Talk:Is Genesis History?

Recent sources removal

@1990'sguy: I initially had the impression that there remained no source to support the pseudoscience assessment, but I now see there's an existing source (the IPA statement), but which doesn't mention pseudoscience, only denial. It also doesn't mention creation science. I can't confirm immediately that the Ruse source does, as the PDF lacks OCR. Two other sources were also removed: the misformatted Sarkar & Pfeifer 2006 one, then [1]. —PaleoNeonate – 00:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: You claimed in the edit summary that wikilinks to pseudoscience and creation science would be sufficient. While this would be the case in a lead summarizing the article, the article body's relevant material would be sourced. As such, the article could have a pseudoscience or scientific reception section, that would be sourced, with the lead summarizing it. Now the problem with this is that no reputable geologist or biologist discussed the movie (which is virtually unknown). Another problem could be that in such a small article, such a section may seem undue. As such we're stuck per PSCI with a short mention in the lead, but it should also be sourced somewhere. —PaleoNeonate – 01:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a movie, not a belief. Those sources are fine to cite on the pseudoscience or creation science articles, since they discuss pseudoscience and creation science, but since they don't say "IGH promotes pseudoscience", including them would be a WP:POINTy violation of WP:COATRACK. If we're going to say that the movie promotes pseudoscience (which I did not change), we should cite sources that say precisely that. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason those sources are there is because WP:PSCI says:

Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.

In order to comply with that, we need to say that it's pseudoscientific. If sources that cover the movie don't talk about it (because for some reason we've twice kept an article that has no in-depth mainstream coverage at all), then, well, I guess they have to come from somewhere. It's not WP:POINTy or WP:COATRACK, it's just basic policy on how to deal with pseudoscience (combined with WP:CITE, rather than defer to those other articles).

That said, I don't actually have a strong opinion on whether the sources are included (and I didn't add them) as long as we follow PSCI with the actual content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're acting as if these policies say that we need to add off-topic (and unnecessary) citations, when the policy only states that we need to mention it (whether or not the actual mention is appropriate in this specific article is a different discussion). Your WP:PSCI quote proves my argument rather than yours. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't know what you're arguing, but it sounds like you're saying "let's not bother with WP:CITE when we follow PSCI". All I said was that PSCI says we should call it pseudoscience, and if the sources about the movie don't call it pseudoscience, then because citing sources is a good thing, we should cite sources, since the sources are about the same thing the movie is about. Regardless, I was responding more to PN's initial comments. I just indented because the flow was weird outdented. Sorry if that added confusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If the statement that the movie "promotes the pseudoscience of creation science" is appropriate to add to this article of a movie and not COATRACK, we don't need to cite sources that have nothing to do at all with the movie. In other words, the cited sources do not directly show that the movie promotes pseudoscience (and actually, it would then be a WP:OR violation). Not having sources that explicitly say the movie promotes pseudoscience is not an excuse to lower our standards. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH maybe, not WP:OR (actually, it could be OR without providing sources). In relation to synthesis however, PSCI explicitely allows to specify when a view is pseudoscience (and it's about the view or practice, so it doesn't have to be explicitly about this movie). —PaleoNeonate – 20:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: here is a troubling pattern: [2], [3]; [4], [5] - and we're here again wasting everyone's time against the status quo... —PaleoNeonate – 20:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's an article about a movie that promotes a pseudoscientific claim. Your relentless attempts to remove references to the fact that "creation science" is bullshit is a real serious problem here. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Creation science" is nothing more or less than the search for better ways to understand the creation of the world, and I expect you are well aware of that fact. You would do well to respect that pursuit even if you're not personally in favor of it. Even working under the hypothesis that macroevolution is true, people who believe the world created itself are unlikely to abandon that belief just because someone publishes material promoting creation, or because someone else fails to use bullying tactics in the attempt to discredit creationists, so what's the worry? 2600:1700:D7F0:85B0:FFFA:91AE:BD3C:36ED (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We have WP:RULES, such as WP:PSCI, which is website policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with 1990'sguy. We don't need to dig up sources claiming that creationism/creation science is pseudoscience unless we have a standalone statement of that (e.g. "Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that promotes creation science. Creation science is considered pseudoscience by virtually all qualified scientists." would require sourcing because the second sentence can stand on it's own). The way we do it now, where we accurately label it in passing should not require explicit sourcing.

If some creationist comes along and decides to make a huge stink about it, well, WP:CIR blocks are a thing, and that seems a more appropriate response to someone insisting we push fringe theories than giving them the (more or less) serious treatment by sourcing the claim to "shut them up". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I also don't remember who added the extra sources. There currently is one left, but it's not about creation science. —PaleoNeonate – 20:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The existing source looks fine to me, as it supports the standalone statement that creation science is rejected by the scientific community. And to be honest, I wouldn't get bent out of shape if someone added some references just to cover their bases. I'm just saying I think it's entirely unnecessary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I restored (and reformatted) one, another appeared too sensationalist to keep, I think. —PaleoNeonate – 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Some context above. I didn't add the sources, but I get why they're there. It's not entirely wrong, as PaleoNeonate noted above, to say there's a little bit of WP:SYNTH involved by citing two of those sources, but it's an issue that comes up from time to time when trying to reconcile WP:PSCI with an article that was kept despite insufficient sources that comply with PSCI. It isn't true that none of the three sources cited in the lead actually mention the movie, though -- the first is explicitly about the movie -- but the other two indeed are not. I don't have a strong feeling on the tag. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: You are correct. I was imprecise in my edit summary in not explicitly noting that the first source is a self-described blog, which we ordinarily don't give any weight in these sorts of things unless the person is a SME. It's run by a University biology professor whose research interests include microbiology and evolution, so I understand why one might use it in many circumstances. But the particular piece is a guest post by a “Lars Cade” who seems to be a student (it’s unclear from the short bio in the post if Cade even has a masters' degree; all it says is that “has led him to start taking college courses in preparation for a doctorate in paleontology at North Carolina State University”). I understand why we want to not give off the false impression that YEC is anything other than scientifically fringe, but using something like this seems like we’re combining a non-RS with two pieces that don’t mention the film at all in order to achieve a conclusion. And that feels awfully SYNTHy. — Mhawk10 (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If we have a citation that both mentions IGH and cites the sentence that comes after, we should cite it while avoiding the other two sources that violate WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, and are otherwise unnecessary. That's what I just did.[6] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair, though if the citation is a random blog post this moves from a synth issue to an unreliable source issue — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this is a two-part statement: A) The film is about YEC; and B) YEC is pseudoscience. I don't think that merely juxtaposing those two statements together in a single sentence as the lede does creates any sort of synth, per WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. As long as each claim is verifiable in a source, there's no WP:OR that is introduced simply by placing them in the same sentence.

With that being said, the claim that the film is about YEC would seem to be so obvious that it falls into WP:SKYBLUE territory and doesn't require a source (It's also in the lede, so WP:LEDECITE comes to mind). If there's a concern about sourcing here, it should only be on the "YEC is pseudoscience" part, and that's an easily sourced claim. It would also seem to be a necessary claim to keep in the lede, per WP:GEVAL. Happy (Slap me) 12:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"Ken Ham's creationist exhibit"

First off, this isn't even true. The Ark Encounter isn't personally owned by Ken Ham -- it's owned by Ark Encounter, LLC, and operated by AiG (effectively, it's owned by AiG, which -- *gasp!* -- isn't synonymous with Ken Ham).

Second, the wording is sloppy. Seriously, if the wording is really is "neutral and accurate", you should add it to the Ark Encounter's own WP article and change the article's intro to say "Ark Encounter is Ken Ham's creationist exhibit that opened in Grant County, Kentucky on July 7, 2016." You (collectively) apparently have no interest in having the wording in the IGH article mirror the Ark Encounter's own article intro, so the wording here must be better than there. The wording, and the italicization (which is completely unnecessary, as the Ark Encounter's actual name isn't italicized), should be immediately reverted. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The disputed edit does not claim that it's "owned" by Hamm. It was designed and created by Hamm, similarly to the way we would say Frank Lloyd Wright's Walter Gale House.

Second, you have already violated 3RR.

you should add it to the Ark Encounter's own WP article No. There's no requirement that we use the exact phrasing everywhere we go. The Ark Encounters article has plenty of criticism of that place for the reader to see. This article does not, so choosing a wording that accurately conveys the underlying basis of much of the criticism (without actually repeating any of the criticism, mind) is nothing but helping to inform the reader. With this wording, they do not need to click on the link to know that Ark Encounter is a creationist exhibit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright is an architect who designed the Walter Gale House. Ken Ham did not design or build the Ark Encounter -- apples to oranges comparison. He's the CEO (not the president anymore) of the organization that effectively owns it.

