Tornado chaser (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 422: | Line 422: | ||
: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. [[User:Acdixon|Acdixon]] <sup><span class="plainlinks">([[User talk:Acdixon|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Acdixon|contribs]])</span></sup> 19:51, 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. [[User:Acdixon|Acdixon]] <sup><span class="plainlinks">([[User talk:Acdixon|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Acdixon|contribs]])</span></sup> 19:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
::I also support the current wording. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 00:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
::I also support the current wording. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk: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). <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:19, 18 September 2018
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rfc
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Closure statement:--
- As Rhododendrites and Jytdog have said, there is a minimum criterion of reliability and independency, that all sources shall achieve before being used as sources of reviews in films.
- As much as I am satisfied about the arguments about the non-independency of these source(s), the arguments presented by the opposite camp (1990'sGuy, Desmay et al) mainly relies on this guideline.
- Editors can disagree as to the interpretation of two supposedly-colliding-guidelines and it's impossible for me to weigh one camp over the other.Hence, a nuanced !vote count (coupled with some discounting of tag-teaming head(s)) leads to the establishment of a no consensus as to the inclusion of reviews by publications which though
wedded
to creation-science or fringe-Christianity (and hence biased), pass the test of reliability in it's domain.Same for poser 2.It may be prudentially noted that the reliability of these sources is also debatable...- Thus, per onus of inclusion and all that stuff, the current version sans all these debatable sources shall be maintained and such csources added only after establishment of a t/p consensus on a per-se basis.
- Editors can disagree as to the interpretation of two supposedly-colliding-guidelines and it's impossible for me to weigh one camp over the other.Hence, a nuanced !vote count (coupled with some discounting of tag-teaming head(s)) leads to the establishment of a no consensus as to the inclusion of reviews by publications which though
- But at the same time, it's but a fact that the reliability/independency of a source is not a binary concept and the validity of a source almost-always depends on the content it is used to source.
- Thus, I am very inclined to accept Acdixon's argument that the edit(s) which removed entirely non-controversial information about the film under the pretext of the sources being not very reliable/independent, is a dis-service to the reader.
- Accordingly they may be re-instated, at the very minimum.
- Thus, I am very inclined to accept Acdixon's argument that the edit(s) which removed entirely non-controversial information about the film under the pretext of the sources being not very reliable/independent, is a dis-service to the reader.
- As much as I am satisfied about the arguments about the non-independency of these source(s), the arguments presented by the opposite camp (1990'sGuy, Desmay et al) mainly relies on this guideline.
- As Rhododendrites and Jytdog have said, there is a minimum criterion of reliability and independency, that all sources shall achieve before being used as sources of reviews in films.
- As to 3, there's a strong-consensus to include the point but the editorial details need to be settled.
- I'll echo a statement by JzG:--
When the only sources are biased in one direction, we have a major problem.
but umm......, AfD's that way.(This's not a call to start another Afd:) )∯WBGconverse 11:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'll echo a statement by JzG:--
There is active dispute regarding the inclusion of certain classes of commentary.
- Should reviews by creationist groups be included, referenced to the primary source?
- Should reviews by atheist groups be included, referenced to the primary source?
- Should we note the well established fact that creation science is not science, to contextualise discussion of the subject matter of the film?
Guy (Help!) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Opinions
- I would exclude material from ideologically committed organisations cited directly, but allow third-party discussions of how these groups reacted. This is not a Marvel movie, opinion on whether it is good or bad are going to depend largely on whether you are creationist or not. Mainstream Christian press is OK (if the publication is not wedded to creationism) but we have to remember at all times that creationism is a fringe view even within Christianity, and that this film is part of a long-running political agenda to promote creationism as a parallel to objective fact. For the same reason I would include a brief statement about the legitimacy of creation science, a term deliberately coined to give a false impression of legitimacy to religious creationism. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Questions 1+2: As pointed out below, though I don't think the AfD close was particularly good, it did say there was consensus to treat this as a movie. As such, the relevant question is whether we would consider the source a reliable source for a movie review in general. If the answer is no, and it's only reviewing this movie because of a particular ideological perspective, then we should exclude them.
- Question 3 gets at not just reviews of the film but analyses of the specific subject matter/content of the film. While we don't necessarily have to apply WP:FRINGE to sources about the film broadly, if we get into the specific content of the film, we would indeed need to use sources that measure up to those guidelines. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Question 1+2, reviews should be WP:INDY which means not "in the fight". Rhododendrites really nailed it here when they wrote:
The keep !voters kept saying that it should be kept because it's a movie and should be treated as a movie rather than consider the fringe subject matter. Then we kept it on the basis that it should be treated like a film, despite the fact that there wasn't significant in-depth coverage of the film itself (only some announcements/press releases/buzz published in local news sources). Now we have an article about a movie that we're supposed to treat like a movie, but we cite sources that are not known as reliable sources for film criticism
. Folks are trying to have it both ways.
