Talk:Ken Ham

Editing the lead without discussion here first

Discussion occurring below on proposed edits to the article. Please direct your attention there instead.

The sentence, "His claims of the age of the earth that are counter to all scientific reports have been widely criticized and debunked." has been repeatedly removed from the lead without discussion here. First once an edit is reverted it is appropriate per WP:BRD to bring the subject to the talk page. Second the sentence is supported by four sources. Third it is a summary of substantial content in the body of the article. Fourth it reflects a significant aspect of the subject. Please present policy based rationale if you wish to remove or edit it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Everything on there that is a fact I don't dispute and is in the criticism section of this article already. This is a living person article and criticism like that does not belong in the first lead paragraph. Also it is an opinion not a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.43.177 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC) It is factual and is supported by sources. What do you contend is not a fact? The lead summarizes what is in the body and this sentences summarizes a substantial part of the content. BLP does not state that criticism does not belong in an article or lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC) That is from one point of view. The whole sentence seems to bring it to a conclusion. I don't dispute that he has widespread criticism even from christians. He does. If it has been debunked when why would Bill Nye bother debating him? How about a compromise edit? Thank you for your willingness to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.43.177 (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC) No, his wild claims (to call them something) about the Earth's age have been debunked by pretty much every branch of the scientific community in existence. No possible compromise here. Regard. Gaba (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I think the content of that sentence is well supported. I think the sentence is clear and concise. I think it provides a good summary of the content later in the article. I don't think there is a significant viewpoint that needs inclusion. I see no need for a change. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Repeated reversion without reaching a consensus here is edit warring. This has been brought to the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Debunked" is not a word that should be used in this context. If I say the universe has always existed or that it was created yesterday, you can criticize or condemn those notions, you can call them silly, but you can't "debunk" them.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "you can't "debunk" them", why not? Debunk:[1] To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of. to expose the pretensions or falseness of, esp by ridicule to expose as being false or exaggerated. I'd say this is a word used quite precisely in this context. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with Gaba p. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Per policy "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 received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. " To NOT clearly call out that his position is on the fringe of the fringe of the fringe would be a violation of our policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Comment: I appreciate that MrBill3 has started a talk page discussion, but the words in question were recently added (here) and so should stay out of the article until there is consensus to include them. StAnselm (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I see rationale and consensus here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC) The sentence was removed again here. It is clearly a summary of material supported in the content of the article as mentioned in the edit summary when it was added here. Rationale for support has been given in this discussion. Additional rationale is in WP:LEAD, "summary of its most important aspects", "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context,...summarize the most important points", "emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Consensus is demonstrated by this, this, this and this as well as the above discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with MrBill3, there's a clear consensus to keep the sourced material in the article. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC) You can't debunk the notion that the universe has always existed because there's no evidence that it's not true. We can say that the scientific community doesn't believe it, but WP shouldn't be in the business of "ridiculing" any idea. Why isn't it sufficient just to say that the scientific community believes the notion false?--John Foxe (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I agree that we shouldn't use the word "debunk". It is not in any of the sources provided and thus constitutes original synthesis. I think "rejected" would be better. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC) WP:ASF is clear that we should simply state that his claims are incorrect. We don't need to go into more detail about opinions. His statements about the age of the Earth are simply incorrect. That's all there is to say. jps (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I will support the option offered by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV/jps. There is no one that is "condemning" his theory, they are just dismissing it as complete flakery. there are people condemning his attempts to institute such flakery in school curriculum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Yes that would be simplest & best. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC) There may be a more artful way to do it. "His beliefs about the Age of the Earth were shown to be incorrect more than one hundred years ago." would be one way of doing it. There are others. Basically we should not attribute the fact of the age of the Earth to the opinions of scientists. It is simply the age it is -- approx. 4.5 billion years old (give or take a few hundred million years). jps (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with jps, however, per TRPoD perhaps the opposition to his promulgation of his ideas should be mentioned in lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) If I argue that the universe has always existed, is that the same or different than arguing that the universe is only a few thousand years old? My point is that you can say that scientists don't believe that the universe never had a beginning (or will have an end), but that's all you can say. In my lifetime, the universe has gotten about 3 billion years older. Have we now arrived at Truth, or will the universe continue to age as needed?--John Foxe (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC) You need to base your positions and arguments upon the mainstream academic view which is that Ham's ideas are not worth the pixels they are written with. They are Not even wrong, and we need to represent that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC) You didn't answer my question—neither of them, actually. Here's what WP:PSCI says, "When talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. 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 received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly." So, all you have to do with Ken Ham's theories is provide a sentence something like what's there now. I probably should have written "dismissed" rather than "condemned"; but certainly "debunked" is beyond anything one should say about this topic on WP because "debunk" involves ridicule.--John Foxe (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC) And you can't have it both ways. If the ideas are not even wrong, then we shouldn't say that they are incorrect. StAnselm (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agreed that Ken Hamm's statement aren't "not even wrong" in the classic sense. They are just simply wrong. In the same sense that 1+1 is not equal to one billion. jps (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Maybe what 107.178.43.177 is saying is that although Mr. Ham's beliefs certainly are not mainstream, some scientists do believe, such, as, for example, Science and Math Teacher David Shormann, Ph.D., who says that “A close look at the Bible reveals that God created for 6 days, and the earth is somewhere around 6 thousand years old. A variety of evidences support this age, all based on rate-related measurements”; Terry Mortenson, Ph.D., who says that “Scientific arguments for a young earth are numerous” and then gives a list of arguments ; Andrew Snelling, Ph.D ; etc. Although mainstream scientists believe in an “old earth,” there are at least some who believe in and defend a "young earth" model. Perhaps wording the sentence "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" as "His claims about the young age of the earth have been dismissed by the mainstream scientific community" would suffice for the mainstream point of view as well as all points of view. Unless Wikipedia prefers the mainstream point of view as opposed to the neutral point of view, I think this wording is an acceptable choice. —The Sackinator (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Your ludicrous references are not convincing that the Age of the Earth is not a fact. I have collapsed them as obvious soapboxing. Please step down. jps (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I have uncollapsed the section. I am seeing propaganda on both sides in this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry, folks. If you cannot understand that the Age of the Earth is a fact and not an opinion, then you should not be editing Wikipedia. See WP:COMPETENCE. It's very basic. jps (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Well, I googled the issue and the top result was this debate.org page. This is obviously a higher order question than the question of the age of the earth - I wonder how many scientists would accept that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, but would hesitate to call it a "fact", because of what they believe about the very nature of science. For my part, I don't think we can call it a "fact". I would prefer to call it the "scientific consensus". StAnselm (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I would suggest that your googling and lack of competence in this matter have been demonstrated. The nature of science is that there are measurements. Do you question the measurement of your height to a certain accuracy? If someone said you were 1 cm tall, would you say, "No, I am not that height, and that is a fact"? Or would you say, "scientific consensus is that I am not 1 cm?" The fact is the Earth is not 6000 years old. We've known that for 100 years or more. jps (talk) 6:36 pm, Today (UTC−4) JPS, my point is not which age is true but rather that some scientists do believe in a young earth. Regardless, should the wording I purposed (neutral point of view) be used, or a different, more mainstream-point-of-view one? —The Sackinator (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC) None of the links you provided show that there is any question about the age of the Earth. The neutral point of view is expounded upon here. We simply state the fact that the age of the Earth is not what Ken Hamm says it is and leave it at that. It is simply a fact that he is incorrect. jps (talk) 6:36 pm, Today (UTC−4) How about, His claims about the young age of the earth have been dismissed by the scientific consensus? That sounds a bit awkward, since it is the people and not the consensus that is doing the dismissing. His claims about the young age of the earth are contrary to the scientific consensus? StAnselm (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "His claims about the young age of the Earth are incorrect." works because it is in accord with WP:ASSERT. Your proposed wording is not. jps (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with jps. Fringe does not negate fact. Adequate discussion of policy above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, but you're assuming it is a fact, which it isn't. StAnselm (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC) According to mainstream scientific consensus the age of the earth is factual. That's what WP goes with. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines. As has been noted this is not a forum. The issue is not one of debate in the mainstream academic and scientific communities. As there is no serious academic debate there is no need for debate on WP talk pages. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC) No - the Fact article uses the age of fossils as a particular example of something that (at least according to Kuhn) is not a fact. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Wow. That is a total misreading of that article and (by proxy) Kuhn. In fact, the age of fossils is a fact and is acknowledged as such by Kuhn and the page you reference. jps (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC) It is just as much a fact that Ken Ham is incorrect about the Age of the Earth as it is a fact that you are not 1 cm in height. In fact, it is more of a fact than that! Ken Ham is off by nearly a factor of 1 million, but the difference between your height and 1 cm is only generously a factor of a 1000. Ken Ham's incorrectness is more than 1000 times more factual than the incorrectness of the statement that you are 1 cm. jps (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC) ———————— Lampstand49-These are my comments for consideration toward consensus. Please quit censoring (hiding) my comments. Lampstand49 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC) These four sources for the opening statement are arbitrary and require review. With the exception of Brett Grainger's book, these sources simply state opinions and not poll numbers. Here are the suspect sources that are simply one-sided. When the discussion becomes one-sided, it is merely propaganda. As it stands right now, the statement "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" is simply one-sided propaganda with no balance. I think we need to reveal where the ultimate authority for that statement resides. Here are the sources used to hand down a one-sided verdict using the old idiom as Judge, jury and executioner. : 4. ^ a b Greg Neyman. Ham Can't Tell the Simple Truth!. Answers in Creation. 12 Sept. 2005 5. ^ Wilensky-Lanford, Brook (2011). Paradise Lust: Searching for the Garden of Eden. Grove Press. pp. 215–. ISBN 9780802119803. Retrieved 18 March 2014. 6. ^ Flank, Lenny (2007-01-01). Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America. Red and Black Publishers. pp. 73–. ISBN 9780979181306. Retrieved 18 March 2014. 7. ^ Grainger, Brett (2009-05-26). In the World but Not of It: One Family's Militant Faith and the History of Fundamentalism in America. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 147–. ISBN 9780802718648. Retrieved 18 March 2014. Here is the definition for arbitrary. 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. - "Source: dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary" We need to restore balance to the opening statement at a minimum. You cannot have an article that starts with a one-sided bit of propaganda. At the very least, many who read the first paragraph will simply dismiss it immediately for its obvious bias. We need to have an immediate review of these one-sided old earth sources. What do these four sources have to do with virtually all members of the scientific community? These sources are simply irrelevant with the exception of Brett Grainger's use of gallup poll data. Greg Neyman is giving his opinion from an old earth viewpoint about The Global Flood. This has nothing to do with a consensus or poll of those in the scientific community. Brook Wilensky-Lanford is simply writes some of his thoughts on the history of the young earth creation movement in the context of his search for The Garden of Eden. This has nothing to do with a poll or percentage of scientist who disapprove of young earth creation. This source is useless. Lenny Flank is simply writing his opinion on the Intelligent Design Movement. Again, this has nothing to do with a percentage of scientist who support "young earth creation" verses those who support "old earth views". Brett Grainger's book was the only book that I found any real data at the beginning which in fact does not support the opening statement of this article. Here is the data from Brett Grainger's book on page 141. He uses data from a 2004 gallup poll. 45 percent of Americans believe in a literal Genesis. 38 percent of Americans believe God somehow guided evolution. 13 percent of Americans held a purely naturalist view. As you can see, these four sources do not give evidence for what is concluded in the opening statement of this article. Nowhere in these sources did I find "virtually all members of the scientific community" agreeing on anything concluded in that opening statement. In fact the data from Brett Grainger's book would suggest that there are a great number of scientists who believe in a literal Genesis. That would be the most obvious conclusion from the poll data. After all, in 2004, 45 percent of Americans believed in a literal Genesis according to Brett Grainger's book which is one of your sources. Therefore, this article is at risk of being labeled as simply propaganda. The opening statement of this article needs serious scrutiny, and needs to be reviewed. I think this could be considered slanderous, a smear campaign, or perhaps a dubious claim at best. Here is the definition for slander. 