Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 8

Template:WP1.0

Folks - Please sign your messages with ~~~~. Please also try to add appropriate section headings if you are beginning a new topic of discussion. Please add new discussion to the bottom of the page. - UtherSRG 12:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Archived talk

As it has many times before, the Dinosaur article talk page has gotten very long. To preserve the intelligibility of conversation here I have once again moved older discussions on this page to the article's talk archive (Archive 6 linked just above contains the most recent discussions). Killdevil 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Just days after protection is dropped vandalism has become a huge problem, should a protection request be made Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Four vandalisms today so far. One yesterday. That's not a particularly high amount on Wikipedia... Weregerbil 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

When I encountered the page I checked the edit history, the protection log, and the talk page (including the most recent archive) and found no apparent justification for protection (I share Weregerbil's opinion that a handful of vandalisms like this is not an obvious or serious problem). Pages shouldn't be protected without a good reason so I went ahead and unprotected it. If it's really important to keep a page protected I'd suggest making sure the case is made prominently on the talk page. Bryan Derksen 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history page, I can see why this is protected, but nonetheless find that slightly odd. I find it odd that it's attracting this much vandalism. Has it been featured lately? I mean, it's not like it's a particularly controversial topic (George W. Bush and religion are only semi-protected, whilst Communism isn't protected at all) and Stephen Colbert's been nowhere near it (AFAIK, anyway). RobbieG 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This suggests it is quite a popular page, getting 4,000 visitors per day, so if someone's going to add nonsense it's quite likely they'll do so here. Hut 8.5 19:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right. It's a popular page, and particularly popular amongst school-kids. When this page isn't semi-protected, it gets a lot of IP vandalism, so I did place the page on semi-protection. A quick scan of the last 500 edits indicates there wasn't even a single good IP edit (every subsequent edit by a logged-in user was removal of IP vandalism). In other words, there's no reason to unprotect this article: no IP has added anything useful to this article in months. I could have gone back further in the history, but I didn't bother. Dinosaur is a Featured Article, representing some of Wikipedia's best content. There is no reason to open an article to continuous vandalism from multiple IPs, especially when we are calling this article some of our best content. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree--with maybe one or two exceptions, I can't think of any constructive IP edits to the dinosaur articles here... well, ever. And this article is a huge target. I vote for protection, for what it's worth. Dinoguy2 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it protected. Actually, I'd like to see a lot more articles with protection, but that's just me, and would take a change in the prevailing attitudes here. (How many good anonIP edits have ever been made on Bird, Crocodile, Fossil, or the oddly popular vandalism target Turtle, for example?) J. Spencer 03:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not raising an objection to protection of this article, since it seems necessary given the amount of vandalism, but I don't like it when pages are protected as I believe it detracts from the site's "anyone can edit" premise. I appreciate that in cases like this it's the only option, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of it. RobbieG 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the religious looneys you can blame. No offense to them of course, but Wikipedia is scientific & they keep on adding their creationism drivel to the article when there is a clear cut consensus against it. Just like anti-bush people edit George Bush & racists edit any muslim related article. For some reason, Christians think they can get their view point across with vandalism - go figure. We just have to accept that controversial topics like these will always be protected. This article is a centre pint for Wikipedia (everyone wants to know about dinosaurs... well mostly lol) so it has to be in tip top shape... Just my views.... :) Spawn Man 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Christians think they can get their view point across with vandalism. Not all Christians. Just thought I'd better point that out. RobbieG 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur relation to birds

Aves (birds) are classified under sauriscia (however you spell 'lizard hipped') not ornithschia (however you spell 'bird hipped'). As they are birds I think it's strange that they're classified like that. Any views? Dendodge 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is confusing, agreed. But the Saurischia and Ornithischia names refer merely to a certain passing resemblance in the shape of the hip-bones of certain members of each groups to lizards on the one hand and birds on the other, rather than exact bone-for-bone similarities. Bird-hipped dinosaurs actually have hips that differ in important details from actual birds, in the same way that lizard-hip dinosaurs have hips that differ in important details from actual lizards. Thus the Ornithischia didn't give rise to birds any more than the Saurischia didn't give rise to lizards. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, & don't forget "dinosaur" means "lizard", when their legs aren't actually lizard-like at all (i.e., not splayed). Trekphiler 03:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the more advanced "lizard-hipped dinosaurs" like therizinosaurs and dromaeosaurs actually had "bird hips". Birds could really be called "ornithischian mimics" ;) Also, dinosaurs aren't close relatives of lizards, but they were named that because, at the time, it was thought that they were a suborder of true lizards. -saurus has kind of become traditional since then, even though it's totally incorrect. I think it's cool that a number of more recent dinosaur names use -draco ("dragon") in place of -saurus. Or even -ornis/-avis/-opteryx, where appropriate. Dinoguy2 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is makin' 'em harder to spell.;D Jethro Bodine 11:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomen quidam

I can't find phororacos. Any tips where to look? Trekphiler 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Phorusrhacos. Phororhacos is a junior synonym. Phororacos appears to be a misspelling. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

" appears to be a misspelling."? Or phonetic...I don't recall if I read or heard it. Either way, thanks for the redirect. Trekphiler 11:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

POV statement about not withstanding "serious scientific scrutiny."

I've removed a highly POV statement from the "religious views" section, but if someone can figure out a way to word it more neutrally, feel free to put that in instead; the section is very short either way anyways. It also doesn't seem to mention creation science perspectives, or source them in the main article (www.answersingenesis.org is a major source for YEC theories on dinosaurs, for example). So that could use some work. The original POV statement is here: "However, these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny." That would need cited to be in the article, first, and second, many people disagree with the statement, so it reads like an evolutionary-bias statement. Obviously, fine to report that, making the source clear, though. --Bonesiii 13:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it could be worded better, but on the other hand it is true (and citeable), so I think it should be there in some form. On the problems with the main religious perspectives on dinosaurs article, the dinosaur crowd aren't going to do a good job, and neither are creationists. It needs to be approached from a sociological angle. -- John.Conway 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that statement; by definition, religious interpretations do not withstand scientific scrutiny because they are faith propositions, not science. Science relies on testable propositions that can be evaluated with evidence. YEC, though, does not. Typically I've seen two arguments out of YEC camps, miracles and planting. Miracles: dinosaurs/mammoths/etc. existed in the years before the flood, but God worked lots of miracles and changed all sorts of natural laws to make the world the way it is today; obviously, this cannot be tested, but can accepted by faith. Planted: there were no dinosaurs/etc., but God decided to plant remains and make the Earth look very old to test faith and deceive the wicked. This cannot be tested either.