- Question 3, yes per WP:PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think that the AfD could be treated as factor whether we should be treating this as a movie or not. Should we ask the closure to clarify a little more? For now, I support the organizations in the article as they are notable and are connected to this subject. Furthermore, they serve as a balance to the review section that also contains negative comments. Lorstaking (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, and if it's a movie, we don't consider advocacy organizations reliable sources for reviews. As an aside, notability is irrelevant to the reliability of sources, we have special guidelines for what sources to use when dealing with fringe concepts, and the "balance" you're asking for is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. (edit conflict)This was originally intended to elaborate on what jytdog wrote, but with helpful wikilinks, but it seems he removed that comment in the meantime. I'll still go ahead and save. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- As noted in the discussion below, I feel the questions stated in this RfC are not specific enough. I support inclusion of non-neutral sources, on either side, to cite non-controversial claims about the movie. For example, this edit, among other things, removed the date and place that the film's principle photography began solely on the basis that it was cited to a non-neutral source. That is a disservice to the reader. I also think it is fair to summarize the reaction to the film from various creationist – YEC, OEC, and theistic evolution – and non-creationist perspectives, which was done prior to the most recent purge of information. Neither creationism writ large nor YEC are homogeneous schools of thought, so the endorsement or disagreement among these groups is notable. Any extraordinary claims – which would go beyond X endorsed the film or Y condemned the film – would, of course, require WP:EXTRAORDINARY sourcing, but the version that was purged did not appear to have such claims. Regarding the treatment of the term "creation science", I think the current treatment of the term is sloppy and inconsistent with what I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. I do not understand the import of the italics, and the parenthetical breaks up the flow of the sentence. I have long opposed the knee-jerk reaction to throw the "pseudoscientific" qualifier somewhere near every instance of the terms "creation science" or "Young Earth creationism" in every article, much less the argument that policy requires such a qualifier. Our users are perfectly smart and capable enough to click through to the article to see the thoughts surrounding these topics. If the consensus is to qualify it in this article, I oppose the present form of the qualification. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think the article should include non-neutral sources from all sides with regards to those sources' reception of the movie. Doing so would not be commenting on the merits of those sides' views, but would demonstrate whether those sides believed the film adhered to their views, was proficient in establishing its viewpoint, etc. That seems useful to the reader and doesn't seem likely to confuse anyone, so long as the sources are identified and (if the source names aren't sufficiently clear) their affiliations disclosed. Dbrote (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- The only problem there is that there are no sources on the reality-based side that pass WP:RS. Literally nobody other than creationists has taken this seriously. Which means we would be presenting a review of a creationist propaganda film supported entirely by sources sympathetic to creationist propaganda. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can't you just say something along the lines of "Creationist group [XYZ] praised the film as being in accordance with their own biblical values and as providing an argument in favor of creationism, [transition] [non-theological components of praise (direction, etc.)]"? That would let the reader know that at least some groups think it succeeded in advocating their message and flag that their non-theological praise might be colored by their theological views? Dbrote (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- The only problem there is that there are no sources on the reality-based side that pass WP:RS. Literally nobody other than creationists has taken this seriously. Which means we would be presenting a review of a creationist propaganda film supported entirely by sources sympathetic to creationist propaganda. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include the "non-neutral" sources (though reviews are inherently opinionated) and restore deleted info back to the status-quo version: These reviews are both YEC organizations, mainstream anti-YEC orgs such as Biologos, and organizations that take no position on creation/evolution (World, Newsmax, etc.). All of these reviews are acceptable under WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and not including them creates the false impression that literally nobody took notice of the movie, when in reality, several notable organizations that represent the views of roughly 80% of the U.S. public wrote in-depth reviews of the movie. WP:UNDUE was not violated since all the YEC org reviews were condensed in a single sentence, and all the positive reviews in general only took up a single small paragraph (more space was devoted to a single embarassing incident where one of the people interviewed came out against the movie). Some of the sources not cited as reviews, such as the movie's own website, are OK to cite for non-controversial facts such as when principle photography began. I agree with Acdixon with the "pseudoscience" wording -- we can mention it where it's appropriate, but it's smacks of POV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to have to mention it on every single article related to the topic of creationism. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include Material from inside the walled garden should be included with attention to phrasing and to the ordinary danger of tilting the article by giving WP:UNDUE weight.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that if there was material form outside to balance it. Isn't it weird that something so loudly defended has literally no sources outside its own bubble? Guy (Help!) 23:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are quite a few independent sources, including coverage in general circulation newspapers, and in Christian media that is not inside this particular bubble.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- So people keep saying. Inexplicably, they haven't presented them. The sources outside the walled garden have always been based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:ICANTHEARYOU -- Several editors, including myself have pointed to several reliable and independent sources that exist in addition to the reviews. Besides, we just had an AfD (the 2nd one) over this, and this RfC is not about whether the non-review sources are independent. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- So people keep saying. Inexplicably, they haven't presented them. The sources outside the walled garden have always been based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are quite a few independent sources, including coverage in general circulation newspapers, and in Christian media that is not inside this particular bubble.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think sources like Biologos are "in the bubble" -- it agrees 100% with evolution, and its founder led the Human Genome Project and was appointed director of the NIH under Obama after two years of serving as the org's president. You don't get much more mainstream than that.