2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. "Source: dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander" The opening statement simply falsely states its conclusion "virtually all members of the scientific community" without any evidence to support it. What are the poll numbers in actuality? Currently, this is an article with an opening statement that has false conclusions with arbitrary sources. Smear Campaign definition - 1. A plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations. "Source: Oxford Dictionaries http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/smear-campaign" Dubious definition - 2 Not to be relied upon; suspect:, "Source: Oxford Dictionaries http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/dubious" This page needs to cease using irrelevant sources. It needs to present facts. Here are the pertinent facts. The latest gallup poll numbers are given in the following article "Source: Gallup Politics, In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx" The gallup poll reveals that 46 percent of College Graduates believe God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years. It also reveals that 25 percent of Postgraduates believe God created humans in present form. Whereas, only 14 percent of College Graduates believe Humans evolved, God had no part in process, and only 29 percent of Postgraduates believe Humans evolved, God had no part in process. Here is the gallup poll data over time. "Source: Gallup, Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx" The Pew Forum has collected data on this subject further showing the false claims of this article as it currently stands as well. "Source: Pew Research, Religion & Public Life Project, Scientists and Belief http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief" The Pew Forum has results on who actually believes in God. This is a broad statement about belief in God which makes up a majority of the population. The Pew Forum has also collected similar data on Evolution. "Source: Pew Research, Fact Tank, Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: Are evolution and religion at odds? http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-are-evolution-and-religion-at-odds" The National Center for Science Education reports on several different polls further showing the false claims of the opening statement of this article as it currently stands as well. They cover the Harris Poll in detail which shows that 60 percent of the American public believe in a Global Flood and 39 percent believe in Young Earth Creation. Therefore, this Wikipedia Article opening statement needs revision to correct its false claims and irrelevant sources. Here is the NCSE article. "Source: NCSE, Americans’ Scientific Knowledge and Beliefs about Human Evolution in the Year of Darwin, http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year" Therefore, the false claim of this article "by virtually all members of the scientific community" needs rapid revision according to the data above. The following sentence should be removed quickly. "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" because it is a false assertion. ——————— Lampstand49 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Lampstand49 (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC) ——————— Lampstand49 The following sentence should be removed quickly. "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" because it is a false assertion which could be considered slanderous, a smear campaign, or perhaps a dubious claim at best. You may give data from actual polls on the subject, but this page must cease from false claims. I have provided the poll numbers above.Lampstand49 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) No of course not. And please stop posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT soapboxing religious nonsense, it's becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Not done: The statement is well-cited, so it is not objectionable under our biographies of living persons policy. The exact wording may be open to debate, but to change it you need to find a consensus. Once there is a consensus on what wording to use, feel free to reopen this request. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Gaba, you need to quit hiding my "well-thought" out talk page comments that other users will be interested in hearing. This violates Wikipedia guidelines. It is a short well-thought out discussion that is relevant to the opening section. Please do not violate Wikipedia guidelines by censoring talk page comments. Lampstand49 (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Gaba, I have been well intentioned from the very start. However, those who have opposing views have chosen to label and collapse my well-thought out text which I had hoped would help reach a consensus. In regards to your supposed "Walloftext", here is what the Wikipedia guidelines read. "Not all long posts are walls of text, some can be nuanced and thoughtful. " - Wikipedia Not too mention, my comments all followed Wikipedia rules and were not very long, not the size of a novel. You should read the guidelines more closely. From the time I posted my comments, several of you immediately labeled and collapsed them. You repeatedly labeled and collapsed my comments. Why? Perhaps, so that they would not be included in reaching a consensus because they do not fit your point of view. What kind of concensus is that which includes only you? By the way, this is why Talk Pages are here? Discussions like these can build friendships. Your friend. Have a great day. Lampstand49 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Age of the Earth is not 6000 years old

