Talk:Raptor Red

Source check

The only issue I see is this newsgroup posting which is being used to source "Several reviewers, especially scientists, took issue with the technical aspects of the book. Bakker combining fauna in ways not directly supported by the fossil record; for example, some dinosaur species in the book may or may not have died out before the arrival of Utahraptor." Several problems with this. It's ONE posting from ONE scientist being used to support "several scientists", which is a stretching of the source, and it's from a newsgroup. While the scientist is probably close to qualifying as an expert, surely there are other sources for this statement? And you need more than one person saying it to support 'several'. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually only trying to support the combination of fauna and the species issue, not the initial statement; I'm trying to have those be backed up by the subsequent statements. Should I try to clarify that? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. When I looked it over, because of the footnote placement, you were definitely implying that the newsgroup posting was supporting everything in the paragraph before it. And you really need to remove the newsgroup posting, they are extremely difficult to prove as reliable. You're going to have to prove the author is in the top 5% of palentologists or so before most folks will approve of the use of it as a source. (Personally, I"m not so restrictive, but if you're going for FAC, you're going to have folks crawl out of the woodwork to pick the article apart when its on the main page). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is anthropomorphism really the right word?

The characters in Bakker's novel do not display "uniquely human" traits, and seem to be within the realm of what is possible; in fact, much of the book is spent giving evolutionary reasons for why the animals act the way they do. This is not at all like Dinotopia.

Can anyone explain what makes the animals in Bakker's novel anthropomorphic? Esn (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Giving animals feelings and expressions (making them close to human) seems to add up to the same thing. Either way, sources described the dinosaurs as such. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Humans are animals, and our feelings are controlled by an older, and hardly unique, part of our brain. Few things are unique to humans, actually. It just seems very odd to me that a book that places such a heavy emphasis on naturalism should be accused of anthropomorphism, which brings to mind rabbits in tophats and dinosaurs wearing body armor & carrying spears (in the aforementioned Dinotopia). In fact, Raptor Red is a far cry from any of the examples cited in the "anthropomorphism" article. I do see that one of the online sources mentions the word, but three of the sources seem to be off-line publications. Do they all use it as well? Esn (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to double-check it, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have used the word unless it was cited. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-human animals can have emotions and expressions. Elephants, for example, will mourn the loss of one of their herd members for hours (I think I read somewhere that they even shed tears occasionally). I hate it how many of us think we're the only species capable of emotions and feelings, when as a matter of fact nearly all animals are (maybe with the exception of some invertebrates but you get my point). Bakker was perfectly realistic in his depictions of dinosaurs as complex and sophisticated creatures capable of emotion (makes a good change considering the animals' usual portrayal as bloodthirsty monsters). The Utahraptors didn't talk or wear clothes, and that's enough for me to say they are NOT anthropomorphic. Perhaps the word was cited, but whoever cited it obviously misunderstood the purpose of the book. We humans are hardly unique at all, there are plenty of animals much more unique. There's even controversy beginning over whether we're even the most intelligent, many now believe that dolphins and porpoises have superior intellect of humans. Perhaps I'm going off topic, but just because the dinosaurs are given feelings and emotions does not make them anthropomorphic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternate cover by Robert Bakker

The Danish softcover version of the book that I own has this cover, drawn by Robert Bakker himself:[1] It appears to have been used in American editions of the book too, judged on several images of it on the web. So I'm wondering what the original cover was, and under what circumstances an alternate version was made? The current main cover image does not seem to have been drawn by Bakker, isn't his style. This info could be potentially interesting (a holographic cover!?), and maybe featured in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it was drawn by Bakker? I mean, all the illustrations in the book were, but I've never seen any painting done by him that looks like that. Just skepticism. Especially since the paperback has the illustration as the back cover, but it explicitly states "maps and interior illustrations" as Bakker's (the holographic illustration is by Stephen Youll.) The paperback illustration is from the Bantam pb edition, dated September 1996... I got it when I was young at a Scholastic Books book fair, I guess around a decade or a little more. My concern is that it seems unlikely that we can have both covers in the article and still meet WP:NFCC. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the cover art is credited as "the author", who is Bakker, and it looks like his style, anatomy-wise. And I do think alternate covers are valid for fair use, the music album template even has an optional "alternate cover" column, which can be seen in these articles. [2][3][4] This featured album article even has a fair use back cover: [5] My copy of Raptor Red was printed in 1997, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

But most of those articles actually have significant commentary on the cover (either a controversy, or how the original/alternate was made.) There's none of that for this one. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, though looking at all featured album articles[6], many seem to have minimal commentary on the alternate covers (and many single covers with no comementary), even though they're used, take this one[7] where the only commentary is "The vinyl release features a slightly different cover than the CD cover." So in our case, I think the alternate cover is even more notable since it was drawn by Robert Bakker, and we do have comparable "commentary". In any case, I was thinking it might be interesting if more info about the covers could be added, and a mention of the Bakker ink drawings and cast of characters drawing used within the book, which you wouldn't know existed by reading the current article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Underlying themes?

It has been a while since I read this book, but I still remember it well. Now looking back, though, I notice some things which I missed before.

In addition to simply being a book about a dinosaurs struggle to survive and reproduce, there are some other themes which I think should be brought up. The first is an individual's struggle to be accepted into a group. A good chunk of the story is dominated by Raptor Red's 2nd aspiring consort trying to gain acceptance from the distrusting sister of Raptor Red. Although he does not like the sister's babies, he goes to great lengths to become a full member of the pack, and although being kicked out, eventually manages to come back once the xenophobic sister is dead.

The second theme which can be argued is that the Raptor Red is a story of a child (the sister's oldest chick) journey from a helpless infant to a capable adult, all through the eyes of Raptor Red. When the protagonist first meets the family, this baby is well, a baby. But by the end of the story, the oldest chick has grown into a capable and (relatively) compassionate adult who actually unites with her mom's old enemy (Raptor Red's 2nd consort) to save her aunt.

I request permission to put this into the article. Fusion7 (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Without reliable sources that say this, it's original research, which is strictly prohibited. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sales

I didn't see anything in the article about the novel's sales. Did it make any best-seller lists, for example? As a featured article, it really should have some information about that. Everyking (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll double check my archives and databases when I have time, but I do not believe I found any material on that, save Bakker's audiobook royalties. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like quite an important thing to mention. What about reprintings...is the book still in print? This is going to be on the main page soon, and it needs to be complete. Everyking (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I was just looking at the history for this page, and I would like to thank everyone who helped remove vandalism. JackSliceTalk Adds 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)