- @E.M.Gregory: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to add your !vote under the "Opinions" sub-section of this RfC rather than this sub-section? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- right. fixed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that if there was material form outside to balance it. Isn't it weird that something so loudly defended has literally no sources outside its own bubble? Guy (Help!) 23:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, no, and yes to the three questions above. Creationist groups are not reliable sources; Atheist advocacy groups are not, either. If any of their opinions are reported on by independent, reliable sources, then they can be included. Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- include and restore per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. This information is also helpful to readers who want to know what these notable people thought of the movie and give a broader picture of the reaction. If we have the right wording and give the right amount of space to each viewpoint, we will be in line every relevant policy. I am no fan of the movie or of creationism, but the bias I'm seeing on this talk page is making even me offended.desmay (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are no mainstream sources. Again, per its about page, Biologis is very specifically Christian, and a specific bible-is-the-inspired-and--authoritative word-of-God sort of christian. We do not build pages in WP that are trapped in bubbles. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that a sizable proportion of scientists believe in God,[1][2] Biologos (which believes 100% in evolution) is not out of the mainstream. Besides, its president lead the Human Genome Project and was appointed as the NIH director under Obama (the latter while he was Biologos's president). You don't get much more mainstream than that. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are no mainstream sources. Again, per its about page, Biologis is very specifically Christian, and a specific bible-is-the-inspired-and--authoritative word-of-God sort of christian. We do not build pages in WP that are trapped in bubbles. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep references and restore - I don't agree with creationist ideology, but anyone can agree that these sources represent a really large proportion of Americans (young Earth and evolution-related). I agree with the arguments on WP:BIASEDSOURCES, as nobody has pretended they were neutral or reliable. My Lord (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Include #1 and #2; for #3 Yes but not in lead: the sources should be included per WP;BIASED as others have mentioned. "Creation science" is relevant. A brief, single mention is due--but not in the lead. – Lionel(talk) 04:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
If you can source it, add it.91.235.142.81 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Include for questions 1 and 2 there is nothing wrong with using non-neutral sources as long as we treat them as such, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES allows for this. Some editors here have claimed that the content made the article biased toward creationism, but I don't see this because most of the removed content was negative. The content should be retained. With question 3, we can include a mention, but the wording right now should be changed to avoid making a WP:POINT. Also, the cited sources for pseudoscience do not actually mention the movie, making it COATRACK. I support User:Lionelt's suggestion for how to fix this.Knox490 (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- You appear not to understand WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When the only sources are biased in one direction, we have a major problem. This is not citing the Discotute for creationist views on Kitzmiller, for example, it's a reationist propaganda film where nobody other than True Believers appears to have written a word. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Another WP:IDHT comment -- just take a look at the status-quo version, and you will find that the biased sources are not "biased in one direction." In fact, mus the opposite, considering that so much more space is devoted to the negative reivews by organizations such as The BioLogos Foundation (whose founder, Francis Collins, was appointed by Obama as the NIH director while he was the org's president) and several others. Of course, Biologos (which fully accepts evolution/long ages/climate change/etc.) is probably some YEC org in disguise because they actually decided to comment on a movie that nobody in their right mind would ever comment on (Wikipedia's voice, not mine). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- You appear not to understand WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When the only sources are biased in one direction, we have a major problem. This is not citing the Discotute for creationist views on Kitzmiller, for example, it's a reationist propaganda film where nobody other than True Believers appears to have written a word. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes to all", on the first two why should reviews be ignored just because they are going to reject the basic message? But we must also make it clear what the scientific community thinks.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude I've gone on record a few times as saying that I believe articles on topics that can't be covered in an accurate, neutral matter per a lack of relevant sources should be deleted. In this case, the question posed by the film's title has been discussed in great detail by professional historians for centuries, with a near-unanimous consensus that "It depends on what one means by history", but this film is actually about pushing a pseudoscientific view that has no relation to whether "history" means "stories", "stuff that totally happened in the past and wasn't just made up" or an account of the past. However, I know very few Wikipedia editors actually agree with me on this issue. I'm disclosing all this to say that if you want to disagree with my premise for essentially !voting Heck no! then you can dismiss my comment as representing the minority view it is and just focus on what everyone else says (and they seem to largely disagree with me anyway). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note that I think groups whose only qualification for discussing this film are that they are atheists should be treated roughly the same as those who only qualify because they are fundamentalist Christians: the former are not pushing fringe pseudoscience, and obviously I personally identify more with one than the other, but both are equally problematic in principle, IMO. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Include for #1 and #2 per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as the sources were presented in a neutral way that did not show favoritism toward creationism, based on the diff. Wikipedia should avoid making a false impression that nobody covered this movie when reputable sources like Biologos and notable ones like the Newsmax did. They are not professional media reviews, but that is irrelevant here. For #3, include this for context, but I agree with others here that the wording could be fixed. Lorstaking (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, No, and Yes. If we do go the route of including creationist and skeptical reviews, then we should write it in such a way as to not imply any equivalency between them: the former are completely untrustworthy, while the latter are generally highly trustworthy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Restore sources for 1 and 2 - The reviews were from a diverse set of sources, and as users above also said, the content was presented in a way that is in line with NPOV, UNDUE, or FALSEBALANCE. Oppose 3 because including it goes against WP:COATRACK, mainly based on the sources showing that creationism is pseudoscience - they have nothing to do with the movie and shouldn't be in the article. --RaviC (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so you think we should include pro-creationish fawning reviews and exclude the fact that the "documentary" is promoting objectively false claims that have been adjudicated to be false by a court, because otherwise it would be false balance? How does that work? Guy (Help!) 10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you're taking his comment out of context, since the false balance mention seems to be for his reasoning for #1 and #2, not #3. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so you think we should include pro-creationish fawning reviews and exclude the fact that the "documentary" is promoting objectively false claims that have been adjudicated to be false by a court, because otherwise it would be false balance? How does that work? Guy (Help!) 10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, and yes per the reasoning of Slatersteven and Lionelt. MBlaze Lightning talk 09:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Never too late. I would say: yes, yes, and conditional yes - the diffs given by the other editors show that the content was not presented inappropriately, and took into account that YEC is fringe, based on the weight given to their pressure groups. Mentioning that it's pseudoscience is likewise appropriate, though it would be in the interest of NPOV to rliminate all the scare quotes and references in that sentence not really having to do with the movie.Raymond3023 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
The article until recently treated this film as a documentary, and handled the critical reactions as if it were a normal movie. Imagine doing that with Triumph des Willens. This is a propaganda film reportedly inspired by a creationist's daughter's exposure to reality based perspectives in the infamous Ham on Nye debate. One core problem is that of the walled garden: virtually all commentary I can find on this movie is either by creationists or atheists. Very few mainstream film reviewers appear to have watched it - it has nothing on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, IMDB lists four external reviews none of which is of any weight (one is a student who received extra credit for watching the movie). None of the usual elements of a movie are present here, and treating it as a mainstream movie article is simply not possible because the movie is proselytising and everybody commenting on it is either rooting for it or vehemently opposed.
We should not view this in isolation. This movie is clearly following the wedge strategy. It is designed to influence opinion and present non-science as science. It's available as a learning pack for homeschoolers. It bigs up the scientific credentials of the people interviewed, but instead presents creation science, which we know from dozens of intersecting pieces of evidence is not science at all. "Creation science" is pesudoscience in the service of religious creationism, and we have that in court findings of fact. I don't have a problem with people who want to believe in literal Biblical creationism. I do have a problem with trying to present that as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, because it isn't. You can't have a documentary describing the scientific evidence for young earth creationism, as this movie purports to do, because there is none, and any evidence claimed to support that view is by definition either cherry-picked or misrepresented. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, life arose by random mutation and nonrandom selection, and this film exists solely because a few people want to replace these verifiable facts with Biblical Truth™ and have creationism taught in public schools. You cannot possibly view this outside the context of that long-running political action and the serial rebranding of creationism to try to get past Aguillard and Kitzmiller, and we have obligations under WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV not to represent ideologically motivated claptrap as a valid part of a scientific debate that in fact ended over a century ago. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The sources that are still cited in the article (that even you said above are reliable and appropriate to cite) all call it a "documentary" -- we say what the reliable sources say. You may try to right great wrongs by "revealing" what the movie "really is", but that doesn't change what the RSs say, and your assertion violates WP:OR. Nice try, though, with the National Socialism comparison. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please note that the reason the article treated this film as a documentary and a normal movie is because the attempted AfD resulted in a consensus to do so, and to keep the article on that basis. The closing admin explicitly notes that all seven of the delete !votes were based upon rationale substantially similar to your argument that the film should be held to different criteria because of its subject matter and many or most of the twenty-two !votes to keep were based on the rationale that this should be treated as a normal film, especially since it received coverage in non-creationist sources such as Newsmax and World (which, incidentally, have also mostly been purged by recent deletions). Your reviving of this argument for purposes of this RfC is done in direct conflict with the existing community consensus. Also worth noting is that the version that existed when the AfD was closed contained most of the sources now being objected to, quoted from even more extensively than they currently are, even after extensive discussion of what constituted acceptable sources.
- Even in light of the guideline that consensus can change, I think starting this RfC from a position that the community consensus has rejected is unwise. This discussion should be held under the terms of the current consensus, or you should attempt to form a new consensus outside the mechanism of this RfC, which already asks too many questions for the discussion to remain productive, in my opinion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- AfD is a discussion on whether to keep the article. "The community" hasn't made any determination on how the subject should be edited. As the close noted, "this is a film promoting Young Earth creationism, which we cover, with respect to science, as a fringe theory." The article before my edit of 23 May did not do that. Instead it combined a number of flattering reviews by creationists and a smaller number by atheists to weave an article almost entirely from partisan sources, with the judgment on inclusion or exclusion largely in the hands of a creationist WP:OWNer. I have no particular view on whether the movie is notable, I do have a view on using flattering reviews in fringe sources to make a fringe film look good. I have exactly the same problem with any kind of fringe propaganda, whether it's "chronic Lyme", antivaccination, homeopathy or whatever. We cannot treat propaganda movies for fringe subjects the same way we treat actual documentaries. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. The main problem here is that nobody other than partisans appears to have written about the thing. I am still looking for what I would characterise as a decent source. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what AfD is. All your cited quote from the closer says is that we cover YEC as fringe; it does not say we cover this film any differently. The closer of the discussion also noted that the reasoning of most folks saying the article should be kept was that it should be treated as a film. That's the same as saying the community's consensus is that the film should be treated as a film. At the very least, we can conclude that there was NOT a consensus from the community to treat the article differently because of the film's subject matter. You may call the film propaganda, but the reliable sources, even the ones that regard it negatively, call it a documentary. By all these measures, insisting that we should treat it differently from any other film is special pleading.