The wording in the article reads just like those atheist blogs -- and nobody else -- that obsess about the Ark Encounter's attendance. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

apples to oranges comparison That is a false dichotomy. Hamm came up with the idea, Hamm was involved in the design from the ground up, Hamm oversaw the rest of the design and the construction, Hamm chose the ideology, Hamm raised the money... Your response is completely illogical.

I would, furthermore, prefer that the wording in this resemble an atheist blog than ad copy for the Ark Encounter, as the former would be a trustworthy source for claims of fact and the latter a blend of bullshit, dogma and rhetorical contortions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of false dichotomies, who said we had to choose between sounding like an atheist blog and sounding like ad copy from AiG? The previously uncontested article contained no descriptor of Ark Encounter at all. How does that resemble ad copy from AiG? I contend (below) that no descriptor is needed, but if one is needed, we can do better than this. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please point to where I said those were the only options possible or kindly keep your fallacies to yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You expressed a preference for wording that sounded like an atheist blog over copy from AiG. I know where the "wording that resembles an atheist blog" comment came from – 1990'sguy characterized the current version that way. Whether anyone agrees with that or not, that's where that part of the discussion came from. What I don't see from anyone but you is the idea of wording that sounds like "copy from AiG". Both 1990'sguy and I are advocating for the removal of the qualifier altogether; we both think it is unnecessary. So are you contending that the version with no qualifier whatsoever sounds like copy from AiG? If not, to what proposal does that language refer? I proposed an alternative (in the case that consensus demands some kind of qualifier), but I proposed that a full 10 minutes after you set up your false choice, as the timestamps will attest.

As long as this remains "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", I think I'll contribute to this talk page as I please, despite your invitation to the contrary. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep throwing around fallacies in support of a fringe belief and I think you'll soon enough find that this isn't the only talk page you stop editing. The bit doesn't protect you from our policies. Which reminds me of another policy, WP:PSCI, which says we should label pseudoscience clearly. Since creationism is pseudoscience, I don't see how removing the label falls in line with policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed the part about the addition of pseudoscience below; please keep that discussion together. As for my being an admin, I don't recall EVER mentioning the fact that I am an admin in any of these discussions, much less claiming it protects me from policy or makes my opinion any more valuable than anyone else's. As I told Jytdog below, if I've done something to violate policy or warrant removal of my admin status, report it, but I tire of threats like "I think you'll soon enough find that this isn't the only talk page you stop editing". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed the part about the addition of pseudoscience below Yeah, by saying you think it's only necessary to label it using an equivalent term. An equivalent term like "creationist". So your logic down there is starkly contradicted by your logic up here. But then, I'm used to that when discussing creationism.

As for my being an admin, I don't recall EVER mentioning the fact that I am an admin I don't recall ever accusing you of bringing it up. In fact, I remain fairly certain that I was the one that brought it up. Just now, like, in my last comment. Weird that you feel the need to focus on a minor detail that you think you can score points on. It's almost like you care more about winning the argument than finding a point of agreement.

but I tire of threats like... One can only hope you'll tire enough to stop making fallacious arguments here and thereby provoking such responses. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, by saying you think it's only necessary to label it using an equivalent term. You have misread my argument. I didn't say "creationist" was an equivalent term. I said "[holding] beliefs about about the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms that have been rejected by the scientific community" is an equivalent description of "pseudoscientific". But again, I would like to keep that discussion below.

I don't recall ever accusing you of bringing it up. I addressed it because I don't know why it was mentioned to start with. You said, "The [admin] bit doesn't protect you from our policies." Since I never made that claim, I'm wondering why you brought it up.

One can only hope you'll tire enough to stop making fallacious arguments here and thereby provoking such responses. I have explained why and how I believe you attempted to present (or at the least, imply) a false choice between wording that sounds like "an atheist blog" and wording that sounds like "copy from AiG". If you disagree that this was your intent, fine. Your argument above is "Hamm came up with the idea, Hamm was involved in the design from the ground up, Hamm oversaw the rest of the design and the construction, Hamm chose the ideology, Hamm raised the money... Your response is completely illogical." I have presented my counterargument below, in this section. In the interest of "finding a point of agreement" (your suggestion, and my intent as well), I suggest we drop the discussion of who committed a logical fallacy and continue that discussion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The word pseudoscience need not be used if the sentence provides a factually equivalent description is what you wrote below. Are you suggesting that "creationism" is not a "factually equivalent description", and if so, what makes it counterfactual?

I suggest we drop the discussion of who committed a logical fallacy and continue that discussion. Okay. So I already pointed out (as has Jytdog) that the possessive tense doesn't actually mean that Hamm literally owns the event. Since that seems to be the heart of the debate, I don't see how there is anything left to discuss. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you refuse to have this discussion where it properly belongs – Are you suggesting that "creationism" is not a "factually equivalent description" Creationism is considered pseudoscience. I am not debating this. I would be content to leave the description of the movie as "film that promotes creation science", believing that the status of creation science in the scientific community is well-known, easily accessible via the link to our article on the topic, and well described in the very next sentence. Other editors are not content with this wording, insisting that the word "pseudoscience" must be used explicitly. My contention is that describing the film as advocating "for beliefs about the natural world that have been rejected by the scientific community about the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms over natural history," sufficiently categorizes it as pseudoscience, as required by policy, because that rather long phrase is factually equivalent to saying the film is pseudoscience. The reason I am making this suggestion is because, in my reading, the addition of the word "pseudoscience", as it is now, makes for a sentence that doesn't flow very well. Again, the closing editor suggested that we have such discussions about the editorial details of complying with policy.

the possessive tense doesn't actually mean that Hamm literally owns the event I have addressed this below. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you refuse to have this discussion where it properly belongs I haven't been having that discussion at all. I have consistently been talking about the phrase "Ken Hamm's creationist exhibit." It's not my fault if you can't follow along, so don't accuse me of "refusing" to do something that's complete bullshit.

I have addressed this below. And your "address" is completely unconvincing because it ignores the way English is commonly used in favor of your completely counterfactual implication that common turns of phrasing are generally understood to be literal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have consistently been talking about the phrase "Ken Hamm's creationist exhibit. Re-reading the discussion, I can see this, but when you asked "Are you suggesting that "creationism" is not a 'factually equivalent description', and if so, what makes it counterfactual?" I was trying to figure out (and still am) is "Is creationism factually equivalent to what"? So I apologize for misunderstanding and subsequently misrepresenting which contention you were responding to, but I'm not sure what you are asking. I acknowledged that Ark Encounter presents creationist ideas. I simply said that the Ark Encounter is not primarily a creationist attraction. (That would be the Creation Museum, which wholly exists to promote young Earth creationism.) The Ark Encounter primarily exists to tell AiG's version of the Genesis flood narrative. Yes, some of that involves creationist ideas, but some involves concepts from other disciplines that have nothing to do, really, with creationism. So I never said "creationist" was an inaccurate description; I said an alternative descriptor would be more accurate in the same way that it is more accurate to call an apple a fruit rather than a food. (And I still contend that none of these descriptors is really necessary at all.)

What I did say was inaccurate, at least according to the most common reading of the phrase, was calling it "Ken Ham's...exhibit". It's not an exhibit, in the first place, and Ken Ham is neither its sole owner nor its sole author. I understand that you find my reasoning "completely unconvincing", but I'm presenting that reasoning to the entire community for evaluation. Your evaluation of it is noted, and if the community agrees with it, then I will abide by that. I just think we could have a less ambiguous qualifier, if the community decides that one is needed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out (and still am) is "Is creationism factually equivalent to what"? Pseudoscience. At least in this case, I say the two terms are fairly interchangeable, with "creationist" being more precise.

I simply said that the Ark Encounter is not primarily a creationist attraction. I don't see where you ever said that on this page, but whatever. I'm happy to accept that you intended to say it. The Ark Encounter is a creationist theme park, according to countless RSes. Hell, a literal interpretation of the flood narrative is creationism, for that matter, so you're not even really disagreeing with yourself. If you have a cogent argument as for why we should be more specific than the sources, then I'm open to hearing it.