In addition, I find the wording a bit odd, too, as well as the emphasis, because historically Creationist groups have had bigger fish to fry than dinosaurs, which are safely dead and only come out as figureheads. They haven't made many dinosaur-specific interpretations at all, beyond the Paluxy stuff, and dinosaurs tend only to figure in a general sense in larger battles over evolution and prehistory. Jurassic Carl notwithstanding, a lot of the Creationists who don't follow the "planted" argument love dinosaurs (they often turn up in Creationist museums, after all); they just don't think dinosaurs are millions of years old or did any evolving. J. Spencer 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• J, there's nothing wrong with it in the opinions of evolutionists (and, apparently you), but there are things wrong with it in terms of Wikipedia policies, and of course, YEC scientists do not agree with the statement, which is why it is POV. (Let me remind you of this quote from WP:NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. [...] Types of bias include: [...] Religious bias against or for religion, faith or beliefs" [Emphasis mine].
• What you said at the beginning of your comment is the evolutionist definition of "science"; the evolutionist opinion -- what you are saying is (as is usually said by evolutionists) that creationist theories do not fit within the evolutionary model (that is, YEC, at least). Nobody debates that; what is strongly debated is the idea that evolutionists alone can define what "science" is. Most creationists believe in what is known as the Scientific Method, which requires that scientists do not define rules before they look at the evidence as to what conclusions they're allowed to come to. But that is what you just did, in fact; you stated that "science" (i.e. evolutionary science) bans even considering a certain type of conclusion, regardless of the evidence. That is not consistent with the scientific method, in its purest form; that is imposing a pre-concieved belief onto science (which is why evolution is often seen simply as another religion by creationists, note).
• Now, the point is that that section is linking to an article that includes YEC scientific beliefs, as well as OEC and other religious beliefs. NPOV requires that the beliefs of those groups be reported, as a minority, and that the majority belief be reported as well. This means that that sentence would be fine, basically, if it said "According to evolutionary scientists" or the like, and then cited a source. Also, it is worded derogatorily towards the minority view; by implying that creationist scientists are not "serious".
• In other words, that is not a "true statement" but rather a statement of opinion from evolutionists (the majority view; it is true in their eyes, but keep this in mind: WP:TIGER). It should be given preference, making clear the source of the opinion and that it is an opinion, not a fact or truth universally agreed upon, and source cited, as I understand Wikipedia policy. (See WP:NPOV and WP:V. It should also use a neutral tone, which it does not. Also, please realize that in the opinions of many YECs (myself included, though to be clear, I am not a scientist myself; I'm a logician), evolutionist beliefs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny. The examples are too numerous to count of the evidence contradicting evolution, yet evolutionists do not consider the basic concept of evolution to be subject to the normal scientific method rules; for example, this quote from the WP article: "Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy." Just two quick examples so as not to drag this out or turn it into a POV debate; the non-fossilized organic tissue recently found in a T-Rex bone, which shocked evolutionists, and of course missing links, which Darwin had predicted should have been found but have not been. (Just a few examples from Answers in Genesis; go there to learn more if you wish. I bring these up only because they are directly relevant to the dinosaur article/issues in question.) According to the scientific method, these and many other failures of the evolutionary hypothesis should cause scientists to abandon the hypothesis, but they have not.
• Anyways, here's my attempt at an improvement, for review: "However, the majority of the scientific community does not accept these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs." Agree/disagree, and please correct me if I've missed some aspect of WP policy? :-) Of course, we would still need a citation for that. Anyone have one? (BTW, someone put the line back in; for now, I'm just going to add a citation needed tag rather than risk an edit war.) --Bonesiii 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's going to do -- it's a little weasel-wordish. I'm going to try to find a citation for that statement as it is. Cite your sources that YEC does stand up to scientific scrutiny and we'll take it from there. -- John.Conway 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; and feel free to reword. As for citing YEC standing up to scientific scrutiny, before I answer, let me make clear that I was not suggesting that anything about that be in the article. Since you requested them, though, here's a few. Beginning with AIG articles: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias, Creation: 'where's the proof?', Bias and faith, and others in this Q&A section: AIG Science Q&A. From other groups: ICR: Evolution is Religion--Not Science, and CMI: "What we believe; Statement of Faith" (Basics, number 3). Also, the RATE project is very relevant; see the AIG announcement here. I don't think these belong in the dinosaur article, though, because it's still the minority view and not directly on the subject of dinosaurs. Maybe they could be incorporated into the linked article, though... --Bonesiii 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they will do for this article, because they are not in peer-reviewed journals. If you can't find any in the science journals -- which I don't think you'll be ale to to do -- respected peer-reviewed philosophical journals would be fine. -- John.Conway 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not proposing them for this article; the one linked to, however, is focusing on religious belief, for which these would qualify (but that's another article...). I don't think that amount of detail is needed in this article. Either way, peer review would only be relevant if the focus was only on the mainstream scientific community's views of this, but it is on religious belief. (Also, it's pretty common knowledge that there's an anti-creationist bias in the journals that are usually meant when described as "peer reviewed", which makes that a circular reasoning argument.) --Bonesiii 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the line you suggest is decent, but a bit weaselly as John Conway notes.

Second, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about the nature of science, but I do note that I've never seen a YEC who would seriously consider the biblical account being wrong. They are not trying to find the best model for data, they are trying to prove their view. If a creationist model explained the facts better than evolution, evolution would be abandoned, just as various models of the earth were abandoned in the 1960s/1970s for plate tectonics. Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, attempting to scientifically explain things like Noah's Flood is impossible, which fits a reasonable definition of a miracle and falls under faith. You either believe it happened or you don't. Frankly, I think it works better that way, too, since the spheres of science and religion are kept separate.

"Absent missing links" is a tired joke, since "evolutionists" do have missing links, only when one is found, Creationists ask about the others that are "missing", until they've managed to convince those who aren't interested in biology that there are none. Every "missing link" found just makes two more "missing links", according to so many YEC arguments I've heard, and I've never seen the missing link that YEC proponents would accept. As for the organic tissue, it's more a case of nobody having bothered to look. I'm an "evolutionist", I wasn't particularly shocked, and none of the "evolutionists" I know was, either. Schweitzer's team has been working on this for years now, and the reaction I've seen has more been "cool!", with some "could there have been contamination", and not a single "protein fragments cannot have been preserved for millions of years! Evolution must be wrong!" In baseball, everyone thought you couldn't make a living uppercutting the ball, until Babe Ruth came along. Everyone thought you couldn't drive an outside pitch, until a generation of hitters raised on aluminum bats showed the opposite. All you need to preserve anything is a lack of something to destroy it. J. Spencer 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• In order: 1) Thanks--any suggestions as per the weasel words? Which words did you mean?
• Yes, YECs believe that there are no conflicts between the Bible and reality, but they do concede that there are conflicts between the Bible and current popular human ideas (this is covered in a few of the sources added above; your posting went through before that did); the idea being that since they believe God did create the world, it's not surprising that they would not find conflicts in the former respect. Also, AIG at least has stated that they are not trying to prove the view, by the way. That may apply to other YECS though, not sure. As to this statement: "If a creationist model explained the facts better than evolution, evolution would be abandoned", you forget that evolutionists, as you yourself said, ban any creationist conclusions before they even look at the evidence. I agree that some scientists have abandoned the evolutionary model for the reason you stated, but many do not. Again something clearly shown in the sources in my above response to John Conway. Your statement is understandable; it's a statement of trust in the objectivity of most scientists. In my opinion, though, it's a naive trust that has been proven false countless times (no offense; this is not about my opinion and I would not presume to tell you what to believe).
• Actually, a recent scientific model for the Flood has been proposed, and it also replaced a past one (canopy theory). See here and here for that, and see here for many other related topics. And if you just think about it--if the Flood did occur, it would be possible to see geological evidence of it. YECs believe we do see it. :-) Your belief that it can't be explained probably comes from the fact that you disagree with it already because you have, as you put it, decided not to believe it. That's fine for your opinion, of course, but that is not scientific.
• As for the missing links debate, you might want to check out here, and especially Archaeopteryx. AIG regularly deals with the alleged missing links. I could simply tell you that the idea of Archaeopteryx as a missing link is a "tired joke" as you did (it has been shown to be simply a bird), but I'm not interested in back-and-forths like that; if you're open to looking into it, you are free to study it on your own time. :-) ( Regardless of how old the argument is, the fact still stands that evolution predicts that fossils should be dispersed randomly enough that we should find as many links as we find complete species, and that has not been the case. Evolutionists are left to try to come up with increasingly faith-requiring ideas to explain this away, rather than admit that the hypothesis was wrong. By the way, you might be interested in the recent trend by evolutionists to concede that even species they once considered in "trees" are actually examples of convergent evolution, a move predicted by creationist theory. Even the famous "Lucy" has fallen to this new view, as have many other "missing links" (see here, here, and here).
• (Quote:) I'm an "evolutionist", I wasn't particularly shocked, and none of the "evolutionists" I know was, either. Schweitzer's team has been working on this for years now, and the reaction I've seen has more been "cool!", with some "could there have been contamination", and not a single "protein fragments cannot have been preserved for millions of years! Evolution must be wrong!"

See, this is exactly the point. Obviously with just one example like that, nobody's saying scientists should jump to the conclusion that evolution is wrong. But the point is that the conclusion is not even considered, because it is banned regardless of the evidence, as you said. Notice what you said over and over in the conclusion; what "everyone thought" turned out to be wrong. That's exactly the point YEC have been making; evolutionists choose to trust in what most humans think, over what God thinks (or what the Bible claims God thinks), and so often they end up being wrong, and lately almost every example of that has moved their views closer to aspects predicted by creationist models long ago.