- You also keep saying the article is using flattering reviews in fringe sources to make the film look better. The extent of the inclusion of these reviews is a single sentence that lists the outlets that endorsed the film and acknowledges their slant, with exactly ZERO quotes from any of them. Additionally, there are two more sentences from three non-YEC sources (WND, World, and Newsmax) that note endorsements or, in the case of Newsmax, note its inclusion in a list of influential conservative films. How is this overly flattering? By contrast, four organizations are noted as providing negative reviews, with the arguments made in each review quoted, summarized, or both.
- Finally, the RfC questions just ask whether creationist and anti-creationist sources should be cited in the article, but the relevant question is WHAT, if anything, they can be used for. We have removed, for example, information about when and where principle photography began, simply because it was cited to a slanted source. This is not an extraordinary claim and doesn't require an extraordinary source. Same with the endorsements; we aren't saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that this film is a "great film that totally discredits evolution", and citing that to some YEC organization. We are using a YEC source to say that a YEC organization endorsed the film. That's it! Insisting on sources without a slant one way or the other leaves us with a reception section with a useless quote by a critic who didn't see the movie just because he's a "neutral" source. This is a disservice to the reader. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hang on, it was you who said that the AfD mandates treating the article as one thing or another. I don't think it does. It only decides the narrow question of whether to keep the article. The subject of the article is a creationist propaganda film with no evident mainstream reviews or impact. That clearly has to colour how we cover it.
- I am happy to discuss any proposed inclusions, but I am not happy about including sources that have 5% uncontroversial facts and 95% anti-science polemic, for obvious reasons. The fundamental problem, and I will keep cling back to this, is that the film appears to have been entirely ignored by everyone other than existing partisans in the anti-science culture war. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you look at the AfD, many editors were convinced that the article should be kept because of the attention it received from reliable and independent sources, including reviews such as the ones by Biologos and TGC (which were obviously removed). Several editors believed those critical reviews from anti-YEC organizations showed that the movie received mainstream coverage (and even several atheists agreed that Biologos and other anti-YEC Christian organizations are mainstream). Remember, these organizations that reviewed the movie, whether theistic evolution, OEC, and YEC, are very mainstream and notable in American society (considering that about roughly 75-80% of Americans taking any of those views (and this is seen by the fact that many of these organizations have a lot of coverage in their WP articles). While these views may not be scientifically accurate, they still represent the vast majority of Americans, and as an American film, these reviews are not fringe. And of course, we're citing these sources specifically to record their opinions of the movie -- I think WP:BIASED is the corresponding policy on this.
- Also, the "keep" !voters agreed that the article should be treated as a normal movie -- sure it was decided in an AfD, but a clear consensus was formed there nonetheless.
- Lastly in this comment, certain editors have made ridiculous accusations against me, some of which violate WP:AGF, such as accusing me of being the article's "owner", implying I used arbitrary standards for which orgs to cite, that I used "partisian" sources for the whole article, and implying that I'm some creationist pov-pusher to discredit me through ad homineum attacks. First off, I don't "own" the article, and I know I don't. This article has changed a lot since I created it, and most changes were not made or initiated by me. I have accepted these changes, and (until these latest edits which made so many changes that we haven't even been able to discuss them all) I actually think they generally improved the article. Of course, as someone interested in the article topic (as seen by me creating the article--on my own initiative/time, I should probably add), I am obviously interested when others make changes to the article, but this is a far cry from trying to "own" the article (and no, challenging your massive changes because they are unconstructive -- and you did unilaterally change nearly everything about the article -- does not constitute "owning" the article). Second, I did not use arbitrary standards for which groups' reviews to cite -- I only cited publications/organizations/media outlets/people that were notable enough to have their own WP articles, since ther reviews were by extension notable. Some of these organizations have fringe views, but culturally, they are mainstream and notable -- at least enough to where their (united) opinion of a creationist movie is notable. I saw several other reviews by people/groups that were not made by people/groups that met GNG. Third, I added the reviews (which are inherently opinion-based anyway) in the reaction section, which is an appropriate location for recording people's reactions to the movie. Elsewhere, I cited reliable and independent sources, such as the newspaper of record of Arkansas, several detailed Christian Post articles, a Business Insider article that discusses the movie's significance in relation to the Trump Era, and others. The Adventist Review source, which was removed, was independent of the movie, and as I recall, was specifically endorsed by !voters in the AfD along with all the other sources I just mentioned. In short, this article is not "littered with partisian sources" as claimed. Fourth, certain editors are implying that I'm some creationist pov-pusher, apparently because of my personal beliefs and because of my substantive content disagreements on an article like this. Not only does this blatantly violate WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL (see point #2 under the first header, for the latter), but this could not be further from the truth. First, I mainly edit political topics anyway, but on all topics, I take great care not to let my personal beliefs influence my editing (that's why my articles read very different from one on a website such as CreationWiki), nor do I try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as I believe certain other editors try to do. Of course, I'm not going to bash/mock YEC every talk page or edit summary comment I get, but that doesn't equate to pov-pushing. Please follow AGF in this discussion, rather than go on profanity-laced tirades or accusing opposing editors of false things. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Here's a challenge for you: cite all the reviews from mainstream organisations known for film criticism. I can't find any. To quote one of the conditional Keep !cvotes: "Jytdog's repeated argument is a salient one: if there is plenty of coverage but it is all in fringe-y publications, then referencing the lot of those provides a false summary picture". Three non-bubble sources were listed. One is not visible to me in the UK, one is a single short paragraph in an a long article about a more general subject, and one is an interview so not independent (and also in a minor publication). I am unable to find a single substantial critical (in the literary sense) review. It has zero professional reviews on the main movie review sites. And many of the Keep !votes offered no evidence, only assertions.