Also, I have no objection to changing the word "exhibit" to "them park" or "attraction" or anything of the sort.

Your evaluation of it is noted, and if the community agrees with it, then I will abide by that.It seems clear that both Jytdog and Guy also find your objection unconvincing. It seems equally clear that numerous reliable sources stand with us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I say the two terms are fairly interchangeable, with "creationist" being more precise. If this is so, why wouldn't you support dropping "pseudoscience" in the discussion in the section below this one? It already says "creation science", which is a branch of creationism, and if "creationism" is "factually equivalent" to, and "more precise" than, pseudoscience, then it is superfluous and should be dropped.

I don't see where you ever said that on this page, but whatever. For the sake of the record, I said this in the paragraph below that begins with "The remainder of the description is also not as accurate as it could be."

a literal interpretation of the flood narrative is creationism No, it really isn't. True that most (perhaps all) people who believe in one believe in the other, but there's no reason someone couldn't believe one and not the other. I think it is more accurate to say it presents the Genesis flood narrative. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear that both Jytdog and Guy also find your objection unconvincing. And it seems clear that 1990'sguy is convinced, and this discussion is only a few hours old. Again, I'm first and foremost advocating that no qualifier at all is needed, which would render this whole discussion moot. I'm only discussing the phraseology in the spirit of finding a compromise. Let's let it play out. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems equally clear that numerous reliable sources stand with us. What is clear is that some reliable sources use your preferred construction, not that they say it should be preferred over all others. I can probably find just as many or more that use an alternative construction, but they also will not say one should be preferred. So while the sources cited might show that yours is an acceptable construction, it doesn't show that it should be preferred. I think we should prefer a more accurate, less ambiguous compromise version, if we use a qualifier at all. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

---

I agree that this wording is inaccurate. In no sense can Ark Encounter be said to be Ken Ham's. He doesn't legally own it. He didn't primarily design it, and he certainly didn't build it. The original concept was his, and he no doubt had significant input into the design, but that doesn't mean we should call it "Ken Ham's exhibit" any more than we would call Windows "Bill Gates' operating system" or the iPhone "Steve Jobs' smartphone". I am actually surprised that this is a serious proposal that is being defended.

There is also no need for quotes around italics for Ark Encounter. You'll find that nowhere else on WP. It is the proper name of the attraction, and as such, the quotes most likely violate the manual of style, although I can't quote a relevant guideline, chapter and verse, without some research.

The remainder of the description is also not as accurate as it could be. Although Ark Encounter does contain many exhibits (it is not, in and of itself, an exhibit) that portray a young Earth creationist belief system, it isn't even primarily a "creationist" attraction. It is primarily an attraction that promotes the Genesis flood narrative. If a descriptor is truly needed – because apparently some folks think that our readers are too lazy or too stupid to click on a link to a potentially unfamiliar term for more information – I propose that descriptor be something like "Ark Encounter, a theme park operated by Answers in Genesis that promotes the Genesis flood narrative". I'm open to alternate suggestions, but the current wording is inaccurate and should not remain in its current form. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please look more carefully at the diffs; when you do, you will likely strike what you wrote about "quotes". Also the "possessive case" has many meanings beyond simple possession. It can also mean authorship - like "Guy's edit" or "Manet's painting". This is along those lines. It has plenty of usage including this piece in the Christian Post: "A Lutheran pastor has claimed that Ken Ham's Ark Encounter theme park in Kentucky has distorted God's message about the rainbow in Genesis, though the Answers in Genesis CEO has fought back against the accusations." Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You are correct about striking the bit about quotes, which I did before I saw your reply. The fact that it was italics instead of quotes makes little difference. Either is incorrect.

I understand that the possessive case has meanings beyond simple possession, but I think simple possession is the most commonly understood meaning. Even in the example of authorship, Ham is far from being the sole author of Ark Encounter. Because of that, I think we should use different wording, because the readers who read the sentence using the most commonly understood meanings will likely arrive at an inaccurate conclusion. The fact that this term has some usage doesn't change that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

the quotes most likely violate ...? You allowed yourself to be drawn totally offsides by 1990'sguy's sloppy reading (moving too fast to revert in the course of edit warring), and are not even dealing with what you yourself wrote. This is not how we expect admins to behave. At all. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I admit that I edited too quickly and trusted 1990'sguy's version of the edit. Is your point that I screwed up and that admins are never supposed to screw up? That I should never trust what another editor wrote? Or are you upset that I kind of waved my hands at what I suspect is a MOS violation without actually looking it up? Because I'll admit I did all of those things. I screwed up. I trusted another editor's version of what happened without carefully verifying it myself. And I didn't go to the chapter and verse of the MOS before posting that it was most likely a violation. If those warrant revoking my admin bit, then petition to have it revoked.

Are you contending that the italics should remain? If so, upon what basis? Because that's what this discussion should be about. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am contending that you carry a very strong POV on creationism into this discussion that you are clearly not capable of managing; the sloppy argument (following someone who believes the same because they believe the same, and then only half correcting it (needing me to call your attention to it twice), then very clumsily ground-shifting to something frankly silly - are all signs of that you are not capable of checking your precommitments at the login page. Ditto the silly argument about possessives with respect to a usage found even in Christian media. Yet you persist. We expect everyone to follow WP:YESPOV and admins especially to follow that (and every policy). I am trying to reason with you to behave with the kind of ... wisdom we expect from admins. Please refrain or give up the bit so we should no longer expect that. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have previously acknowledged my personal belief system, so that requires no contention. The idea that I am incapable of managing that belief system on Wikipedia is something I have vigorously contested, and I will continue to do so. I would have just as readily accepted the quotes/italics issue had you, or another editor who doesn't share my worldview, made it. You can deny that if you want – it's unproveable either way – but to assert that I wouldn't have is an assumption of bad faith. I noticed the error when I saw this post by JzG and immediately corrected my mistake. As I pointed out, however, whether it was quotes or italics, I can't see why either is necessary. I also stated that the MOS probably had a reason why neither was appropriate, but I didn't look it up, and I won't until and unless someone puts forth a good reason to try and keep them. We don't just throw around italics for no reason. That's almost axiomatic.

Regarding the use of the possessive phrase, which is ostensibly the point of this discussion, I have put forth reasons that I believe any qualifier is unnecessary. I'm not sure how the removal of the qualifier is somehow pro-creationist. I also put forth reasons that I thought the qualifier that exists is inaccurate or, at best, not as accurate as it could be. In the spirit of collaboration, I even put forward an alternative qualifier in the event that consensus was against my position that a qualifier is not needed. I believe this shows my desire to edit collegially. Yet here you are, calling for my admin bit AGAIN, even though I haven't used any admin tools in any of the YEC-related discussions we have had. Once again, if you think you've got a case that I'm in violation of policy, bring it up at the appropriate forum. But I will not be bullied into giving it up because you don't like my personal worldview. I will be more than happy to defend my editing. I will be more than happy to point out my attempts to offer alternatives to contested edits. I will be happy to cite my restraint in using admin tools or even referencing my admin status in any of the discussions we have had. And, as I have herein demonstrated, I will admit when I was wrong and take responsibility for it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As you will. I am not calling for your bit; I am asking you to refrain from working on topics where you cannot be neutral or give up your bit. I have never said that you have used the bit on this topic, but rather behaving in a way that we do not expect people with the bit to behave. WP:Civil POV pushing is one of our worst problems, and you are exemplifying it. If I ever actually do call for your bit (if), I will do that at Arbcom as is appropriate. I guess that's all. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Who's the CEO of ark Encounter? Let's just check the website. "Ken Ham, President/CEO". Who founded it? Ken Ham. Oh, it's operated by AiG? Sure. Or, to quote Forbes, "Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis". Guy (Help!) 18:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And who was the CEO of Microsoft when Windows was developed? But we don't primarily call it "Bill Gates' Windows". We primarily call it Microsoft Windows. Who was the CEO of Apple when the iPhone was developed? But we don't primarily call it Steve Jobs' iPhone. We call it Apple iPhone. Yes, you probably can find references to both "Bill Gates' Windows" and "Steve Jobs' iPhone" and a host of other similar examples, but that isn't how they are most commonly referred to. They may be grammatically acceptable, but they aren't the primary or most accurate constructions. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually back in the day it was very much pitched as Gates v. Jobs. AiG CEO: Ken Ham. Founder: Ken Ham. President: Ken Ham. Spokesman: Ken Ham. Ark Encounter concept by: Ken Ham. How many people does AiG employ, compared with Microsoft? Who stood up to debate the reality-based community as represented by Bill Nye? Who else is named on the AiG website, apart from Ham? Guy (Help!) 22:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• I still fail to see any cogent explanation of why italics are misleading. The best I can come up with is that it suggests that "Ark Encounter" is the title of a work of art. Which, it could actually be said to be, in numerous senses. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And I still fail to see any cogent explanation of why they were added in the first place. We don't just randomly italicize things. We have ways to italicize the titles of Wikipedia articles, yet Ark Encounter's title isn't italicized. It also isn't italicized in any article that references it anywhere else on Wikipedia, as far as I am aware. So why here? What do the majority of mainstream sources do? I don't recall seeing Ark Encounter in italics anywhere. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if it's italicized or not. I do care that some editors on this page apparently got bent out of shape over it, as if it were some kind of personal affront. That's cause to worry for anyone who cares about the neutrality of this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The only reason I ever gave for contesting the italics was that they were unnecessary and "most likely" a violation of the MOS. It seems Rhododendrites agreed with me and deleted them. I never claimed they were misleading or a personal affront. You brought that up. Nothing about my discussion of the italics calls my neutrality into question. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing about my discussion of the italics calls my neutrality into question. Uh huh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• at CreationWiki's page on the Ark Encounter there is another ref from Christian Post cited that use the phrase in its title: Ken Ham's Ark Encounter to Host Millions of Visitors in 40 Days, 40 Nights Opening, and also this similar one Ken Ham's Latest Endeavor: 'Amazing, Remarkable, Awesome'.