• Anyways, this is getting to into the details as a debate, so let me again just recommend that you take the time to look into this on your own. :-) Every point you've raised has been debunked by creationists. But we are not here to debate. Here we need to focus on the article. I'm happy to answer questions like those, but I'd suggest that discussion continue elsewhere such as at my talk page perhaps, rather than here. (If someone else continues that discussion, that's what I'll do. :-))
• The standing issue: We need to improve the wording of this line, to avoid Weasel Words. Anyone have any suggestions? Perhaps "The mainsteam scientific community" or "Mainstream scientists", etc? --Bonesiii 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting pointless, and this isn't the place to debate it. I suggest we stick with my plan and cite our sources (peer reviewed journals preferred). -- John.Conway 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion does not even properly belong here. Further commentary can go to Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, until links to a peer-reviewed journal (on philosophy or whatever) are provided. Citations from serious rigorously-reviewed papers can certainly be considered for inclusion. Creationist propaganda from the Answers in Genesis website cannot. It was a compromise at all to include a section in this article on religious perspectives, and the section can be removed entirely if the result is that it only causes controversy on the article talk page. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see no need for controversy as long as the section can be changed to fit NPOV. :-) Nothing needs added to the rest of what you said, I think, except of course that "propoganda" is a POV statement as well... --Bonesiii 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll knock off too, since it certainly is getting tangential. J. Spencer 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of "frivolous" scientific scrutiny, so I've removed the word "serious", which should remove some of the POV feel. TimVickers 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, it's been quite some time now, and there've been no further suggestions, other than TimVickers' above (more on that in a second), so I've added in the version suggested earlier, with one modification: "However, the mainstream scientific community does not accept these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs." The only objection that was raised was that it seemed to contain Weasel Words--though nobody has yet explained which words are the problem, I've modified it a little to hopefully sound better, as also suggested above. I said "mainstream" instead of "majority of the". Mainstream is a term evolutionists often use to describe themselves, so theoretically there would be no objection to that term. This wording appears also to neither "soften[...] the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement" as it's clearly an accurate statement, nor "avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue"; it's reporting the opinion and the source as per NPOV requirements. Let me know if I've missed some aspect. :)
• TimVickers, that does sound less emotionally loaded, yes, but it actually worsens the POV problem, because that updated statement is completely dismissing the existence of any "scientific scrutiny" that disagrees with the evolutionist POV, despite the fact that it is a statement about a group of views that include "scientific scrutiny" views that clearly do disagree with the evolutionist POV. With "serious" included it at least allowed for the idea that the dissenting views were at least scientific. Again, WP:NPOV is clear that in cases of dispute, no view should be asserted to be the truth, including the most popular view, but should be presented as a view of the group or individual who holds the view. :) Also, I'm not sure how "frivolous" is on-topic, as that word was not mentioned, that I saw.
• Also, I've wikilinked "scientific" to the same article that was previously wikilinked from "scientific scrutiny", in order to keep the same sense of the previous statement. The sources provided earlier have been kept as well. I believe that concludes any previous issue with the statement as per NPOV. --Bonesiii 21:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with this change, and I don't think I see any actual support for it here in the talkpage. Frankly the entire section seems out of place in an encyclopedic article and I would strongly support removing it entirely. I will restore the original text until I see actual concensus for the change; in the meantime I'd like to pursue a discussion focused on deleting the section entirely. Doc Tropics 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Doc Tropics, that isn't really helpful--the statement was proposed and arrived at in discussion. As I said above, the only objection that was raised seems to have been dealt with, and the other person discussing it agreed it was better than the original statement. What reasons do you have to revert the statement, which fits with Wikipedia's policies, to one that clearly does not?
• As for the section being out of place, I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV, as it makes clear that minority views do need to be presented, and bias against religious views is specifically listed as to be avoided. That is how Wikipedia policy defines what is "encyclopedic". However, if you wish to suggest removing the section, it would be better to discuss that seperately, rather than along with your reversion, which is not related to the existence of the section. My edit was suggested many days ago on this talk page and discussed, so a spur-of-the-moment revert does not seem appropriate. I'll give a brief time to reply, but then will revert back--the talk page is here to be used, rather than edit warring. :)
• Also, please take note of WP:REVERT, especially these parts: "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof." [Bold emphasis mine.] Your revert may come because you agree with the opinion of the mainstream community on this issue--agreeing with that is fine, but NPOV makes it clear that Wikipedia pages are to present both sides fairly. --Bonesiii 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to save some time by discontinuing the discussion in this section and starting a new section at the bottom of the page. The wording is irrelevant; the section should be removed. Doc Tropics 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Reverting, then, for now. --Bonesiii 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Existence

This article should be reworded to say that dinosaurs didn't exist, and that they were actually just giant birds. Scorpionman 20:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all of them, just the ones people like, with teeth and claws, and the ripping and the biting and the *hurting* glayvin! :) Actually, it's the other way around. Let's rewrite birds to say they don't exist, but are just tiny dinosaurs. J. Spencer 20:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. The Simpsons rule(s). Actually, obviously not even all theropods were feathered, and even though they're probably the most popular dinosaurs, I'm sure the sauropods enjoy some measure of popularity. I'm partial to the ceratopsians, personally, but no one likes them... Firsfron of Ronchester 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, back when the first dino footprints were found, they were attributed to giant birds until their bones were found. And then, if I recall correctly, one or two scientists STILL thought they should be classified as birds. But Owen named them as a suborder of lizards, and the rest is history. The thing with cladistics is maskes the fact that the whole relationship with birds goes both ways. Birds are dinosaurs, everybody hre seems to accept that. Why they can't accept that some dinosaurs were also "birds" in the traditional sense is harder to understand. I think it's because it makes them less montrous. *Good.* They are not and were never monsters. They were sometimes big, sometimes mundane, regular animals that sometimes did boring stuff just like birds are. They weren't any more or less "fearsome" than modern bears or eagles (the former may be a bad example, because culture has a history of making them into monsters too...).

And no, the article sohuldn't be changed, because we're clearly using an arbitrary cutoff point between Dinosauria and Aves. That cutoff is based on phylogenetic taxonomy, not traditional taxonomy, and the result is that some things that would have been re-classified in the old days gets to stay in Dinosauria rather than Aves. If we knew in the 1960s what we know now, all of Maniraptora (at least) would have probably been made into one or more bird orders and removed from Dinosauria. But we live in 2007, so some dinosaurs are *also* birds. They can be both now. Which is better in a way, because it better illustrates how evolution works. Dinoguy2 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how serious we're being about this, but reptiles are considered a seperate group from birds by most, as I understand it, at least (speaking of the evolutionary theory; though evolutionists are divided as to the bird-reptile connection -- worth raising the question of which view is the majority). The article currently reports this view in the first paragraph, so I'd say that covers it pretty well, though it could use citation (and probably a little rewording with "known", especially since not even all evolutionists agree with the view; WP:NPOV). Thus, that view is relevant in terms of the origin of dinosaurs, but not classification of the article, since birds are not actually still reptiles according to that view. --Bonesiii 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, reptiles really aren't considered separate. In modern biology, at least since the "cladistic revolution" of the 70s, reptiles are simply treated as a grab-all collection of lineages that don't belong to anything more obviously distinct, i.e., mammals or birds, each of which quite clearly are a clade. So you end up with crocodiles, anatomically and behaviourally far more like birds than anything else, lumped with lizards simply because the both are scaly! I'm not sure any biologists defend the concept of "reptile" as it stands in the layman's perception except as a useful shorthand term. From a cladistic perspective, birds are a particular clade within the dinosaur clade, itself a clade within the archosaur clade. The archosaurs represent one major lineage from the early "reptiles" of the Permian/Triassic; mammals are another lineage, lizards, snakes, and tuataras a third, and chelonians a fourth. (I hope I got that right -- I'm an invert palaeontologist, not a vert palaeontologist!) Why we consider some archosaurs reptiles and others birds is purely subjective. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not much to add, except scales are not the only distinction; birds are warm-blooded (like mammals) while reptiles are cold-blooded. Not that we know that for extinct dinosaurs, of course. --Bonesiii 23:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't even know that fur sure in extinct birds. I've heard a few proposals that Archaeopteryx and even enantiornithes were cold blooded, or at least not as fully warm blooded as modern birds. And even some modern mammals (monotremes, sloths) are not "fully" warm-blooded, though it might be a reversal in sloths due to sedantary lifestyle. Dinoguy2 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to understand that the lack of something doesn't unite two taxa. In other words, while warm-bloodedness may be a characteristic that distinguishes birds from other archosaurs, cold-bloodedness doesn't unit archosaurs with, say, lizards. Cold-bloodedness is obviously the "default" position in animals, what biologists call the primitive state, and warm-bloodedness the derived state. It's derived states that are used to define groups, not primitive ones, since the primitive ones hold less (if any) information. Really, there's not much crocodiles have in common with modern reptiles that both modern reptiles and crocodiles have in common with the ancestral reptiles. And those ancestral reptiles have rise to mammals and birds (directly or indirectly) and hence such characteristics aren't unique or informative enough to define some clade Reptilia that would exclude mammals and birds. Seriously, trying to defend the Class Reptilia is a waste of time. Any clade that includes all the modern reptiles defined on objective, derived characters will also include the birds. Reptiles are the classic paraphyletic group. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