- I also compared the article you wrote on Conservapedia with the one you wrote here, and the further I go back in the history of both, the closer they get. Conservapedia's mission is antithetical to ours. Conservapedia exists because a bunch of young-earth creationists cannot bear the fact that theearth is 4.5bbn years old and life evolved by natural selection. You also identify as a creationist. I do not think your perspective is anything like as objective as you believe it is.
- And as pointed out above, you seem to be trying to have it both ways. You want this treated as a movie article, and then you insist on including ideologically biased sources because no mainstream sources cover it. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Responded at the AfD. I will add that the articles still had large differences upon their creation (and I tried hard to make sure it met NPOV), and the similarities are not surprising considering they came from the same person. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am sure you did think you were being neutral. I am equally sure that you failed in materially important ways. This is normal when believers in fringe theories try to write articles directly related to those theories. It's not evil, but it pretty much always happens - antivaxers writing about antivaccine movies, for example. Making "documentaries" with selective and heavily slanted presentations of the evidence is quite the thing these days for promoters of refuted ideas, and it's a real problem for Wikipedia because we get into exactly this kind of argument: ten notable proponents of $REFUTEDIDEA talk about it, hence it's claimed by other proponents of $REFUTEDIDEA to be notable. But per WP:NPOV we can't really cover propaganda for refuted ideas in a way that fails to show what's actually going on, hence we require substantive reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Responded at the AfD. I will add that the articles still had large differences upon their creation (and I tried hard to make sure it met NPOV), and the similarities are not surprising considering they came from the same person. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- AfD is a discussion on whether to keep the article. "The community" hasn't made any determination on how the subject should be edited. As the close noted, "this is a film promoting Young Earth creationism, which we cover, with respect to science, as a fringe theory." The article before my edit of 23 May did not do that. Instead it combined a number of flattering reviews by creationists and a smaller number by atheists to weave an article almost entirely from partisan sources, with the judgment on inclusion or exclusion largely in the hands of a creationist WP:OWNer. I have no particular view on whether the movie is notable, I do have a view on using flattering reviews in fringe sources to make a fringe film look good. I have exactly the same problem with any kind of fringe propaganda, whether it's "chronic Lyme", antivaccination, homeopathy or whatever. We cannot treat propaganda movies for fringe subjects the same way we treat actual documentaries. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. The main problem here is that nobody other than partisans appears to have written about the thing. I am still looking for what I would characterise as a decent source. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I will just say that if the wording is biased towards the YEC position, then that can be corrected pretty easily. I am sure that MOST Wikipedians DO NOT believe in the Ancient Astronauts theory, but we still have a page on Ancient Aliens. TLDR: Correct bias if needed, no need to delete the article Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I will also add, that I know for a FACT that 1990's guy is biased when it comes to this, but correcting bias on such an article is a relatively small issue. I do not see a reason why one guy's bias should result in the whole article being deleted... We can just correct the bias. Simple Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agreed with you, right up tot he point when I tried to do that and found that there are no actual sources to allow us to do that. Nobody other than creationism promoters and a handful of atheist bloggers has taken any notice of it at all. The only sources outside the bubble are press releases for local screenings. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are several things here. First, do you want this article deleted because the film itself supports creationism? Do you want it deleted because this article resembles the one in Conservapedia? Or do you think that regardless of ANY of the above mentioned, the film itself is not notable to have its own page? Or is it a combination of these things? Now, this is purely anecdotal, of course, but I live in Canada, and the way I know about this movie is through my uncle, who actually is YEC, and he found it on Netflix in Canada. But do answer Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you read the AfD nomination it is clear. The page fails WP:NFILM because there is a big hole, where there should be mainstream sources about this. What has happened in the absence of good sources, is that the article has been ballooned up with non-mainstream, non-RS sources. That is the problem here. All intrinsic to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article absolutely fails WP:NFILM (on every criterion) but I would be happy if there were mainstream sources to allow this to be kept on WP:NFRINGE. Sadly there aren't. The problem is not what it's about, but that it's a propaganda film and the only substantive sources are supportive. We have several articles on propaganda films which have proper mainstream sourcing to show them to be what they are. I'm good with that. Guy (Help!) 07:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are several things here. First, do you want this article deleted because the film itself supports creationism? Do you want it deleted because this article resembles the one in Conservapedia? Or do you think that regardless of ANY of the above mentioned, the film itself is not notable to have its own page? Or is it a combination of these things? Now, this is purely anecdotal, of course, but I live in Canada, and the way I know about this movie is through my uncle, who actually is YEC, and he found it on Netflix in Canada. But do answer Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agreed with you, right up tot he point when I tried to do that and found that there are no actual sources to allow us to do that. Nobody other than creationism promoters and a handful of atheist bloggers has taken any notice of it at all. The only sources outside the bubble are press releases for local screenings. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I will also add, that I know for a FACT that 1990's guy is biased when it comes to this, but correcting bias on such an article is a relatively small issue. I do not see a reason why one guy's bias should result in the whole article being deleted... We can just correct the bias. Simple Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- i feel bad for the people who are going to close this. ack. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- For everyone's information, since the RfC template has expired and discussion has slowed to a crawl, I have requested closure for this RfC. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