other sources cited there: CNN Consultants hired by Ark Encounter's nonprofit parent, Answers in Genesis, project the park will generate 20,000 jobs in the area and $4 billion in tourism revenue, when combined with Ham's already established Creation Museum...

Guardian Ham’s Answers in Genesis ministry and the Creation Museum enjoyed an avalanche of news media attention during the debate...

Oh, this one. Answers in Genesis itself, cites an article, called My Encounter with Ken Ham’s Giant Ark. from Christianity Today that is all about Ham's vision and how the ark exhibit realizes it. Ham's everything.

I won't do more. The objection about the possessive is specious. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said to JzG above, it's not that this construction is never used, but it isn't primarily used, and it isn't the most accurate construction we can muster. If it was, we'd use some form of it in the lede to the article on the Ark Encounter. Creationist sources that cite articles that use the construction isn't evidence that they endorse the construction itself, anyway. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This rather misses the point that the reality-based community usually do use these terms, but the vast majority of mentions are in sources that are not reality-based. Wikipedia is firmly reality-based. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you think the sources I'm talking about are YEC sources? I'm talking about sources like the Cincinnati Enquirer (which covers Northern Kentucky where the Ark is), which has 149 stories that mention Ark Encounter and 0 that call it "Ken Ham's Ark Encounter". Or the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader, which has 251 stories that mention Ark Encounter and 0 that mention "Ken Ham's Ark Encounter". Or the Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY), which has 112 stories on Ark Encounter and only 1 (a letter to the editor from an Ark opponent) that calls it "Ken Ham's Ark Encounter. These are the mainstream papers that would cover the Ark Encounter the most often, because it is local to them. But I searched Newsbank through my local library and found only 3 references to "Ken Ham's Ark Encounter" in the entire database (and one of those was in the Louisville Eccentric Observer, an alternative weekly). It just isn't a common way for mainstream sources to refer to the attraction. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm posting this down here just to say that I'm sick of reading multiple 2.5k+ character responses to 500 character comments and I'm not going to bother any more. If it takes that many words to make your case, then you don't have a strong case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• I admit that I am not going to read this wall of text about such a small thing, and don't have a very strong opinion one way or the other, but "Ken Ham's creationist exhibit" also stuck out to me as a little awkward (and I have no idea why it's capitalized, which seems like straight up MOS stuff -- the only reason I haven't just fixed it is because there's a wall of text I know I'm not reading :) ). I'd probably prefer something like "...Ark Encounter, a creationist attraction operated by Answers in Genesis." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites, the "Ken Ham's" thing has always made sense to me. This article says that Purifoy made the movie after his daughter started asking him questions, after watching the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate. This mention harks back to that; it is not out of the blue or a sore thumb when I read the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Update: I did a quick search on this page for italics and, absent seeing any argument for why this article alone should break with the MOS, I've removed the italics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

AiG is Ken Ham. He is the prime mover behind the entire thing. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. Also, I just changed "exhibit" to "attraction" because it's a more appropriate word for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

AiG is not a DBA. He may be founder, president, spokesperson, etc. but it's a 501(c)(3) with staff, board of directors, etc. It's AiG's name listed as operator, regardless of Ham's involvement, so we should be as precise as possible. If you really want to get Ham's name in there, say it's operated by AiG under the direction of Ken Ham or somesuch. I'm not going to argue this further, though, as it's frankly bizarre that the text is being defended (and has generated so much text). If Acdixon or someone else opens a simple RfC I would wager a <=5% chance of retaining "Ken Ham's creationist attraction". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Although to be clear, if Ham is involved with this film in some way (which is not currently indicated in the article), then the context makes sense to have a line pulling out his name in particular in connection to Ark Encounter. As it stands, it's just awkwardly sitting there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm not particularly attached to the text as is. I'm open to alternative phrasings, myself. I just find the arguments against it to be completely specious. It's a common turn of the phrase, used frequently by RSes, and not really prone to misunderstanding. It doesn't suggest anything that isn't true, and in this context, the difference between Hamm and AiG is insignificant.

But like I said, I'm not really vested in this wording. I just generally respond to crappy arguments with emphatic refutations, so I can certainly understand why I might seem to be attached to it. I'm not too fond of attributing it to AiG, but I'd be perfectly fine to not attribute the AE to anyone. Just say "the Ark Encounter, a creationist attraction." Or leave in the attribution to Hamm. Or attribute it to AiG, I don't dislike it enough to protest. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are open to alternative phrasings, I proposed one in my very first post (by timestamp) on the subject, to which exactly no one has made any response. Every response has been about defending the current phrasing, the one you're not really vested in, and the one that Rhododendrites thinks has less than a 5% chance of survival at RfC. So maybe, in the interest of getting something productive out of this discussion, could we work from mine, or from Rhododendrites' ("Ark Encounter, a creationist attraction operated by Answers in Genesis.") for a while? Or just delete the qualifier altogether, as I have advocated for. It isn't necessary. Readers who don't know what Ark Encounter is can click through and find out or, thanks to some relatively recent wiki-wizardry, hover over the link and get a decent synopsis. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I am open to alternative phrasings. Not yours, though. Yours attempts to obfuscate the park's purpose and is factually inaccurate. The park is themed on the Ark, but clearly exists for the purpose of pushing a broader, creationist theme. Plus, yours contradicts the RSes, who generally refer to it as a "creationist" park, and to my knowledge, have never made the claim that it pushes the flood narrative specifically. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine, start from Rhododendrites' if you must, but the current wording – even after changing "exhibit" to "attraction" – should not stay, in my opinion. I still maintain that no qualifier for Ark Encounter is needed. It is linked and easy enough for the reader to find out about if they are unfamiliar. But if the community insists on a qualifier, I think it should be more along the lines of the one Rhododendrites or I have suggested.

As for your assertion that my suggestion "attempts to obfuscate the park's purpose", that ascribes motives to me that are incorrect and that you cannot demonstrate. That's an assumption of bad faith. My impression of the place is that its focus is on promoting AiG's theories about the flood more so than promoting its ideas about creationism. Having visited for the first time this weekend, I can confirm that many more of its exhibits deal with flood geology and the logistics of life aboard the ark than with creationism. (Although there certainly ARE creationist exhibits, such as the seven days of creation display I added a picture of yesterday.) If the visit changed my mind about the purpose of the ark at all, it would be in that there are several more exhibits promoting evangelical outreach (symbology of Jesus and salvation in the flood narrative, etc.) than I anticipated. So, in my opinion, it is not incorrect to say it is creationist, but it is more correct to say it promotes flood geology, the feasibility of the ark, and/or seeks to evangelize visitors with AiG's understanding of the gospel. It is these observations – and not some nefarious intent to hide the promotion of creationism at the attraction – that motivated my suggestions. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

As for your assertion that my suggestion "attempts to obfuscate the park's purpose", Okay, let me rephrase: Your suggestion actually obfuscates the park's purpose as described by the reliable sources.