...which is only a problem under strict phylogenetic taxonomy. The decision to only use monophyletic groups and not recognize paraphyletic groups or grades is completely arbitrary. It may be useful in some situations to talk about "egg laying mammals", but for an arbitrary reason, under this system we are not allowed to formally name such a group. Dinoguy2 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-Avian dinosaurs

Would it be okay (or even accurate) to put a link at the top of the article that read to the effect:

This article discusses the Non-Avian Dinosaurs. For the Avian Dinosaurs, see Aves --Philo 03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be accurate, but it's not appropriate, in my opinion. When people look outside and see a bird, they do not say, "Oh, look! A dinosaur!" Those who are searching for Bird will know what to type to get the correct page, and I cannot imagine anyone searching for "avian dinosaur" as a way of trying to reach Wikipedia's bird article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if they come across the term "avian dinosaur" in another article or some other source of information like (gasp!) a book, then perhaps at least having a Wiki article Avian dinosaur that disambiguates (word?) to this article and Aves makes sense, no? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New dinosaur novel

I noticed that the dinosaur page mentions Jurassic Park, an exciting popular adventure that is, frankly, not very informative about dinosaurs. I just read a new novel, Hell Creek, that is recommended by a lot of paleontologists and is fantastic for dinosaur enthusiasts becuase it emmerses the reader in a detailed scientifically accurate world of the late Cretaceous. This novel is a blast. I think the kind of people that would visit wikipedia to read about dinosaurs would appreciate a pointer to a great book like Hell Creek. The simplist edit would be " books and films such as Jurassic Park and Hell Creek..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysonnsa (talk • contribs) 08:13, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

First, please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes. Jurassic Park is mentioned because the movies and novels were so popular. That's all. I am going to check out this book. Orangemarlin 16:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But then we'd have to include every dinosaur book ever written, and then it would turn into a list, and Transformers would get involved somehow... you see the problem here ;) Dinoguy2 02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, Jurassic Park is the single most popular dinosaur book by far and away, with the books being very popular and the movies even more popular. Hell Creek is far more obscure. Titanium Dragon 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point, however from the point of view of actual information about dinosaurs Hell Creek might be the best current science outreach to the public, being both a good read and full of science. I just thought that if someone went on to wikipedia to look up dinosaurs this would be a perfect book to point them toward. I found a web page if you want to read about it ( www.HellCreek.com ). Well anyway, I thought it was cool.--Tysonnsa 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Make that www.hellcreek.org (great links to dinosaur research on one of the site's pages, too). Peisal 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... It doesn't even look like this book is mentioned on the page in the references. Is it there somewhere that I'm not seeing? Nideic 19:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hell Creek is getting a lot of press from educators -- more than Jurassic Park did, I believe -- and is written by scientists who did their homework, so even though it probably won't compete with JP for global entertainment dollars, it's at least as deserving of a plug as a mass-marketed movie. Isn't one of the goals of Wikipedia to help people accumulate knowledge? Eclindholm 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not a goal to plug books or other items. •Jim62sch• 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My teacher says...

My teacher says that one of few ways how dinosaurs and other repiles evolved quickly is because of a high burst of radiation. He says that would explain how so many new types could appear in a million years or so. Does anyone else think the same? -- My name explains why

I don't think an explanation like that is needed, because the new types that appeared a few million years apart were not that different from each other. Take a look at Maiasaurua and Edmontosaurus or Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus--they are given different names, but they're only as different as, say, a fox is from a wolf, at most. I don't know of any evidence that says dinosaurs evolved more quickly than anything else. As a group, they were just around for a vey long time, hundreds of millions of years. Dinoguy2 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this radiation theory. Are you sure he didn't say dinosaurs evolved and radiated to all parts of the world? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really relevant to the topic, unless a reliable source can be found that presents this theory. Also, I tend to doubt there's such a theory, at least that is still accepted, because radiation in reality tends to damage much more than vice versa, unlike the cliched TV show interpretations. My guess is this is more of an urban legend than anything. The best place to start would be to simply ask your teacher where he got this idea from, and if he can provide sources. --Bonesiii 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, as a wiser man than I noted, "If we learned one thing from The Amazing Colossal Man and Grasshopperus, it's that radiation makes stuff grow real big, real fast." Didn't say anything about speeding up evolution. J. Spencer 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have got to stop quoting The Simpsons when I'm in the middle of taking a drink. My keyboard and monitor thank you. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He may be refering to a solar event etc. Theories like that aren't worth including, but aren't unheard of. Can't see a solid source on it though. Spawn Man 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what are our science teachers teaching these days? Between the Discovery Institute trying to teach the controversy, political correctness, etc. etc. what kind of science education is out there? A high burst of radiation doesn't cause evolution. Grrrrr. Orangemarlin 23:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Besides, as a wiser man than I noted, "If we learned one thing from The Amazing Colossal Man and Grasshopperus, it's that radiation makes stuff grow real big, real fast."" No, it doesn't, it gives them the ability to pass on their properties to mild-mannered science students (who have amazingly hot girlfriends...). Trekphiler 11:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Does your teacher explain why dinos didn't get any smarter? (Personally, I could care less why they got wiped out; I want to know why they never became us... {Hmm, maybe it wasn't an asteroid, maybe it was dinonuclear winter...}) Lorenzo 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious View?

The section on religious views of dinosaurs is wildly out of place and should be removed. The only link in the section goes to an article about creationism; it makes no attempt to actually address religous views...just the views of creationists. In reality, there is NO "religious view" of dinosaurs because there are hundreds (or thousands) of religions and most of them don't share a single view about anything. Furthermore, the section is quite simply irrelevent. Would we include a section about religious views on cars in an article about General Motors? Of course not! The article contain facts, not irrelevent opinions. Can we please keep religion out of science articles? Doc Tropics 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously: I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV, as it makes clear that minority views do need to be presented, and bias against religious views is specifically listed as to be avoided. That is how Wikipedia policy defines what is "encyclopedic". It may also help to read WP:TIGER. Bias against any particular view is against Wikipedia policy. Also, your arguments really don't make much sense; if the article contains creationist views, how do no such views exist? If you simply read the article in question, you will see that they do, in fact, exist. They are simply the minority. And they are presented as such. What is the problem?