remaining reception section claims
Instead of this continued edit warring (it's now 3 to 2 in favor of removing the remaining claims), try making a rationale for keeping in "reviews" from sources that aren't reviewers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's the "reception" section, not the "critical reviews" section. You don't need to be reviewers to have a notable reaction of the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- If there were no film reviewers who reviewed it, that casts serious doubt upon the notability of any mention of it. Regardless, the Orlando Sentinel bit is rather obviously not a review, but an announcement that it is showing in local theaters. It's quite a stretch to refer to that as it's "reception", even if the reporter writing the piece is clearly disdainful of it. I suppose the Newsmax bit is arguable; but I have serious doubts about whether a single "we put it in our top 25 [incredibly specific genre] films" paragraph is sufficient to support a reception section. I'd just tack on that sentence at the end of the "release and box office" section.
- FWIW: I see that the AfD was close with "No consensus", but I can't see how this topic actually passes WP:NFO. My gut feeling is to keep it, but it doesn't look like it's really notable enough. I wonder if the opposition to deleting this was enough to effect a change in WP:NFILM. Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Since the movie clearly passes WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO is irrelevant, at the latter serves only as a "backup" in case the former isn't met. Besides, the movie got a lot of attention from many different groups (including many which either oppose YEC or don't take a position on it), yet you've removed them, opposed any attempts to re-add them despite there being no consensus, and then pretending that Newsmax was the only group that commented on the movie. It's absurd to say that it's imperative that a movie article (that otherwise got a lot of attention) should have reviews from people who make a living commenting on movies, especially on a movie as controversial as this, where "professional reviews" would be no different than one from Biologos. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
...the movie clearly passes WP:NFSOURCES...
NFSOURCES is not a list of criteria: it's two comments on a different list of criteria, and I don't believe it's at all clear that it passes those criteria. And NFO is not at all a "backup". I'm guessing you get that from a very brief reading of the opening of that section, but that's not even close to what it's saying. It's saying that if it meets the listed criteria, then you can be reasonably sure that enough sources to satisfy WP:NOT exist. So far, we arguably don't have sourcing that satisfies WP:NOT, so the failure to meet WP:NFO is a problem. All of the non-Christian sources used in the article are used to establish tangential information through passing mentions: It's quite arguable that this doesn't represent "significant" coverage, and the Christian sources don't represent "independent" coverage. Note that I tentatively disagree with the notion of deleting this article, and mentioned changing the guideline instead to gauge reactions.- I would also note that two editors who did not make their opinions clear via article edits over this issue have now jumped in on the side of removal. That's five editors in favor of removal, and two opposed. There are a number of "remove" arguments presented thus far, and only one "keep" arguments, which is rather obviously contested. It really is starting to look like a consensus, just not the one you asserted in your edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- You keep asserting that. It doesn't become any more true for those repeated assertions. The problem is, and always been, a near total absence of any reaction at all outside the christian fundamentalist bubble. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Since the movie clearly passes WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO is irrelevant, at the latter serves only as a "backup" in case the former isn't met. Besides, the movie got a lot of attention from many different groups (including many which either oppose YEC or don't take a position on it), yet you've removed them, opposed any attempts to re-add them despite there being no consensus, and then pretending that Newsmax was the only group that commented on the movie. It's absurd to say that it's imperative that a movie article (that otherwise got a lot of attention) should have reviews from people who make a living commenting on movies, especially on a movie as controversial as this, where "professional reviews" would be no different than one from Biologos. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If a source is not known for its movie reviews and is covering a movie because it promotes a particular belief the source agrees with, it's not a real review and thus shouldn't be in the reception section. They are not reliable sources for statements of fact on the matter, aren't reliable sources for film reviews, and thus are only reliable for their own opinions (and not in the sense of the absurd "all movie reviews are opinions anyway so what's the difference" argument). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Since we're only citing these reviews as their own opinions of the movie, rather than casting them as authoritative voices on whether you should see the movie, the fact that they're not "reliable" is irrelevant.