Your own trip (WP:OR) is not a reliable source for making claims about the park's purpose. We have literally dozens of reliable sources calling it a creationist park, and to my knowledge, not one single source that claims it's focused primarily on the flood myth, which as I've already pointed out at least once; is generally a dog whistle for creationism in any case. Nor are there any sources claiming that the primary purpose is Evangelical outreach. Even if you could dig up a few, you'll never find a reliable source that claims it's not pushing creationism, which would be an absolute necessity given the number of sources claiming that it is. I like the pictures, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personal experiences are not RS and are not a basis for...anything in WP. And according to RS the place is full of YEC-timeline pseudoscience, like dinosaurs co-existing with people and the role of so-called flood geology in YEC responses to actual science.Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm, of course, aware that my observations from my trip are WP:OR and not suitable as a basis for an argument to change the wording. That's why I segregated them in a paragraph that begins and ends with sentences meant to show their purpose (i.e. that your comments ascribed motives to me that were incorrect and represent an assumption of bad faith). I devote more space to it here because I feel like it's becoming a pattern, and I'm not comfortable with that. (See your dismissive "Uh huh" response to my shocking assertion that there is nothing POV about wanting unnecessary italics removed from the words Ark Encounter. I'm still trying to figure that out.)

I do genuinely appreciate your compliments on the pictures, though. My cell phone camera is not that great, and several of the pictures (which you can see in the Commons category for Ark Encounter (forgot how to link that), didn't turn out as well as I'd hoped. Considering how contentious it seems every edit on articles on this topic have become, I was anticipating that someone (not you, necessarily) would have a problem with something about the pictures or how they were added, so hearing confirmation that they actually improved the article (as intended) is a welcome thing to read.

With all that said, let's please return to the qualifier. I still don't think it's necessary. Given the amount of contentious discussion it has generated and the fact that it describes Ark Encounter, which is only tangentially important to the film that is the article's topic anyway, I think there is an even stronger case to remove it altogether. Do you think it is necessary/worth it to include a qualifier and, if so, why? If the community deems it necessary, is some version of Rhododendrites' suggestion ("Ark Encounter, a creationist attraction operated by Answers in Genesis") acceptable to you? Because I find it a significant improvement on the current wording. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

That wording doesn't bother me much, so long as AiG is linked. I'd honestly prefer "Ark Encounter, a creationist attraction." without any attribution, but the actual wording has never been what I've been responding to; the arguments against it have been. You could list out the entire board of directors/managerial team of AiG and attribute it to them for all I care.

Let me offer you some advice from a long-winded bloviate: Giant walls of text can win you an argument if sufficiently interested people are reading. But short, declarative comments with brief explanations are what will best reach an agreement. I have literally read about 10% of what you've written throughout this discussion because it's simply not important enough to me to take the time to read it all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the change. Others here oppose the change. This edit note, per talk misrepresents the state of consensus here. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Very well. But at least three editors (myself, 1990'sguy, and Rhododendrites) have concerns about the existing version, and MPants has at least said he's open to the change, as well. Will you offer any attempt at compromise? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I remain open on the issue. That, by definition, includes being open to "keeping the attribution improves the article". The only argument I'm not really open to (it would be better to say I'm provisionally closed off to it) is "keeping the attribution damages the article" because the little argumentation I've seen to support that holds no water. For all intents and purposes, my opinion doesn't matter to the question of consensus here, unless and until someone makes an argument for or against that I find compelling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Only one comment from me. Anything to do with the Ark story or with Answers In Genesis is 100% totally creationism - that's what Genesis and AIG *are*. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• By the way, the base content we are talking about was added in this diffby 1990's guy, and like many of his edits on creationist subject matter, failed to summarize the source in a neutral way. It name-drops Wheaton College, leading the reader to think that the movie was probably well received there, when in fact the CP ref is very clear that the film was not well received there. Guy's edit added some to make it more contextual, but even that edit didn't bring in the very very clear context. This POV name-dropping PROMO editing, ignoring what the source actually says, is the far bigger problem with this passage. I am cross-posting this to ANI, as this exactly what happens with this relentless yet oh-so-civil POV pushing advocacy that persistently violates NPOV and especially the PSCI portion of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous -- the movie had an extra scene filmed at the Ark Encounter featuring students from Wheaton. That's the fact and that's what matters for this article. The fact of Wheaton faculty believing in a old earth is COATRACK to this article, and makes the article unnecessarily bloated and wordy. I would apply the same principle (and I already have) to articles of topics I personally oppose. You could completely remove "the students were members of a club that had requested a screening of the film at their school, which had caused controversy there" part and nothing of value would be lost to a reader wanting to read about the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No it is just as much cherry-picking name-dropping aa mentioning Jimmy Carter's visit or any of the other context-free promotional facts, as I parsed at ANI. A pattern of clearly PROMO editing promoting pseudoscience-promoting things/organizations/people, and failing to neutrally summarize what the sources say. Following your reasoning it would be perfectly NPOV to just say in our thalidomide article, that the drug was formerly used to treat morning sickness and is now used to treat leprosy and cancer, and leave it at that, without discussing those COATRACK birth defects. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (again)

Let me make this a separate discussion from the one above, so it doesn't get lost in the recent revert war. An IP recently deleted the descriptor "pseudoscience" from the term "creation science" in the article lead. That was reverted with the rationale that the descriptor was factually accurate. A different editor removed the term again, contending that the sentence is more concise without it. That was reverted again with the contention that the wording had been discussed. I contend that all of these rationales have some basis in fact, to wit:

• Policy does require is to note the prevailing view of creation science.
• The sentence, and in fact the paragraph, reads more cleanly without the "pseudoscience" qualifier, which to me seems awkwardly added.
• The issue has been discussed previously on this talk page (here).

What I am contending is that the discussion did not result in a consensus that we must use the term "pseudoscience" in this sentence, or at all. The closer explicitly notes: "there's a strong-consensus to include the point but the editorial details need to be settled" (emphasis mine). The discussion to settle the editorial details never took place, so I am starting it now. I believe that the sentence can be made cleaner and more concise without sacrificing accuracy or due weight. An example of how would be to combine it with the sentence immediately following: "Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that promotes creation science, which holds beliefs about about the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms that have been rejected by the scientific community." Much less wordy, accurate, and due weight. Would this be acceptable to both sides? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, PSCI is clear on this: The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.. I encourage you to be mindful of the discretionary sanctions on this topic, as someone who is an admin and whom we all look to, to follow policy. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that the policy expressly requires us to use the term "pseudoscience". It requires us to describe it as such. If something claims to be scientific, yet it it is rejected by the scientific community, it is, by definition, pseudoscience. The word pseudoscience need not be used if the sentence provides a factually equivalent description, which is what policy requires, and the passage reads less awkwardly when we aren't trying to wedge the word "pseudoscience" in there.

To be honest, I tire of this constant appeal to discretionary sanctions. Are you contending that the existence of these sanctions means that proposals can't even be discussed? That questions about what policy does and does not require cannot be clarified? The RfC closer explicitly suggested that this discussion take place. If I have done something in violation of the sanctions or contrary to my responsibilities as an admin, then report me and let the community have its say. Otherwise, kindly assume that I am aware of the discretionary sanctions at this point. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be OK with fraudulent instead, if that works for you. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources do not feel the need to use that descriptor, thus we shouldn't here either. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I find that most of the reliable sources that discuss creationism in any form use either the word pseudoscience or equivalent descriptors to describe it. Even as balanced an academic as Ronald Numbers does not shy away from this characterization. Do you find anything different in your list of reliable sources? Or do you simply not think that there is a consensus among academics that the rhetoric in this film is pseudoscientific? jps (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As noted, my suggestion here is primarily stylistic. I don't think the passage reads very smoothly when we insist on jamming the word "psuedoscience" into it. I am contending that the phrase "which holds beliefs about about the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms that have been rejected by the scientific community" is, as you put it, an "equivalent descriptor", and thus permissable under policy, and makes the passage read more smoothly and concisely. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, as you can see below, there is some problem with your formulation which doesn't make it clear that the movie is simply making false statements, and we need to state that fact cleanly and plainly. However, this is another matter. What isn't true is that your sentence has the same meaning as the one you want to replace it with. Pseudoscience is more than just advocating for things rejected by the scientific community. It requires a certain rhetorical elevation which creation science, in particular, achieves, and things like folklore do not. jps (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

labeling it pseudoscience is an opinion, which does not align with presenting wikipedia as an unbiased source of research material. Rather, "...that have been rejected by the scientific community" is actually stating a fact. It makes the material seem immature and non-credible.Requesting it be redacted (again). 2600:1700:3544:A480:E950:E28C:2C82:E1C4 (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I wish creationism were history.

