Talk:Moab Man

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moab Man article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Utah Stub‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on May 25th, 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help:
Texas	Grand County, Utah

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Why delete so much of the article?[edit]

I know my editing of the page had som creationistic manner, but i did not wrote any lies. As far as i has read, it seems like people say that radiometric dating can't be used when it comes to dinosaur bones, but it can when it comes to human bones. And why should not the human bones be old, just because they are unfossilized: many found dinosaur bones is not completely fossilized either. I want to be humble in guestions like this, but why did you delete what i wrote?

Hi Conty,

The Creationist stuff was problematic. Lines like "it could imperil the major claim that man and dinosaurs is separated by millions of years" and "The datings has give an age of about 300 - 1400 years, despite radiocarbon dating also has give a dated age of about 9900 years in a fossil from a Allosaurus" need references from reliable sources. There were also quite a few grammar issues. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first articles manner[edit]

Sorry for the "cretionistic manner", but i tried to make the article so both creationists and people beliving something else could accept it. For example, i wrote that radiocarbon dating of the bones gives an age of about 1400 years ( something postive for non-creationists ), and then i wrote that radiocarbon dating also has given an age of just about 9900 years in bones from Allosaurus ( which gives hope to creationists, because it may question the trustworthiness of carbon dating on the bones of "Malachite man" ). But is it so that my article gave to great advantage to the creationists, or is articles with "creationistic manner" not acceptable on Wikipedia? Conty, 12 june. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conty (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]