Issue resolved, let's close this and move on

We must not claim that this is an opinion. Where it appears, we must WP:ASSERT it plainly without regard for the chatter of those who are offended by such facts for whatever reason. This is not up for debate. jps (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree as above there is no significant academic debate, thus no debate on WP. Further disruptive editing should be referred to ANI. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) There is very significant debate about what constitutes a scientific "fact", quite apart from questions of the age of the earth. Feel free to post this at ANI, but perhaps an RfC may be a better way to go. StAnselm (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC) That is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary sources to be taken seriously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "the question of even what constitutes a scientific fact is anything but uncontroversial". StAnselm (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I don't think StAnselm should be allowed to continue on in this manner. This is very problematic. He is essentially denying basic facts and that is inimical to writing an encyclopedia. I suggest simply ignoring him. Consensus is clearly not on his side. jps (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Are you rejecting the proposition in the quote I posted? Are you saying that the question of what constitutes a scientific fact is completely uncontroversial? StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I am suggesting that controversy is irrelevant. It is a fact that the Earth is not 6000 years old in the same sense it is a fact you are not 1 cm in height. Please do not use psychoanalysis to claim support for your solipsism. It is directly opposed to the goal of WP:ENC. You ought to be banned from this discussion if you continue in this fashion. jps (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Of course there's no debate here, this isn't Conservapedia. The age of the Earth is a fact as much as its roundness is. Are there improvements still being made to those values? Of course. Are there people even today claiming the opposite? Of course. Should we give even a little amount of credence to these ideas? Of course not. StAnselm if you want to have a philosophical debate "about what constitutes a scientific "fact"", you're in the wrong place. And I have to say jps has a point, you seem to be completely failing WP:COMPETENCE here and your behaviour is dangerously close to WP:STONEWALL. Now that the article has been frozen (of course, in the wrong version]) we should come to an agreement on which version of the sentence should be up so we can show the admin who locked it that there's WP:CONSENSUS in a given version so he'll unlock it. I propose the one below: His claims about the age of the Earth are dismissed by the scientific community at large as being completely incorrect. Please post your proposed version (or your support with this one) so we can work towards a consensus one. Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I think that's a good start, but we could say it more succinctly as, "His claims about the age of the Earth are incorrect, and he consistently opposes any scientific consensus that is not aligned with his interpretation of the Bible." jps (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I support Gaba_p's suggestion above. I don't think we need the words "at large" though. (And I'm not sure what they mean.) This is more neutral of course, although for that reason some editors here might oppose it. It doesn't say it's incorrect, it says it has been dismissed as incorrect. That subtle difference is important. StAnselm (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Because it doesn't say it is incorrect but instead says it is dismissed as incorrect it may be mistaken for an opinion rather than a fact. We ought to be careful. jps (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with jps. As below should be asserted clearly as fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I support the proposal by jps. I don't think we need to attribute the fact that