- So, we now have to pretend that no one noticed the movie (despite the contrary being true) because you don't like the existing reviews? And this is a classic case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, since you're implying that all these sources are YEC organizations. There are many reviews, from organizations such as Biologos which is as mainstream as you can get (just ask Obama), or from Newsmax (one of the most important and widely-read political/conservative websites in the country, per its WP article), among others. We condensed every YEC group review (and it's not a given that they'd actually like the movie) into a single sentence, and condensed every single positive review, regardless of the source, into a small paragraph. There's nothing wrong with letting readers know what different people thought of the movie if done rightly, and this actually enhances one's understanding of a movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- One of the two makes no comment at all about the movie other than to dismissively note that a creationist propaganda film is unlikely to arrive at the correct answer tot e question the film's title poses. The auther had not seen the film, and that is clear from the article. The other one is an unreliable source. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Biologos is not "mainstream". It is a Christian website that is very focused on a small set of issues. That is not a bad thing, but it very much what it is; a niche website. It is as niche-y in its own way as some atheist website would be, or as AIG is. The world is much bigger than any of those things, and when WP works correctly it is fully anchored in the big world and doesn't lose sight of it. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I keep seeing people -- not just on this page -- repeat an argument along the lines of "WP:BIASED says biased sources are reliable for their own opinion so we should include it". By that standard, we should include every opinion piece anyone has written anywhere about anything. That's not how it works. There needs to be a good reason to include the opinion of a biased source beyond the fact that it's talking about the subject. One good reason is when a reliable source talks about what a biased source says. Can anyone provide a reason why we should include these biased sources other than the fact that they exist, that they may be well-known within a particular community, etc.? This, of course, is putting aside the other issue of repeated inclusion of sources that say nothing of substance about the movie beyond what is provided in a press release, speculation, and/or quotes from the filmmakers. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Creation science
Hmm a recent edit made me remember of this. Using "creation science" would be completely neutral as it would show that it's a name including "science", not a science (it's not the science of creation, but that was the claim). My personal preference would be always using Creation Science (also displaying that it's a name). Both however appear to contradict our manual of style, I think? Very similar is "theistic science". It's also obviously out of the question to insert "so called" before such instances... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm with using the phrase as just that: a descriptive phrase. That the science should be placed in scare quotes is something to be made clear by linking it to creation science. We don't need to double down on making it clear that we're not treating it as a real science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Good point, I agree that this distinguishes it. Interestingly, I actually just found a mini-encyclopedia calling it "so-called creation science".[1]
—PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Good point, I agree that this distinguishes it. Interestingly, I actually just found a mini-encyclopedia calling it "so-called creation science".[1]
References
- Scare quotes or italics is fine, but plain text not so much, as it is authoritatively established to be religious dogma not science. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that the term creation science is now generally accepted as a term of art and most readers will not confuse it. On the other hand, the term "creation scientist", I think, is misleading and I removed it in favor of the more WP:NPOV term "creationist". jps (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. —PaleoNeonate – 16:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that the term creation science is now generally accepted as a term of art and most readers will not confuse it. On the other hand, the term "creation scientist", I think, is misleading and I removed it in favor of the more WP:NPOV term "creationist". jps (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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 [3]. —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: [4], [5]; [6], [7] - and we're here again wasting everyone's time against the status quo... —PaleoNeonate – 20:16, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
"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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Since you refuse to have this discussion where it properly belongs –
- 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 arounditalics 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I oppose the change. Others here oppose the change. This edit note,
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
Rejected versus incorrect
Because controversy happens. While it is 100% true that the scientific community rejects the claims made in this film essentially out-of-hand, they do so not because of some conspiratorial decision-making process but rather because the claims are simply not true. As such, I think it is important to indicate this. It is, after all, a simple fact that the claims in the film about the subjects outlined in that sentence are false. I included a rather nice source which explains, point by point no less, what is false about them. It is a post made by a graduate student in paleontology on a blog hosted by a professor of biology. In short, I think this is about the highest level of reliability we can hope for on a topic as obscure as this B-movie documentary. I'll also note, curiously, that both the host of the blog and the guest poster are devout Christians(!) lest you think there is some sort of atheist conspiracy going on here. Have a nice day! jps (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Convince YEC
[8] 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)
- 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)
- 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.[1][2][3]
- 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 agree. I literally had not even noticed that before now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "...it's still a hotly argued topic". Not in most of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 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)
- 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: 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)
- 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: 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)
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 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
- ^ Cade, Lars (June 26, 2017). "Is Genesis History: Digging for Truth and Coming up Empty-Handed". Naturalis Historia.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". Retrieved June 3, 2018.
- ^ Sarkar, Sahotra; Pfeifer, Jessica, eds. (2006). The Philosophy of Science – An encyclopedia. Problem of demarcation: Psychology Press (Routledge). pp. 192, 194–195. ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0.
ANI
I have raised the WP:OWN issues at WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- meh. moving, i could see. removing? Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 10 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)