No, we will not replace sourced statements by your opinion that labeling it pseudoscience is an opinion. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on what you think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"It makes the material seem immature" Because telling lies is more mature? Anything related to creationism is pseudoscience. Dimadick (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to say that (for me) either of the two recent edits work, not seeing what the issue is.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Convince YEC

[7] You want to actually convince people YEC is garbage? No, this article, or its information, is not there to convince YEC, or to preach. Articles are distinct entities and we have policies about making certain facts clear. This is now only a personal experience, but if I want to show someone who denies facts that they are real, saying "this scientist or person said that" would be suboptimal. Only saying "it's a fact" is also unlikely to help, especially if the person already distrusts science. There are learning resources on geology and biology which are more useful. Then again, this would require an active effort to study and understand, homework we can't do for them. Our audience is not YEC, but general. —PaleoNeonate – 02:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There are easily more professional/encyclopedic/slick ways of saying YEC is false without needing to use words like "incorrect" and "pseudoscience" (which, BTW, I still used the latter term). Any average reader is going to see the present wording as very "in-your-face". There are ways to say the same thing without having an average reader get the impression that WP is arguing. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Incorrect" is literally the most neutral, academic/encyclopedic/professional way of saying something is... Well, incorrect. Also, moving the word "pseudoscience" to the second sentence minimizes the notability of the fact. Did you know, for example, that when you use voice commands to ask google about this film on your Android phone or Google Dot, that it actually reads just the first sentence? There are an number of other ways that the first sentence of an article spreads around the web, as well. We should do everything we can to ensure that the first sentence contains a complete definition of the subject. If that means lengthening it out and including sources which are about aspects of the film and not the film itself, so be it. I do not approve of the edit by 1990'sguy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. The film is propaganda for "creation science", a fraudulent faux science invented form whole cloth by creationists in order to try to crowbar religion into public school science classes. The entire enterprise is fundamentally dishonest, and there's nothing wrong with letting readers know this. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Then find a source that says the film is dishonest and use it to support something like "X describes the film as dishonest". While, yes, efforts to crowbar religion into science classes are to be condemned (by the wider world), Wikipedia itself must not take a morally opposed stance - we are not here to right great wrongs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the film has been entirely ignored by mainstream critics and sources. The only people who write about it, are evangelicals. There are no reviews by professional critics. All we can say with confidence is that a subset of evangelicals love it to bits, and that it promotes a concept that is canonical pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the "incorrect" word, my concern was mostly about the removal of the sources necessary to support WP:PSCI, as in #Recent sources removal above, and my revert here. —PaleoNeonate – 10:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed the word "incorrect", as even though the available scientific evidence supports that stance, it's still a hotly argued topic and it is not for Wikipedia to judge in its own words. Surely "...rejected by the scientific community..." etc is sufficient? After all, this article is about the film, not about YEC itself - and even the Young Earth creationism article does not state that it is "incorrect". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"...it's still a hotly argued topic". Not in most of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not in most of the developed world, maybe. But either way, Wikipedia should not judge a view in its own voice as "incorrect". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an astounding position to take. At Wikipedia we try to write facts. That's the full and total essence of NPOV. When there are statements which are demonstrably false, the simplest thing to do is to indicate plainly and without hedging that the statements are false. That is the factual way to do this. That there may be any number of people who have opinions that a false statement is true is irrelevant. Wikipedia can report, factually, that there exist people with such opinions and can report what their opinions are, but it does not change the fact that the thing they believe is false into any less of a fact. jps (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

even though the available scientific evidence supports that stance, it's still a hotly argued topic and it is not for Wikipedia to judge in its own words. You realize that WP:NPOV directly contradicts this, right? Specifically, WP:GEVAL & WP:PSCI. It's not even a little ambiguous. Your statement here is categorically wrong with respect to our policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Come on, we had "incorrect", "pseudoscience" and "rejected by the scientific community" together with more stuff about creation science being rejected - in the first two sentences, almost before anything had been said about the film itself. And the article isn't even about creation science, it's about the film! Don't you think that's over-the-top WP:POINT? Making it clear that creation science isn't accepted (and isn't science) is fine, but rubbing people's noses in it to this extent is sheer bloody-mindedness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a completely different (and much better) argument than the one I quoted. That being said, I'd like to see a clear statement in there that the claims pushed in the film are false. I would rather lose the "rejected by the scientific community" bit (as it implies a false balance between scientists and non-scientists) than the "incorrect" bit. Let me take a look and make an alternative proposal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Even the Creation science article doesn't say it's "incorrect" in Wikipedia's voice, and this barely-watched article here should not be turned into an anti-creation science hit piece (even if creation science might deserve it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Even the Creation science article doesn't say it's "incorrect" in Wikipedia's voice It should. It did at one point when I was watching it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the CS article, I'm generally okay with the way it defines the subject in the first sentence. I think we could borrow from that wording. So that we could make this say:

The film advocates for beliefs about the natural world, origin of the Universe, age of the Earth, and common descent of all lifeforms that contradict established scientific facts.

We could leave out the Biologos and Wheaton College claims, because they also look like "piling on". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better - I am disturbed by the "198 of the 200 professors at Wheaton College" bit too, as that looks like even more of the excessive attempts to rub it in. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I literally had not even noticed that before now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that's much better now, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any impeachment of the source which shows point by point that the movie contains incorrect statements. Why do you think that this word isn't editorially sound? Clearly the claims made in the film are incorrect. jps (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll also respond to the local consensus that brewed here in comparison to the creation science article. I think the difference here is that the film makes specific claims which a source that is included specifically shows are false. This is different than a general movement like creation science which has been used as a statement to describe a whole host of arguments many of which are false (like those in the movie), but some of which are just bizarre emphases. For example, there is a popular claim made in the context of books, articles, and speeches purporting to be about "creation science" where the creation science proponents complain that scientists are more likely to be atheists than the general population of the US -- a true statement but one that isn't really relevant to the science that is getting done. jps (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@ජපස: I hope you're not waiting for me to argue with you because I'm not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to have no arguments, please. What I would like to have an engagement with my points in this discussion about how to incorporate the wide range of rhetorical, factual, and editorial points into the article. So far, I see a lot of fly-by-nighters coming in and removing "incorrect" without actually engaging with me on the talkpage. I have tried to make it very clear why we need some indication of what the truth-value of the beliefs in the movie are (according to a very reliable source we have in the article), but so far, I have had people just remove the word "incorrect" without discussing these matters with me. jps (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@ජපස: As I pointed out on ANI your argument there doesn't hold, we should say that it is "incorrect" or "contradicted by scientific fact", but both is just redundant. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Except, you are wrong. These are two different points and they are not necessarily redundant and they speak to different aspects of the analysis. The adjective incorrect deals entirely with the truth value of the beliefs. The modifier "contradicted by scientific fact" explains the manner in which the truth value is identified. The reason that the truth value is important to indicate is because the source we are using in the sentence makes that determination in a reliable, factual fashion. If you can rewrite the sentence to indicate that how and why the beliefs are incorrect, I'm happy to read that proposed wording, but the current wording only indicates the why and not the how. jps (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@ජපස: "contradicted by scientific fact" does explain the manner in which it is found to be false, but in doing so makes it clear that it is, indeed, false, like saying "it's false because...", but we don't need to say "false things that are false because..." Tornado chaser (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The comparison is not very good because text that says "contradicted by scientific fact" is not the same thing as text that says "false" or "incorrect". As much as you can argue that they are synonymous, there are loads of ways that people will argue rhetorically that they are not the same. Sadly, there are readers who will not know that, in this context, those beliefs that are contradicted by scientific fact are false. I know this is the case because such readers end up in my classes. jps (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to say anything about your beliefs, but to most of us, "contradicted by scientific fact" === "incorrect" === "false". The fact that people can build a rhetoric around the claim that they're not is immaterial; people can build a rhetoric around all sorts of nonsensical ideas. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of contributing to consensus, I made this same case in another discussion on another article – I forget which one – on a very similar topic. I agree with MPants; saying that something is contradicted by scientific fact should be equivalent to saying it is incorrect, rendering the use of both redundant. Boing's point below is also worthy of consideration in this discussion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MPants As all intelligent people do, eventually... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a subtle difference, in that science is open to what are now considered facts being overturned by new evidence, but "incorrect" sounds like it dogmatically isn't. But I think that is why "contradicted by scientific fact" is the appropriate description to use here (as well as being consistent with related articles which say something similar without explicitly saying "incorrect" in Wikipedia's voice). To say "contradicted by scientific fact" effectively means "incorrect", but also implies "but science is open to revising that should contradictory evidence be found" (even if the chances of such evidence being found are extremely remote - we can't rule out the minuscule chance of a huge head appearing in the sky saying "I made the whole thing last Thursday, with all the faked evidence included just to test your faith - now go change Wikipedia"). And given that "contradicted by scientific fact" is about the most that science can ever say about anything that's wrong, I think it is exactly what we should say here - no more, no less. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is designed to change over time, as new evidence emerges. Just like methodological naturalism. So I'm open to using "incorrect" as equivalent to "contradicted by scientific fact", because if and when science changes, we can then change "incorrect" to "misleading" or "correct".