And yes, if there were significant religious views on General Motors, they would need to be included in order to follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Your statement reveals your bias against these views; it is fine for you to have that bias, but not fine for the article to have that bias, according to Wikipedia policy. --Bonesiii 22:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I do agree with you Doc (!), for the sake of both completeness & our sanity, I also feel we should keep the section. It's a small price to pay to solve the problem of religious fanatics vandalising the article & it does lead to a legit article, regardless of its theories. That way, nuts can go edit that article about their views (Which does include most religions) instead of editing here. A valid point, but in the end Doc, it's just not worth it. It subtracts nothing from the article, but adds a bit in other regards. Cheers, Spawn Man 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Side note, but Spawn Man, you may want to check out this page: WP:CIVIL; insulting those who disagree with your view is against WP policy. Name-calling such as "religious fanatic" and "nut" do not help. I agree with the idea of what you're saying, but don't forget that WP:NPOV requires that balance anyways; it's not merely a good compromise but required policy. That's what that policy is designed to solve, and it does so quite well. And you're correct that it does include other religious views--many of which, BTW, that are unrelated to creationist scientific theories. Either way, creationist theories are based on religion, thus can accurately be called religious views. --Bonesiii 22:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man, I've done a lot of edits of "that article" and I'm hardly a nut. In fact, I'm a solid supporter of Evolution and removing Creationist POV from science articles. That other article is pretty well written and referenced, because it is what it is--a description of what Creationists think of Dinosaurs. A neutral POV lead to a balanced article. If the Creationist acted in your manner, then we'd have badly written POV Evolution articles. Take Bonesiii's advice and be civil. Orangemarlin 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see your point Spawn Man. I still don't think it belongs, and I'm hoping there will be some support for that position from other editors, but your point is well taken indeed. I've spent a huge number of hours protecting this and other articles from religious vandalism, so I can become a bit short-sighted (even short-tempered) at times. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, I've seen your name in a number of the articles I visit, and I've got a lot of respect for your work : ) Doc Tropics 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, you add a religious section to this page, and I'll personally add a wicked scientific criticism section to every single religious article on Wikipedia. No lie. Fair's fair.Sheep81 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a real problem with a brief, summary-style section on religious perspectives on dinosaurs in this article, with a link to the full article. Having this short section (provided it is kept short) allows us to fulfill our NPOV requirements without causing disruption to any of the 1,000 genus or family-level articles, and gives Christians a focus/target for their edits: the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article, which none of us touch. That said, what happened to the rest of the paragraph? It's now too short to be its own section. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure--it was that short before I suggested the NPOV fix above. Is there a policy on length of such sections? I did not raise any objections to the brevity based on undue weight rules, and it looks OK to me, but not sure what any policies might say about it. Will try to look into this if noone else gets it first... --Bonesiii 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We all throw about NPOV all the time, the fact of the matter is that we need to be aware of undue weight section. The fact is that it is a minority viewpoint that dinosaurs showed up 10,000 years ago, and anything more than the current section is giving too much weight. As for the Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs, it doesn't hurt to edit it. I constantly am keeping it neutral, and finally "won" the battle that the lead should clearly describe what the preponderance of information and science states about dinosaurs. Now the article is essentially neutral. Orangemarlin 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You should clarify: minority scientific viewpoint (all that matters anyway). I'm not sure if it is a minority viewpoint out of the 6.5 billion out there. Sheep81 10:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I wasn't being rude. Spawn Man 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Spawn was just being Spawn. : ) Sheep81 10:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this argument is being held at all. Should we add make-believe stuff to other articles as well? How about adding to the article on Sleep that while science believe it is a physiological process, some people think the Sandman comes at night. Or how about the article on Biological reproduction adding something about how science believes its about genes being brought together in new combinations, some people believe babies are actually brought down chimneys by storks. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If something like 40% of Americans believed it, yes.—John.Conway 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But science isn't a democracy. Not everyone gets to vote. The only people who matter are the scientists who study these things and get their work published in the scientific literature where other scientists can critique it. The fact that 40% of Americans are so ill-informed and unable to grasp basic scientific principles like evolution and biostratigraphy shouldn't colour a non-fiction body of work like Wikipedia. I respect that others have religious beliefs and don't go editing the pages on religious events and characters by making sections about how the stories are all made up and such-and-such a miracle is scientifically impossible. I'd expect the relgious Wikipedia editors to extend the same courtesy to scientific articles. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Serious, we don't need any claims about the divinity of Jesus in articles about Judaism just because a majority of Americans believe it to be the case. Debivort 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, I know the old mantras about science not being a democracy--that's not what this is about. It is made abundantly clear that the creationist view isn't scientific in the article. Most significant science articles have small sections devoted to the social context of that science, and rightly so; science does not exist in a vacuum, and people may be reading the article a variety of reasons. The creationist stance on dinosaurs is a noteworthy social context (as I said, something like 40% of American believe it).

Also, there are several articles on religious subjects that contain scientific criticism: shroud of Turin and other artefacts, Virgin Birth, etcetera. Science doesn't "own" dinosaurs, and religion doesn't own claims of the miraculous. —John.Conway 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The following is from Level of support for evolution:

Percentage of Americans who believe in the following

Belief in psychic/spiritual healing: 56 (54)
Belief in ESP: 28 (50)
Haunted houses: 40 (42)
Demonic possession: 40 (41)
Ghosts/spirits of the dead: 39 (38)
Telepathy: 24 (36)
Extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past: 17 (33)
Clairvoyance and prophecy: 24 (32)
Communication with the dead: 16 (28)
Astrology: 17 (28)
Witches: 26 (26)
Reincarnation: 14 (25)

Channeling: 10 (15)

In other words, Americans believe in a lot of pseudo or junk science. And moreover, since this article must take a world view, 40% of Americans is an insignificant minority of the world. Most residents of other countries understand and accept Evolution, along with the fact that Dinosaurs are 10's of millions of years old. Just because a minority of Americans believe in demonic possession and don't believe in Evolution means the USA will have a minority of uneducated individuals who will probably never provide leadership in medicine, biological research, infectious disease, etc. etc. Orangemarlin 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Americans are not the only creationists -- I don't know what the worldwide statistics would be, but I'm guessing with Islamic creationists, it is significant number. The issue is high-profile and public. I think it's a noteworthy social context of dinosaurs. At least as notable as anything in the pop-culture section, which also isn't scientific! —John.Conway 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Curiously though, evolution is an issue primarily in the American Protestant tradition. The Catholic Church hasn't a problem with evolution and doesn't subscribe to the literal description of Genesis, i.e., the whole six-days thing. Essentially it teaches that while God put the soul into Man, evolution was the mechanism that God set in play to produce (eventually) the physical body of Man. I have no problem with that. Even as a scientist, there's clearly a difference between Man and Ape, and if you want to call that "a soul" then fine. The Church of England teaches something similar. As I understand it, the Islamic tradition is not that clearly defined and not terribly significant in modern Islam. Muslims are more concerned with practical things (politics, law, culture); esoteric things like dinosaurs really don't enter into the discussion. Certainly within liberal Islam, evolution is taken as read, provided the "specialness" of Man's soul is respected. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it always makes me smile when someone compares American fundamentalists to Islamic fundamentalists. There's no difference in my opinion, except we have a constitution that keeps the American ones mostly in check. It isn't noteworthy, because it's not science, it's faith, that is believing in a supernatural being or possibly green aliens from who knows where. And the reason the Shroud of Turin is criticized is because once someone claims it's real, then the world of science gets to study it. You can't use science to show that a supernatural being put dinosaurs on earth, so why discuss it? Orangemarlin 15:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"It isn't noteworthy, because it's not science(...)" -- There goes most of the Wikipedia then, let's start the purge! Seriously, the Wikipedia isn't only about science, it's also about documenting people's beliefs and a huge range of other subjects. The non-scientific beliefs of creationists are noteworthy because they are high-profile, have cultural and political significance, and are held by a large number of people. — John.Conway 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You took my quote out of context. It's not noteworthy as a part of this article, because this article is about science not about faith-based beliefs in something that is scientifically untestable. Dinosaurs may have died in the biblical flood, they may be the Loch Ness Monster, or they may have been around since humans were, but those are all myths, and they aren't science. I love reading about the Loch Ness Monster, but I know it doesn't exist. I love reading about Dinosaurs, but I know the wealth of sciences of Evolution, Biology, Paleontology, Geology, etc. confirm their existence up until about 75 million years ago. I will read and edit articles about people's beliefs, including a whole article about what religions believe about Dinosaurs. That's fun. Orangemarlin 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everyone for their replies to my suggestion. I've given a lot of thought to the particualr points made by Spawn Man and Firsfron of Ronchester. While the inclusion of this section in the article still rankles, I can see now that it might well be the lesser of two evils. In the interest of protecting other articles I would be willing to reverse my stance, and let the section stand as-is. Thanks again to everyone for taking the time and trouble to address this issue. Doc Tropics 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that issue is resolved, then, and I'd like to thank you again for remaining civil and thinking it through. :) Just a few loose ends to tie up--much of the above comments went way off-topic, and started to debate between the actual two views (in favor of evolution as fact and creationism as pseudoscience; myths, etc). That's a great topic to debate, if both sides are willing to be open-minded about it, but doesn't belong here (I'd just point out that creationists believe the same thing in reverse so that argument would go in circles--i.e. that evolution is pseudoscience). If any of you are curious about that and willing to approach it as "truth seeking debate", feel free to bring it up on my talk page. :) Here, we need to focus simply on meeting the neutral point of view requirements, which the current version largely does. Glad we seem to agree on that.

