Talk:Grand Canyon: A Different View

PEER press releases

I am skeptical about inserting claims from PEER press releases as if they are facts. The sale of the book was a controversy in 2004, and it was widely reported in newspapers and elsewhere. Is there anyone besides PEER who still thinks that there is a controversy? The geological societies seem to be satisfied with the outcome.

In particular, PEER makes a claim that a "review" was promised, but never happened. I don't know if that is true or not, but I think that it shouldn't be put into WP based solely on the undocumented accusation of an advocacy organization. Unless some reliable source corroborates what PEER says, then I suggest omitting it. Roger 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the current version represents PEER's claims too uncritically, it is fact that a "high-level review" of the book was promised (and cited as ongoing) by David Barna, in a memo dated February 2, 2004. This document is included in the references on this page as #7. smegma23 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear to me how meaningful the "review" issue is. A "review" could be anything from a phone call to a high-level bureaucrat to a line-by-line analysis of all the statements in the book. Maybe the book was reviewed, but not to PEER's satisfaction. I think that it is fair to say that PEER has various claims about the issue, but it is not clear that anyone thinks that there is an ongoing controversy. I suggest just saying that PEER still has some gripes, and refer to a PEER press release in a footnote. Roger 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The book itself is not being sold as fact, it is in a separate section under the heading Inspirational. Native American histories and other similar books are sold here. PEER and other groups fail to mention the last line of Directors Order #6 which states, "Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events." There isn't anything wrong with selling the book, there isn't even anything wrong with talking about it. However they should do so only after explaining the scientific facts. King nacho 14:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am skeptical about PEER's claim that no review took place. The NPS letter doesn't promise a "level policy review of the book", as the WP article previously said, but instead that it was doing a review. It did make a decision, so it apparently did some sort of review. PEER offers no documentation for its claims. I favor removing the whole last paragraph about PEER. If it remains, then it ought to at least make it clear that it just consists of PEER allegations. Roger 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times just reported on this today, so I guess we now have a reliable source. It says:

When complaints emerged in 2004 over the sale of a creationist account of the formation of the Grand Canyon in National Park Service bookstores, Interior Department officials said they would review whether the book should be pulled from the shelves.

But there was no formal review, in part because of differences of opinion among the Park Service’s own specialists, said David Barna, a spokesman for the agency, in an interview yesterday. ...

The group received a letter saying a review of records "did not locate any documents responsive to your request," which Mr. Barna confirmed, saying "there’s no real record."

So according to this, it is correct to say that there was no formal review, and there is no written review. Roger 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Grand Canyon: A Different View. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101232106/http://www.grandcanyonassociation.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=GCA&Product_Code=M20386&Category_Code=ALL to http://www.grandcanyonassociation.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=GCA&Product_Code=M20386&Category_Code=ALL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928040401/http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/04_13_10_shaver_ltr.pdf to http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/04_13_10_shaver_ltr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109064335/http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/creationismtalkingpts.pdf to http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/creationismtalkingpts.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115154824/http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_foia_response.pdf to http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_foia_response.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140217004424/http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2006/12/28/how-old-is-the-grand-canyon-park-service-won%E2%80%99t-say/ to http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2006/12/28/how-old-is-the-grand-canyon-park-service-won%E2%80%99t-say/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)