But that being said, my inner academic prefers the implicit caveats of "contradicted by scientific facts". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, as we're agreed on what the article should say and both prefer the more academic wording, I think things are good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

---

References

Removal of criticism by christians

User:MjolnirPants , why this, mr no edit note? Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Look two sections up. Specifically, the back and forth between me and Boing!. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

meh. moving, i could see. removing? Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be okay with moving the claims in general if not that precise wording, instead of removing. I simply agreed with Boing!; the extra "rejected by Biologos and Wheaton college" read like skeptical piling on to me (a skeptic), and the bit about Wheaton college in particular even read a bit like a toothpaste commercial... "More than 9 out of 10 Christian liberal arts professors prefer the taste of Evolution!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I hear that. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Like the "taste of evolution" bit Guy (Help!) 17:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

One revert restriction for this article

To implement an arbitration enforcement action --- discretionary sanctions which this article falls under, and to prevent unnecessary disruption, I, being an uninvolved administrator, authorize one revert (colloquially referred to as WP:1RR) sanction for this article. This means that one editor can only revert edits once within any 24h period (not counting obvious vandalism and obvious violations of policy for biographies of living persons). May I please also remind those editors who are not familiar with editing restrictions that waiting for 24h to revert is not a valid means of dispute resolution, and repeated reverts, even if they do not fall under 1RR, will be still classified as edit-warring. Please discuss at this talk page rather than edit-war.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I will now log this restriction; if after a reasonable time interval you see that smth has not been logged properly please let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion reset

OK, so after the interesting little tour of Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocols over the last few days, we're left with a (not unreasonable) 1RR restriction on editing this article, but we still have an outstanding issue of the wording "Ken Ham's creationist attraction" being used to describe the Ark Encounter. Reservations have been expressed by multiple editors over this wording, and alternatives have been proposed, including:

• adding no descriptor to Ark Encounter, which reflects the state of the article prior to September 6
• describing it as "a theme park operated by Answers in Genesis that promotes the Genesis flood narrative"
• describing it as "a creationist attraction operated by Answers in Genesis"

While I prefer the first option, I tried the last option, which seemed to generate less opposition here on the talk page, in an attempt to move the discussion forward. This was done in the spirit of WP:BRD ("when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns"). That was quickly reverted on the basis that there was no consensus to support the change. But neither is there consensus for the current version, which was added on September 6 and immediately challenged. Why the current version still reflects that edit instead of the state of the article prior to the edit of September 6 is a mystery to me. It was a change made, and now being defended, in the absence of consensus. I am open to considering other proposals, but this is still an outstanding issue. I'm starting a new thread in hopes of focusing discussion on proposing resolutions and leaving all the accusations of POV-pushing in the rear view of ANI, where the community did not endorse them by consensus here nor here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I would point you to WP:1AM with respect to your claim that this is an "outstanding issue". I'm getting sick of discussing this and I highly doubt I'm alone. I'm inclined to just throw my support to whomever is in the majority just to settle this, and right now, it seems like "Ken Ham's creationist attraction" is the majority preferred version. No matter what, I don't see this wording as making or breaking the article, and so I'm unwilling to expend much more energy trying to work it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

One against many? Who started the thread that began this discussion? Not me. Who called the wording "a little awkward", "frankly bizarre", "imprecise language", "goofy phrasing", and "obviously wonky"? Again, not me. Given the relative paucity of editors who weighed in on this issue, this is demonstrably not a case of WP:1AM. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you ignore the most cogent parts of my comments to focus on something you think you can score points on. Oh, by the way... How many editors have said anything about this in the past ten days? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Assuming this was not a rhetorical question, and using datestamps, I count you, me, Jytdog, Rhodendrites, and JzG, at least. And I suspect that at least some, myself included, were a little preoccupied with the ANI thread and mostly suspended discussion here to see how that would play out.

As to your comment that the majority favors the edit of September 6, it looks to me like 3-and-3 at best. You complain about a wall of text and say you are open to other wording, but you seem to want to engage a discussion of everything but the wording, which tends to lead to a wall of text. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've told you multiple times that I don't care whether the AE is attributed or not, so you can take your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and shove it. As for who has said anything about this subject in the past ten days, you need to look at the history and actually check what is being said, not just relying on what section it was said in. In other words, no-one other than you has mentioned this in ten days. Seriously: WP:1AM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• This sentence in which this phrase exists, is not a neutral summary of what the source says about the movie, and I am unwilling to discuss this cherry-picked sentence at all outside of discussing how to better summarize the source in this article. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on this anyone? I changed the text in question, which has been challenged since it was added, based on my comments above (I admit I haven't read much of the back and forth since then, since it's just so weird so much text has been expended on it) and elaborated upon what the source says regarding reaction to the film's screening at Wheaton. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That looks much better than the current. I suspect it will satisfy Jytdog. If so, can we drop this now? I'm seriously sick of going around this same circle for the umpteenth time (though I'm not blaming you, per se). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As my only issue was the descriptor on Ark Encounter, this is a substantial improvement on "Ken Ham's creationist exhibit". The rest looks neutral enough to me. Not sure why the descriptor change couldn't have stood when I made it a few days ago and the rest of the details worked out later, since the two are basically independent of each other, but I'm as glad to put this discussion to bed – with an actual compromise – as anyone. Thanks, Rhododendrites. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I also support the current wording. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I dislike this change. AiG is Ken Ham. Naming the group rather than Ham gives spurious legitimacy (but then, that has always been the purpose of this article). Guy (Help!) 09:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm it's true that it could be considered a vanity org... —PaleoNeonate – 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That's[8][9] ridiculous -- AiG is a 501(c)(3) with a board of directors and many staff members, and I believe it has a new president, though Ham is still the CEO. And how does (accurately) naming AiG (a YEC org) rather than Ham give "spurious legitimacy"? It surely would give greater legitimacy to this article when we stick to the facts rather than constantly go out of our way to try to make YEC look as bad as possible (and many editors pointed that out on the ANI). --1990'sguy (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's arguably a vanity org, but I don't see how AiG is any more "legitimate" than Ham. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Founder: Ken Ham. President: Ken Ham. Spokesman and public representative: Ken Ham. AiG is Ken Ham's petty cult. You have to wade through pages of results before you get any substantive coverage of AiG that doesn't discuss him. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

First off, he's not AiG's president anymore. Someone else holds the position. Second, POV/FORUMy WP:OR rants ("Ken Ham's petty cult", etc.) like that don't belong on a Wikipedia talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Guy presented several facts, then drew a conclusion from that. The fact that he used everyday language is no excuse to call his comment a "POV/FORUMy WP:OR rant". The point is to reach an agreement here, not to escalate the existing disagreement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