Lastly, a few people brought up the scientific relevance point again. The subject of this article is "Dinosaurs", not "Scientific Views of Dinosaurs." The article currently includes historical, cultural, and entertainment views of dinosaurs, as well as religious views. As it should, because those are quite simply aspects of the subject "Dinosaur." Let's not get so mired in debate we lose sight of what this page is, heh. Even if it was a scientific-only article, it would need to include a small section about dissenting scientific views such as Creationism, and we would need a new page to focus on Dinosaurs in general, so that's not relevant here. Obviously that's important in terms of undue weight, but not in terms of the existence of the section, as the NPOV policy makes clear. :) --Bonesiii 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. First, I don't think I've placed a single edit in this article, unless it was to revert some vandalism. I only participated in the discussion because articles such as this should not be burdened with undue weight given to subtopics. Cultural views, such as describing movies, do not lend weight nonscientific outlooks to the evolution and extinction of Dinosaurs. A religious view, if given undue weight, would make it appear that there are significant number of people who dispute the evolution of dinosaurs. However, a small section that represents in a neutral manner, how certain religions view dinosaurs evolution and extinction would be all right. But here's where the problem occurs. Which religion? The largest Christian religion, Roman Catholics, have no problem with evolution in general and with dinosaurs in particular. We Jews, lacking a centralized dogma, probably have no view whatsoever (save for a few really strict Orthodox sects). Hindus, Shintos, Buddhists probably have no view whatsoever. We tried to discuss all those viewpoints in the original article, Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, and it had to be reworked to a Creationist version. Well, Creationists are a small portion of both Christians and other religions. By writing this section, how can it be done in a NPOV manner, unless it is very specifically written as the perspective of fundamental Christians in the USA, or by spending tons of bandwidth to give equal weight to every religion. It doesn't belong here, except in broad strokes, and it then references other articles on Evolution and Creationism. By the way, as it is written now, it's perfectly fine. Orangemarlin 20:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I wasn't getting you wrong. :) Just felt that needed to be clarified, since others besides you brought it up. Not totally sure I followed all you said in this post though [Edit: You clarified. Thanks. :)] We are essentially agreeing that the current very short section in this article on religious views fits undue weight well, correct? And that the linked article needs to present summaries of a wide range of religious views, right? (As it seems to do, mostly, but that's a subject for a different talk page, heh.) --Bonesiii 20:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wording of "scientific scrutiny" issue, continued

No, it's not resolved (nor is it fine, really, sorry OM), the section reads as a nonsensical fabel now. "Mainstream science" -- as opposed to what? YEC science that isn't science? Creation science which is not science either? Opposed to some guy with a degree in cosmology who calls himself a scientist, doesn't know how to spell biology but pretends to be an expert on the subject? Enough with the pandering to religious beliefs: I don't care (and neither does Wikipedia, really) whether you think a god created the dinosaurs, whether the dinosaurs created the gods, whether the dinosaurs were gods or any variation thereof. This article is about scientific fact (note the little taxonomic box), not about the mythoi of various religions. Enough already. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jim62sch. I suggest you read the previous discussions on the current wording above, and please read the WP:NPOV policy. The current version is designed to fit NPOV, which is why the term "mainstream" was used (a term that said scientists generally use to describe themselves). As opposed to YEC, yes, as well as OEC, and many specifically religious views. This is all made clear in the current section, and in the article it links to. :)

Also, as to your insulting approach later in your reply, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. :) And please keep in mind WP:TIGER as well. You obviously agree with the evolution view of this issue; but as editors, we must be careful not to write pages from that bias. Also, as I said above, the article is about "Dinosaurs." --Bonesiii 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim was civil. You guys need to read some of the Creation vs. Evolution discussion if you want uncivil. Orangemarlin 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Jim, I reread it, and I agree that it was weasel worded. Mainstream scientists? OK, so 99.6% of scientists disagree with Creationism, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that mainstream=every freaking scientist in the world!!! Orangemarlin 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OM, did you read the previous discussion on this? That point was addressed... --Bonesiii 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with saying "every freaking scientist in the world" is that there are these self-styled "scientists" who hold many advanced degrees from diploma mills/made up institutions who dispute evolutionary theory. These folks are NOT scientists, but it is difficult to make a NPOV claim that they are not scientists. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

They are scientists, plain and simple. Let's not mince words here, guys. They simply are not evolutionists. If you define "science" as evolutionism, then sure, they aren't scientists, but that's circular reasoning. --Bonesiii 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fake diplomas don't count, Bonsiii. But this conversation is getting off-topic... Firsfron of Ronchester 21:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not addressed, not sufficiently.

I suggest, while we're on the suggestion kick, that you read undue weight. I think you'll find that unless you can prove a minority of say even 1% of real biologists/zoologists/paleontologists (the only scientists who matter to this discussion) who actually believe a hypothesis based on mythology, the verbiage you want is a fringe view that need not be represented at all. Otherwise, it's just utter nonsense; and no, I don't give a tinker's cuss whether or not the benighted American public believes otherwise. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not about whether you personally give a tinker's cuss or not. It's about conforming to the NPOV policy. Yes, including undue weight. Please read the previous discussions; undue weight was already discussed. --Bonesiii 21:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Bonesii, yes, I understand what was above. But every time I read something like "mainstream" I recall that I'm not mainstream on lots of issues. For example, I might have been the only US Navy officer that was a Deadhead. So mainstream implies to me that there is an alternative view that just hasn't been accepted. At one time, the KT extinction by a big freaking asteroid (sorry couldn't resist) was not very mainstream. The alternative view in the case of dinosaurs is Creationism, and mainstream in this case means just about everyone. And Firsfron...don't get me started. LOL. Isn't Hovind in jail? Orangemarlin 21:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I did not expect there to objections to "mainstream", since it is a word used by evolutionists and the media often to describe themselves. If that word does come across as objectionable, I am fine with that. Just reverting back to the worse version as per NPOV doesn't really solve the issue, though, does it? I've asked for better suggestions than "mainstream" but nobody so far has suggested any. --Bonesiii 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WTF is an "evolutionist." Is that a word? Orangemarlin 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason you don't know the word evolutionist is because no self-respecting evolutionist would call himself an evolutionist. We just call ourselves "biologists". Sheep81 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionist. --Bonesiii 21:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More like, what friggin' "evolutionist" calls himself a "mainstream evolutionist"? "Hi, I'm a non-mainstream evolutionist who believes we evolved from space critters". "You're a Raelian". "Oh, OK." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody used the phrase "mainstream evolutionist", Jim. It was "mainstream scientific community", a phrase often used by those within that community to describe itself, and used by the media often to describe it. --Bonesiii 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No actual scientist would use "mainstream scientific community" when referring to himself and his colleagues, except to contrast it with the pseudosciences on the fringe. And even then, to the scientist, it would just be a PC way to say "the real scientific community." Among scientists, it would just be "scientific community" because it would be understood that the pseudoscientists aren't doing actual science and so wouldn't be included. Just like a NASA historian wouldn't need to describe himself as a "mainstream space historian" except to contrast himself with moon-landing-hoax conspiracy theorists. On his resume he just writes "space historian" (or whatever the actual term would be, if there is one).

And who cares what the media uses to refer to things. If we relied on the media to name things, woolly mammoths and Dimetrodon would be dinosaurs and whales would be fish. Sheep81 03:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And for the fact that "evolutionist" is considered a pejorative term, because it really is defined as a "belief" in evolution as much as there is a belief in G_d. I don't believe in Evolution, and I don't accept Evolution because of faith, opinion, conviction--I accept Evolution as a fact, because it has been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, because of the substantial proof, and because a lot of people smarter than I have studied and accepted it. Evolution is not a doctrine, it is not a dogma, and it does not require faith to accept. Therefore, I am a scientist by trade, by education and by lifestyle. Evolutionist means nothing to me, and is not a word that any scientist would use to describe their understanding of that particular field of science. Orangemarlin 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very good point. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're getting quite a bit off-topic here, OM. If you want to bring up evolution as fact/theory, I'm happy to debate that, but it's off-topic here (if you bring it up on my talk page, I'll be happy to explain where I disagree, and why my disagreement comes from what I consider proof as well--I'm open minded enough to consider that I may be wrong and if so I want to know about it!). The issue at hand is that the statement that the views "do not withstand scientific scrutiny" is a POV statement that dismisses the existence of the scientific theories that have been inspired by the religious views. Specifically, Young Earth Creationist theories about dinosaurs. In the view of these YECs, their views do withstand scientific scrutiny. Therefore, the old version of the statement has a POV problem. That was what the newer version was intended to fix. Do you have a better suggestion as to how to solve this issue? --Bonesiii 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, here's a suggestion. Since the objectionable word was "mainstream", I think NPOV can still be served if we simply remove that word: "However, the scientific community does not accept these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs." To refer to the "scientific community" still refers to the mainstream scientists, and since we all agree they are almost all, if not all, evolutionists (meaning they accept evolution, whether as fact or as theory--we do agree on that even if we don't all like the label, correct?), that still makes it clear who holds the opinion, rather than stating it as a fact. I'd say that's acceptable within NPOV. Thoughts? --Bonesiii 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with that sentence. Sheep81 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It works for me, too (but I didn't have a problem with "mainstream scientists", either, as it was clear there was a comparison between the mainstream and the Fundamentalists). I also didn't see (and still don't see) a problem with the original wording, but this strikes me as a decent compromise, and there should be room for compromise on a collaborative effort such as this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... it's a compromise that marvelously doesn't concede anything. The spirit of the sentence is there, the link to scientific method is there, and the only change is that the sentence makes clear that the statement is from the POV of scientific community, which... duh. Sheep81 06:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence as it currently stands is fine (as of 6:57 AM EDT). Compromise for the sake of assuaging someone's feelings regarding their religious beliefs is essentially equivalent to compromising the integrity of the article. The simple fact of the matter is that the claims made by creationists petending to be scientists fall apart when looked at. Religious beliefs are all well and good, but a true scientist does not allow his religious beliefs to interfere with his science: they are mutually exclusive in that the former has no basis in logic, reason, empirical data, etc., (no matter how much Aquinas and pthers have tried) and cannot be falsified, and the latter is based on all of those and can be falsified.

Mainstream is an adjective that adds nothing, but in a sneaky way attempts to bring a patina of credibility to pseudoscientists. Whether it is used by the media or not is essentially irrelevant -- once the media get a hold of a buzz-word, euphemism, "politically-correct" idiom, etc., they use it forever as it becomes an automatic phatic noise bereft of true meaning, but full of obfuscation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the above replies. Jim--you seem to approach this every time as if it's a "feelings" debate. It's not; it's about trying to get the section to fit NPOV. I am a logician, not an emotionalist. The objection I have raised with the original wording is based on the NPOV policy. If that policy did not exist, I would not raise objections, and in neither case are my "feelings" being hurt. It sounds as if, no offense, "integrity of the article", to you, isn't based on Wikipedia policies?

I can understand what you're saying about the word "mainstream", though (especially the media point). That word is removed in the version I'm asking about, though. What did you think of the new version?

About "religious belief", that's a fascinating belief, and I can easily point out where you're missing the boat, but it's off topic here. If you're interested in that subject, I'm planning to actually post my reasoning on my user page, so I can help avoid this sort of off-topic discussion in the future. We shouldn't be debating which of the two views is best here; we should be debating how best to make the article fit the NPOV policy.

BTW, I'll hold off a while before putting in the new version, in case others want to weigh in. --Bonesiii 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the objection you raise as being a logical one. In fact, you've done a very good job of parroting the creationist and theist stance that is seen on Wikipedia all too often. The sentence as it is in the article at this moment is quite NPOV: it states a very simple fact very clearly, although I can't for the life of me see why this topic needs to be discussed in this article.

I would suggest you move this "new version" of which you speak to this part of the talk page so it is available for all to see.

Not missing any boat dude, although I do so look forward to reading your reasoning on your user page. BTW, the item was not off-topic, it speaks to the need to even have that section in the article (and I'm not the first person to raise this issue). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're reffering to with "for all to see"? Have you been following this conversation?

Also, it may be worth pointing out that I am a logician; and while I'm certainly fallible as well, I am confident that the logic behind my objection is sound. Think about it--if the majority view thinks creationism (or other religious views) do not withstand scientific scrutiny, but creationists think their views do withstand it, then a Wikipedia article needs to make sure it allows for the possibility of the minority view. Undue weight, to me, means that view doesn't need to be a part of this statement; it's a two-sentence section, let's face it. However, while the majority view needs to be present, it must be attributed to those who hold it, rather than stated as a universal fact. That's what my rewording is designed to do. Do you disagree?

Here's the newest proposed version again, in case that's what you meant about "for all to see". I'll just quote the whole comment, in case you missed it:

Actually, here's a suggestion. Since the objectionable word was "mainstream", I think NPOV can still be served if we simply remove that word: "However, the scientific community does not accept these religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs." To refer to the "scientific community" still refers to the mainstream scientists, and since we all agree they are almost all, if not all, evolutionists (meaning they accept evolution, whether as fact or as theory--we do agree on that even if we don't all like the label, correct?), that still makes it clear who holds the opinion, rather than stating it as a fact. I'd say that's acceptable within NPOV. Thoughts?

Remember I'm asking about this in terms of fitting WP:NPOV. What is your take on this?

(Oh, and a preliminary draft of that essay has been added to my user page, though please note the vast majority of citing is not in it yet, nor is it anywhere near complete. Note again that this is off-topic; please discuss on my talk page, not here.) --Bonesiii 23:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, NPOV is not a legal right to put bogus science in articles, to add weight to a minority opinion (and when we say minority, we mean less than 0.5%), to quote bogus polling like science should be run like politics, and to make anyone think that there is one tiny nanogram of proof that dinosaurs died out at the K-T Extinction event 65.5 million years ago (save for one forlorn hadrosaur femur that probably eroded into a higher sedimentary layer). I'm glad we dumped mainstream since it does imply something other than total, absolute scientific consensus on the dates of dinosaur existence. Orangemarlin 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh one more thing. I completely and utterly dismiss the use of "evolutionist" as a word to describe any scientist, myself included. See above. Orangemarlin 01:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah one more one more thing. Bonesiii, even though I completely disagree with your viewpoint, I appreciate your civility and logical discussion about this contentious subject. But, I still think you have it wrong.  :) Orangemarlin 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looks like that's three in favor of the new version and none opposing. Was hoping Jim would reply either way, but there doesn't seem to be a sign of him for now... If there are no last-minute objections, I'll add that in shortly.

Off-topic: Thanks, OM. And I can say the same to you and Firsfron and several others; thanks for being civil and logical about this (even though I still think you have it wrong). Back on topic, to clarify the context NPOV and undue weight was being brought up in: Since this article is not only a science article, the percentage of American public is relevant (and other countries; UK and Australia would be noteworthy, also noting that this is the English version of Wikipedia and those are English speaking countries), as a cultural/religious side of Creationist views of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs' newfound popularity among these groups is why, as I'm understanding it, this discussion is happening on this page and not many others. NPOV's section barring bias against religious views is where this comes into play, although we do agree that in this actual article undue weight means a mere two sentences is about as much detail as is deserved here. :) (You may have known all that already, just reviewing for the record.)

Finally, another off-topic note, I'd be interested in any takes you have on my Origins Essay. The last entry so far under "Problems with Evolution" addressed the "evolutionist" issue, incidentally. In general, you seem quite convinced by the theory (enough to call it fact), and since as a logician I'm bound to admit my mistakes and wanting to find the truth above all, I have to consider that I may indeed be wrong. If so, I wanna know why. :) In general though, on these worldview issues, it's best to just agree to disagree, so don't take it as a challenge or anything; it's totally up to you. (Same request to any other evolutionist/supporter of evolution, BTW.) Anyways... now I'm starting to ramble, lol. Wiedersehen... --Bonesiii 02:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at your essay. But back to undue weight. I'm guessing maybe 2 billion people can read the English version of this article with a technical skill. That does not include the 100 million Americans whose education is so lacking (or they are less than 5 years old) that they cannot point to Europe on a map. Most English-speaking peoples are not Christian, are not Creationists, and probably know that Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Only in the US is there anything close to a group of people so enamored of a supernatural being creating anything. 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I read it...I missed the logic though, unless it was, to paraphase, "God exists, science is wrong". Anyway, this is not the place for rebuttal. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't; I've replied to this comment on my talk page. :) --Bonesiii 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Kids and their parents are the big audience - why not simplify???

There is NO need to talk about endothermic - use English instead. The same should be done throughout the article. Believe me, the researchers are not the audience - the kids are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.31.22607:27, May 17, 2007 (talk)

Why not? It's not the responsibility of the editors to write to the lowest possible denominator. And the last time I checked, endothermic is a perfectly fine English word. Orangemarlin 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if it was written for researchers, you'd use those better terms, such as homeothermy and poikilothermy, that describe specific concepts rather more accurately. As a former high school biology teacher, I would also add that within GCSE and A-level biology in the UK, the terms "cold blooded" and "warm blooded" are deprecated, and the children are expected to use (at the least) endothermic and ectothermic instead. At least, if they want to get full marks in an exam. Dumbing down doesn't help, and teaches children bad habits as well as encouraging a certain laziness of thinking. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And we don't "dumb down" articles anyway. There's a Simple English Wikipedia which uses very simple words. We don't do that on this edition. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The standard for writing articles on this version of WP is that they should be understandable to a high school senior. While schools vary significantly in quality, it doesn't seem like a big stretch to think that most seniors would have an adequate vocabulry to make it through this article. As for the younger ones with a strong interest in the subject, I suspect that they will either understand it as written, or they will eagerly look words up in a dictionary until they do; those kids tend to have the kind of thirsty minds that just soak up new knowledge (a trait I grow more and more envious of as my aging brain slows down). Doc Tropics 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Doc, this just continues our conversation we had about the editor who couldn't even insult me properly. LOL. Orangemarlin 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh, indeed. We can only hope that most of the readers are brighter than certain of the editors : ) Doc Tropics 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

About once a month, a perfectly reasonable editor will drop by the Evolution article and ask to dumb it down. The answers were a lot less nice and assume a lot less good faith than the answers above.  :) Orangemarlin 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

God forbid we teach a kid (or his parents) a new word!!! Sheep81 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has occured numerous times in the Wikiproject Dinosaurs talk page, (Sheepy, you should know. :)) & we've generally decided that text elvel should be at least at a highschool level. Words which are harder to understand must either be linked, have an explaining sentence (EG, Feline, the proper name for a cat) or be replaced with an easier to explain sentence or word. Most of the time, the word is replaced by a simpler meaning, but when this can't be done as there is no substitute, then a link is given & possibly a (bracketed) aside. This allows investigation if you really really want to know what endothermic means without compromising the integrity of the artcile. Spawn Man 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we replace the whole article with one paragraph:

Wow, those dinosaurs sure were big! And they lived a long time ago! Some of them ate plants, and others ate meat, but not before apologizing. Some of the coolest dinosaurs were T-Rex and Triceratops. They were really good at sharing and never had fights. But if they did, T-Rex would totally win. Maybe dinosaurs were warm-blooded, or maybe they were cold-blooded. We don't know for sure! What color were dinosaurs? We don't know that either! Use your imagination, kids!

Sheep81 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's already been written here, Sheep. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you fancy seeing the opposite end of things, stop by Static electricity. I'm a smart guy, but I have no idea what that article is about. For any kid or non-scientist curious why balloons stick to ceilings or what the connection (if any) between static and lightning is, this article is basically useless. The actual subsection entitled 'Static' electricity is almost funny. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Language that which was to be from translated mess that? That part of the article resembles English, but it sure as hell misses the mark! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's pretty bad; it's certainly overly technical. But my favorite part is the random sentence inserted about the bees. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you pointed us to the Pig Latin version of Wikipedia. Orangemarlin 02:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ikipedia-Way. Sheep81 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"arge-chay eutralization-nay". If I didn't already have some notion what it was talking about, I sure wouldn't after reading it. Cheez. But, rather than "dumb down", can I suggest as a standard (if not actual policy) define or explain the technical terms early on, then use the technical terms for accuracy (& brevity!) afterward. rekphiler-tay 11:16 & 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the way normal publications do? What a novel idea! :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinos for Hire?

OK, so they weren't as big as X-Men; why'd the ref to the title get pulled? Trekphiler 11:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (If anybody cares {doesn't seem likely...}, Lorenzo wore a Bernard Goetz Fan Club tee...)

probably the same same reason the human article doesn't list every fictional series about humans. --Philip Laurence 11:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You obviously haven't seen the trivia sections in some articles... Trekphiler 11:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm just going by Wikipedia:Handling trivia.. --Philip Laurence 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Others obviously aren't. And I wasn't really serious, anyhow. You'll note I didn't restore a reference (despite being a fan) for fear of triggering (now there's an appropriate word...) an edit war by Creationists for Gun Control... Trekphiler 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate Dinosaurs in popular culture link that you are more than welcome to post that on if it's not already there. We have been trying to just keep a few major titles on the main dino article. Sheep81 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The trivia sections in most articles are an abomination, a blight upon the Internet, and probably make people think (rightly so?) that most of Wikipedia is run by trivia-obsessed fans of obscure TV series. I'd erase every trivia/pop culture section if I could and replace it with only "culture" sections that list really, really well-known or culturally relevent (or, like encyclopaedic) entries. But that's just me ;) Dinoguy2 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of funny that out of thousands of articles, the Tyrannosaurus in popular culture article is the 18th longest dinosaur related article in the Project! Sheep81 03:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia/Pop culture

OK folks, you're all too good to be reverting each other, let's slug it out here like good wikipedians. I'll stand by with a first-aid kit : ) Doc Tropics 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have skin like Godzilla and don't need your silly human first aid kit, Doc.  ;)

Seriously, the whole section is trivia. It is useless and adds nothing to anyone's understanding of dinosaurs. It should really be a see also. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Did I see the puppy placing the tag? I'm staying out of this discussion, no good will come of it. I'll just get bitten. IMHO, trivia has it's place, but maybe there should be a POV fork to Dinosaurs and popular culture or something of the such. Because if I'm going to list out every dinosaur thing, I want the Loch Ness Monster included.  :) Orangemarlin 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it trivia to say that trivia does exist, and that we keep it somewhere else? That's about all that section says to me. J. Spencer 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why the King Kong reference was removed, and I've replaced it; although Kong was a primate, the movie features several dinosaurs and other prehistoric reptiles in iconic battles with the great ape: Image:Kong vs T-Rex.jpg, and many of the sequels also pitted him against dinosaurs. The person who removed the sentence as "inaccurate" hasn't seen or is misremembering the movie, which is quite frustrating, as it would be for someone to remove Jurassic Park as "inaccurate because it didn't have dinosaurs" either. As far as the trivia tag goes, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles states "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic." That clearly isn't the case here, and the article mentions specific non-trivial instances of when dinosaurs have appeared in popular culture, with a relevant introduction: in other words, it's already been incorporated into the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, Rochesterman, I had already reverted myself on Kong. Check the history. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Firs, I think the point is that given the nature of the article, what is essentially a minor list of dinosaur movies/references does not add much to the article. I remember reading it for the first time, and the section came out of nowhere. There's an article I've been editing Noah's Ark (don't even ask how many times someone tries to put dinosaurs on that ark), where we've consigned all the movie references to not be in the article. We even watch over the links to keep out garbage. I think we should move it somewhere else. Orangemarlin 21:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Where might we move a section on iconic uses of dinosaurs, OM? Certainly we have a seperate article for less iconic movies, but Dinosaur is supposed to be a Featured Article, representative of the most comprehensive articles on Wikipedia: if we neglect to mention, say, Jurassic Park, and the influence that series has had on public perception of dinosaurs, then the article really isn't comprehensive, and isn't a Featured Article. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So how about we remove just the second paragraph? It's fair to state, properly referenced, that dinosaurs appear in a lot of media. J. Spencer 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Firs, valid point, I admit. Although Jurassic Park may be iconic for Dinosaurs, it had enough mistakes that it really doesn't represent Dinosaurs accurately. And I don't even want to discuss getting DNA out of fossilized amber. I think references to pop culture, in what is a scientific article, should be "below the line" meaning "See also". Orangemarlin 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Remove the section, add Dinos in Pop culture to See also. That way, a featured article does not have this trivia section, and those who are interested in the trivia can go read the Pop culture article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can label something "trivia", even if it's not: the fact that dinosaurs have appeared in popular culture since the name Dinosauria was coined isn't trivial. Dinosaurs have become an important part of our culture, and that is what this section is saying. Further, the link between pop culture and science is reciprocal: the Jurassic Park film is credited with helping to bring to light the dinosaur genus Scipionyx.[1] Firsfron of Ronchester 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Without starting up humungous crap storm, I'd love to do the same thing with that Creationist POV section too. But I might be overreaching there. Orangemarlin 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a fringe view so, maybe it could stay (the creationist blather I mean), but I wouldn't cry if it were removed. In any case, it certainly could be shortened.

As for the Pop Culture section: yep, as a see also, and while refs have been added, the fact that it's trivia does not change. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) That's similar to what I wanted to suggest: moving the links (like The Lost World, King Kong and Godzilla) to the See Also section. However, the first paragraph of Pop Culture contains some good prose that could be incorporated into the main article, possibly near, or even part of, the intro. While I dislike Trivia and Pop Culture sections in general, this one is at least concise, accurate, and well written. That puts it way ahead of the curve in comparison...Doc Tropics 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) That is a one-line, well balanced summary which I see no issue with, myself. Trivia is something else - and "in pop culture" is a euphemism for trivia. Spencer, if you have sources, I suggest you add them to the Pop culture article - it is currently unsourced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

Having spent some quality time at the bottom reaches of the article because of the Trivia tag, I think that the links should be whittled down. It seems like there's a lot of redundancy in the types of sites, and the technical sites are getting out of date. J. Spencer 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please point out which ones are bad and then we can discuss it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)