonight to find them, but previous discussions about talk.origins have led to the decision that it can be used. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 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)

Move detailed dinosaur track info

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)

Since all the tracks (including some of the important ones) are apparently not part of the state park, an alternative solution could be to create a new article strictly about the tracks, called for example Paluxy River dinosaur tracks. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

+1 for Paluxy River dinosaur tracks. The river article has clearly a different scope. The Dinosaur Valley State Park would be the alternative for this content, but the chasing sequence has been removed from the river before the park was established – it might therefore be better discussed on a dedicated article on the tracks. There is more than enough to write about each of the three topics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

New tracks discovered

@Deor: you might be interested.[1] Doug Weller talk 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Footprints

the footprints this article passes off as hoaxes and etc etc. Is a lie. They had toeprints in them still. Anything to write off God huh 2600:100E:B095:C29F:889B:DCD2:DD06:95D2 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)