He got his facts wrong, since Ham is no longer AiG's president (CEO, yes, but someone else holds the president position). He also ignored the fact that AiG is a 501(c)(3) organization with a board of directors. I don't see how using language like "Ken Ham's petty cult" is helpful in reaching an agreement in any way. I am considering starting an RfC on how to phrase that sentence. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop arguing with Guy for a moment and please answer the question: Do you support the current wording? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Not with this. Otherwise, it's wordy, but acceptable. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Then we'll go with the version which lacks that, and which was endorsed by 6 of the 7 people participating in this discussion. I would also note that you got your facts wrong in one of your comments here. See if it's as easy for you to spot as Guy's mistake was. If not, then please consider that arguing past a solution is counterproductive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How about not pandering to creationists? AiG is Ken Ham. Calling it an AiG endeavour lends spurious legitimacy, as it makes it seem to be organised by a larger and more significant group than it actually is. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. Everyone I know of who knows who Ken Ham is also knows that AiG is his little vanity org. Anyone who doesn't will quickly find out from reading Answers in Genesis. And anyone who can't grasp the gravity of attributing it to AiG is also not going to grasp the gravity of attributing it to Ham. I just don't see how AiG has any more credibility, even false credibility than Ham. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I, for one, would not object to this and the multiple related threads above being archived at this point. The heat to light ratio is approaching homeopathic levels of potency as time goes on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree emphatically, and contend that it's approaching actual medicine levels of potency. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

Please remove, "Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that uses creation science, a pseudoscientific concept, to promote Young Earth creationist beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms" and replace it with, "Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that uses creation science to argue for a recent origin of the age of the earth and the common decent of all lifeforms"

The reason for the suggested edit is that it is a more accurate description of the content of the film. It doesn't interject personal opinion regarding it's veracity and avoids pejorative language that people might find offensive. Thank you. Revcpa777 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed to death. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that the answer given ("Not done", "this has been done to death") is trite and doesn't address the concerns I raised. It also doesn't meet the goal of Wikipedia's community to provide accurate information. Whatever your opinions regarding the film's content, for users to be allowed to use pejorative opinion to describe the film's content is not only offensive; it undercuts the usefulness of the Wikipedia platform itself. When users are allowed to post edits (some of the users are in the thousands of edits per year) and interject their own personal opinions without a check and balance, it proves troublesome. The film does not present a pseudoscientific concept, that's some users' opinion of what the content of the film represents. The film's producers present from what they describe is a position that they call biblical creation. This is the accurate description. It seems that some users have jumped on this page to keep this moniker of "pseudoscientic" in the first paragraph which smacks of a mob mentality and bullying anyone who they might believe is defending the film's content. Many of the users who are editing this page in a pejorative way have personal pages/profiles that reveal a very hostile and condescending posture toward people of the Christian faith, especially those of a particular subset of Christianity that it represented in this film. I believe that the editors who work for Wikipedia should look at this further. They should only allow factual edits that are devoid of opinion, especially from edits with language designed to denigrate the film rather than provide an accurate description of its content. The bigoted Anti-Christian users who have made sport of this undercut the trustworthiness of the Wikipedia platform for me. Seeing how the editing process can be hijacked by such a relatively small but organised group has been a real wake-up call for me. A place where bigotry is unchallenged, uncorrected and encouraged is not a place I believe deserves much respect or consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revcpa777 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope, we're not Anti-Christian, but good Wikipedia editors sing from all their hearts and lungs "a mighty fortress is mainstream science". Those who dislike mainstream science, dislike Wikipedia. We don't have to fix that, that's who Wikipedia is. See WP:RGW. The leading idea behind Wikipedia is what would WP:CHOPSY teach, not what most readers would like to hear. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "concerns" that were raised have been addressed numerous times before as anyone with good reading comprehensions skills would have gathered from "This has been discussed to death. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Should there be an entry for Thomas Purifoy?

There is no biographic information here on Thomas Purifoy. I know a little about him from having heard him speak. There is a little bit also on IMDB. Also a few articles. I am just learning the ropes around here and have already committed one faux pas. Is this a good way to get the ball rolling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjwilling (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Sjwilling (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sjwilling: If you can find sufficient sources to demonstrate notability and make sure to immediately cite/list those when creating the article, it is likely to stay. However, those sources should not be user-generated (IMDB is) and should also include more than only mentions. The sourcing requirements are high for biographies. Suggested reading: WP:BLPRS, WP:NBIO, WP:USERGEN, WP:SPS. Since you are new to Wikipedia, maybe you'd also like to go through the WP:AFC process that'd allow the article to be in WP:DRAFT space and submitted for experienced editors to audit before it's moved to main space. —PaleoNeonate – 00:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn't to prove Purifoy's notability, but he wrote a rather detailed op-ed on the movie and Genesis that might be useful: [10] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Meh

We need to add {{main|No}}. Guy (help!) 22:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Redundant. Any title of book/movie/article that ends in a question-mark is always answered 'no'. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Meh. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Leonard R. Brand

This article discusses Leonard R. Brand's (of Loma Linda University) view on the movie and the overall topic (he apparently advised the film, though he doesn't agree with everything in it): [11] This might be something to mention in the article, though I probably won't add it myself. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Source

https://www.realclearscience.com/ is not WP:RS. AFAIK, it is just an aggregator of articles published elsewhere. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Awkward first sentence

The first sentence currently reads:

Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that uses the pseudoscience of creation science to promote Young Earth creationist beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms.

To me, that is an awkward phrasing: "the pseudoscience of creation science" is repetitive, and since Young Earth creationism is a form of creation science, the statement that creation science is used to promote Young Earth creationism creates a weird recursive loop in my head. Would it be acceptable to rephrase it as follows?

Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that promotes the pseudoscientific notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms.

This does change the meaning slightly: the current version says that the film promotes YEC beliefs about the origin of the universe (etc), while my proposed version says that the film promotes YEC, and that YEC believes things that contradict scientific facts about (etc). The difference is slight, but if there are central YEC beliefs that are not promoted by the film, it might be significant. However, I've read the source "Digging for Truth and Coming up Empty-Handed" (Cade 2017) which calls it "the young-earth creationism (YEC) documentary-style film Is Genesis History?", so I think it would not contradict the source to say that the film promotes YEC. --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I like this re-wording. The current first sentence has, to the best of my recollection, been in place for years, and it's always felt awkward to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• The argument against is that some YEC claims are in the realm of faith/belief/religion without getting into creation science, so are better characterized as nonscientific rather than pseudoscientific (thus YEC isn't a form of creation science but rather creation science is a common pseudoscientific approach to justify YEC claims). That's not to say the first sentence isn't awkward, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  The job of that sentence seems to be to reflect the relationship between the four terms "Is Genesis History?", YEC, creation science, and pseudoscience. That is a bit much, and maybe it can be split up. But first, the relationship should be written down clearly.

  Creation science is a subset of pseudoscience and YEC, maybe even their intersection. (There is Old Earth Creationist pseudoscience, but I don't think it is called Creation Science. If it is, Creation science is not a subset of YEC.)

  So, what about "IGH?"? The Cade source just says it is about YEC and debunks a few of its pseudoscientific items. The Storm source says it is about the first chapters of Genesis. So, the subject of "IGH?" is the whole of YEC, not just the pseudoscience part of it. But Bonadea's intro "that promotes the pseudoscientific notion of Young Earth creationism" is still correct: "IGH?" does promote YEC, and YEC is a pseudoscientific notion since pseudoscience is a big part of it. I think the new sentence is definitely an improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

statements not directly related to the source

I temporarily removed the following paragraph in the opening, as it is not directly supported by the reference cited. Since the citation refers to a blog, it is put in the Reception section.

• that promotes the pseudoscientific notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth and universe, the origin of the Solar System, and the origin and evolution of life.

Lightest (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The lede does not need citations; the citations should be in the article itself, and the lede should summarize that. Unfortunately, the article did not say what the lede "summarizes", so you were formally correct in removing it. We need to find better sources or, if reliable sources ignored that garbage, delete the whole article as undue.

But in sum, your edits turn the article WP:PROFRINGE. This bullshit needs to be called out or not mentioned, according to WP:FRINGE. Adding positive reception by fellow pseudoscientists may be acceptable if there is also mainstream reception, but we will not have pure within-fantasy-universe sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

While the long standing version of the lede was a product of many editors flipping it back and forth until it stabilized on the version that addresses pseudoscience and how the film contradicts established scientific facts without corresponding citations in the article body, the newly substituted version supporting the claim of six days versus day-age creationism and the reasonableness of the Genesis narratives such as Adam and Eve, the fall, the global flood, and the tower of Babel aren't supported by citations in the article body either. I'm going to revert the recent removal of the FRINGE-addressing content from the long standing version and suggest that if the lead is to be re-written, it should begin with a new proposed form here on the Talk Page with ensuing editor discussion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Special Presentation One Night Showing

• as regards whether it was clear it was a special presentation one night showing, i would respectfully disagree, so I'm going to research this more.

the entire article deserves a rewrite for prose and encyclopedic tone. maybe next month. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk)