Talk:Goblin Valley State Park

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 15 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SamLambert12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The opening paragraph of this article, particularly the first sentence, seems a bit overblown for a reference work. It reads as if it was lifted directly from a tourist brochure. My instinct would be to edit it to remove fluff about dancing skulls and whatnot, but I see that a number of other editors have left the whimsical language. Given that, I thought it would be best to bring the tone of the article up for discussion before making changes.

Possible Copyright violations

A portion of this article is directly ripped off of this website [1] (scroll down until you see the paragraph labelled "Goblin Valley" in pink and the next few paragraphs). Large portions of this article are also ripped off directly from utah.gov, but I think that information from any government website can be used directly unless it says otherwise, if I'm not mistaken. Either way, this article reads like a travel brochure and should be completely re-written (and possible the information transferred over to Wikitravel, if it isn't over there already?) bob rulz 01:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, large portions of this are ripped straight from the travel brochure [2] from the government website. This is blatant plagiarism and should be rewritten from a fresh perspective as well as cite the sources of the information appropriately. 128.244.11.5 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's an advert, not an article

Agreed with the comment below. Who wrote this, the state park manager or something? There is no room for adverts on what is meant to be a neutral encyclopaedia.

Rewrote to remove much of the 'tour guide' language. BillC 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Current YouTube video shows man vandalizing rock formation

There is a current very popular YouTube video showing a man named Glen vandalizing a rock formation in the park.

why was it so easy to push over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.3.0 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 October 2013‎

Why is this in the article? How is it notable for the history of the park? Some guy does something dumb without thinking it through. Sorta youtube trivia and not relevant to the history of the park. Vsmith (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The men now face criminal charges. A bit more than trivia.--Auric talk 18:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I originally put it in the article. It is historical, since it did happen there, although its importance is debatable. Someone else removed my edit, citing irrelevance. I have not attempted to re-enter the edit again, and will refrain from doing so, knowing that I would only be rejected. Someone else has seen fit to re-enter the matter here on this talk page, which I feel does not need any element or level of intrinsic importance attached to it. Maybe he had a better idea. Mamarazzi (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a current event - not "history". I've chopped some excessive detail - we don't need the names and what relevance was the church group? Still a trivia event - perhaps belongs in an article on vandalism in public parks or some such. Vsmith (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

None of us, of course, should assume that Mr. Taylor, nor his fat accomplice, Mr. Hall, are guilty or innocent of any charges until they have been convicted or exonerated in a court of law. Mamarazzi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

References