Ham's claims are wrong or describe them as dismissed by the scientific community. As per jps these claims are simply wrong and we should clearly assert that in an unqualified way. The second half of jps' sentence is not as graceful as I would like but is acceptable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Very well, based on the comments and applying WP:ASSERT, here's a second stab at a new version of the statement: His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community. I tried to combine my proposal above with jps's proposal. Thoughts? Gaba (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC) No - once again, we assert facts as facts, but I dispute that this is a fact. I oppose this proposal and support your previous one. I note the Young Earth creationism article says "Young Earth creationism is contradicted by the scientific evidence derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines", but says nothing about it being "incorrect". StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Yeah well, it is a fact by any measure of the word so I don't know what else to say to you. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC) That's OK. Perhaps we should have a RfC to get a few more people involved. StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Nah. We have enough people involved. It's clear you're in the minority and wrong. jps (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Agree that an RfC is not needed at this stage. Also, an RfC about what? About whether the Earth is millions or thousands of years old? That'd be like making an RfC asking if 1+1=2 or 1+1=Pootie Tang. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Support Gaba's second proposed edit. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Support Gaba's second proposed edit. Well done. jps (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC) support Gaba's second proposed edit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Support Gaba's second proposed edit. Makes sense. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Support Gaba's second proposed edit, without "at large".Can't believe that in the 21st century this is being discussed at all!Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Theroadislong there's no "at large" in the second proposal. Do you support it as is or would you like to propose some changes? Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC) My apologies it's a bit cluttered above...I am happy with the second proposal. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC) No worries, support noted. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Seeing as there is broad consensus for the statement above (6 to 1) I'm requesting the second proposal above be added to the article. To make it clear, the edit is the sentence: His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community. to replace the current one in the lead: His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC) OK, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Gaba, you cannot state as a fact that a young age for the earth "is incorrect". You do not know that from Radiometric Dating, the fact is most geologists should know better. You should remove "is incorrect" stated as a fact. This will just drive people to other information sources. It shows extreme bias in this particular article. Lampstand49 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC) We can, and should, state it as a fact. see WP:V / WP:PSCI. If people don't want to see the facts laid out infront of them, they are certainly welcome to go elsewhere for non facts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I want each of you to know that I love you guys regardless of the outcome here. I know we have very different points of view, but most importantly I want you to know that I love you guys. Seriously. Lampstand49 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you, but I do not need or want your love. What I do need and want is for you to not be a disruptive editing force on this talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Who was disruptive? Lampstand49 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community.

Violation of WP:TPG
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
——————— Lampstand49 I have an interest in geology because my father was head of The Petroleum Engineering Department at The University of Tulsa. He later became one of the lead Petroleum Consultants at OGCI in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He formed his own Oil and Gas consulting company as well before he passed away. He taught at Imperial College in London, and he also consulted for most of the major oil companies. I have a great interest in geology. Did you know that you cannot confirm the age of the earth from Radiometric Dating? I will ask anyone here to give me the slightest evidence that any of these rock layers are old. That is my challenge to you. When you post your evidence, you should expect my repsonse. Then, we can investigate if a Young Age of the Earth has been debunked as has been stated in this article. A Young Age of the Earth is exactly what we would expect given that The Bible is true. Radiometric Dating simply analyzes decay rates of isotopes. It does not return dates. Any geologist knows this. Every informed geologist also knows that Radiometric Dating has assumptions and faults. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions that are unprovable and plagued with problems. Rocks may inherit isotopes from their sources, and / or they could be contaminated when moving through other rocks to their current resting location. It is possible that inflowing water may have mixed parent or daughter isotopes into the rocks. Radioactive decay rates may have changed or not have been constant. New research does indicates that radioactive elements have decayed at much faster speeds in the past 6,000 years. Since these dating techniques are based on faulty assumptions and lead to unreliable results. For example, they have found "Supposed" 45 thousand yr old fossil wood inside "supposed" 45 million yr old basalt. Obviously, the dates are incorrect. Therefore, these radioactive dates of "Supposed" old ages should not be trusted, not only for these reasons, but they contradict what is written in God's Word for God is the Creator and Eyewitness of the original Creation Events. When you trust in God and you understand some basic science, you can see how these faulty assumptions lead to incorrect dates. The age of the earth is not settled. All of the following men believed in a literal Genesis: Galileo Galilei (Improved the telescope, supported Copernicanism and the father of modern physics), Johann Kepler (third principle of planetary motion, contributed to the field of optics,analyzed the workings of the human eye,the volume of solid bodies), John Wilkins(founder of The Royal Society), Walter Charleton(President of the Royal College of Physicians), Blaise Pascal(Theory of probability, Hydrostatics, Barometer and conic sections), Sir William Petty(Statistician and scientiest), Robert Boyle(Chemistry and Gas Dynamics), John Ray(Natural Histoy), Isaac Barrow(developer of infinitesimal calculus), Nicolas Steno(Stratigraphy), Thomas Burnet(Geologist), Increase Mather(President of Harvard University 1692-1701), Nehemiah Grew(Physiologist and pioneer of dactyloscopy), Sir Isaac Newton(Calculus, Dynamics, Gravitation Law, Reflecting Telescope, Spectrum of Light, Three laws of motion, Theory of universal gravitation, Wrote extensively on The Bible),Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz( Law of Continuity and Transcendental Law of Homogeneity, infinitesimal calculus) and John Flamsteed(The first Astronomer Royal). Lampstand49 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Lampstand49 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC) If we were living in the 16th century, your post above might have some worth. However, if you look at any calendar, we are in fact living in the 21st century and the beliefs of dead scientist have been superseded by several hundred years of new evidence. If you wish to continue your hypothetical discussion of "What would dead scientists think about Ken Ham?" you will need to take it somewhere other than Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC) For those intterested, I've opened a thread regarding Lampstand49's disruptive use of the article's talk page edit warring to un-collapse his walls of text here: Lampstand49 reported by User:Gaba. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Gaba, I have been well intentioned from the very start. However, those who have opposing views have chosen to label and collapse my well-thought out text which I had hoped would help reach a consensus. In regards to your supposed "Walloftext", here is what the Wikipedia guidelines read. "Not all long posts are walls of text, some can be nuanced and thoughtful. " - Wikipedia Not too mention, my comments all followed Wikipedia rules and were not very long, not the size of a novel. You should read the guidelines more closely. From the time I posted my comments, several of you immediately labeled and collapsed them. You repeatedly labeled and collapsed my comments. Why? Perhaps, so that they would not be included in reaching a consensus because they do not fit your point of view. What kind of concensus is that which includes only you? Lampstand49 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Attempting to base an argument about the current state of science based on the beliefs of 16th century scientists cannot under any circumstances be considered "well thought out". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC) You have not been well intentioned at all. You have been WP:DISRUPTIVE with your two WP:WALLSOFTEXT which do nothing other that WP:SOAPBOX religious nonsense and you have WP:EDITWAR them into the article over and over again breaching the WP:3RR. I'd advise you to collapse them yourself but it's quite clear that you won't so let's just wait for the outcome of the section I opened about your edits here: Lampstand49 reported by User:Gaba. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) My comments were thoughtful with poll numbers and information about past scientists which could really help the balance of the article. I appropriately put my comments on the Talk Page in a thoughtful manner. I am here to help the group reach a more informed consensus so that the article is balanced. As it currently stands, the article has false information. I never said anyone had to use the poll information that I have provided which show the current article to be false. With that said, I was censored by a couple of people in this group who were disruptive because they were collapsing all of my comments. Lampstand49 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC) You were not "censored"- your walls of off topic text and declined request were collapsed per the WP:TPG so that they do not continue to disrupt the talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2014

Please add as the final sentence of the final paragraph in the "Career" section:

• Nye has publicly spoken out against creationism and agreed to the debate because creationism is "completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe" and miseducating a generation of students by teaching creationism will harm our country because "we need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future".

References

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm inclined to action this, but given the recent debate on this page, would like to see a few more people agreeing to it. If it's done, I suggest a couple more params for that ref: |newspaper=The Guardian|location=London I would also amend |last=Zack Kopplin to |first=Zack|last=Kopplin I would also avoid a generic name for the ref (i.e. name="Guardian") because that has a high potential for duplication; instead I would use a more specific name like name="Guardian20140204" or just omit it entirely. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

the Guardian article is already in there as support for the existing sentence under the title of <ref name="TG-20140204"> and any improvements of citation details can certainly be incorporated.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I support the proposed edit and the improvements to the reference. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Seems reasonable to me, although it may suffer a bit of WP:RECENTISM. That can be rectified at a later time when perspective is gained. jps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support with some changes. To avoid WP:COPYVIO we should try to WP:PARAPHRASE what the article says a bit more rather than copying it verbatim. Also the "spoken out against creationism" and "agreed to the debate because" appear to be WP:SYNTH. This is what I propose:

Nye has publicly spoken out to oppose the teaching of creationism stating that it is "completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe" and that "we need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future". He agreed to the debate with Ham to raise awareness that "this belief [in creationism] is still among us".

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom, MrBill3, and QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: If you are all happy with the changes suggested by Gaba p, please reactivate this (set |answered=no) and I'll do it. I unwatched this page because of the disagreements below. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2014

71.178.194.11 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC) The sentence "His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community" is bias towards evolutionist and untrue.

1) Being "biased towards evolotionsist" is in fact what we are supposed to do: represent the current mainstream academics. 2) The statement is in fact, true, not false. 3) we have just Talk:Ken_Ham#It_is_a_fact_that_the_Age_of_the_Earth_is_not_6000_years_old developed a consensus to use that wording. While consensus can change, it is unlikely that it has in the past 48 hours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

^ Yep. Gaba ^(talk) 19:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the statement that Ham's views are "dismissed by the scientific community." But I don't understand how Ham's views can be proved "incorrect" any more than the beliefs that the earth was created yesterday or that the earth has always existed can be proved "incorrect." All are assertions of belief, incapable of proof.--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We present well established scientific consensus as fact. The long- and well-established scientific consensus is that the earth is many magnitudes of time older than 6000 years. It is therefore a FACT that his claim of 6000 year old earth is incorrect. And we don't beat around the bush about declaring it so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

^ Yep 2. Gaba ^(talk) 21:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying it's a scientific consensus—it certainly is—but there can be no proof of the assertion anymore than there can be proof that that the earth was created yesterday or that the earth has always existed. It's an assertion of belief, incapable of proof.--John Foxe (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can keep your fingers in your ears "nyaa nyaa nyaaa science i dont hear you nyaa nyaa nyaa", but that is not going to change the scientific consensus and how we present it. It IS a scientific FACT that the earth is NOT 6000 years old. Period. Such a claim is not even close, and we do not do our readers any service in pretending otherwise, and as you have been shown multiple times, our policies in fact prevent us from doing so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as you say the position is a "scientific consensus," I have no problem; but there can be no proof of the assertion anymore than there can be proof that that the earth was created yesterday or that the earth has always existed. It's an assertion of belief, incapable of proof. We can't prove that the world hasn't always existed; we just proffer a scientific consensus that it hasn't.--John Foxe (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

if you really want, we can change it to : it is the overwhelming scientific consensus held by everyone with two brain cells that can make a synapse, fine, but otherwise we do not need to couch in any manner what the scientific community has long and overwhelmingly held as "fact". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I do prefer that suggestion; it better clarifies that logic need not stand in the way of objective.--John Foxe (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

logic and objective point of view and sources state Ham is wrong. we do the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic wording in lead

Rehash of almost all of the discussions above

The current wording "His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect" seems rather unencyclopedic. Elsewhere on Wikipedia we have wording like: "Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as a pseudoscience, having no validity or explanatory power for describing the universe." "Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts." I would suggest that the previous wording "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" is better than what we have now. -- 101.117.77.33 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I propose replacing the phrase:

"...is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community."

with:

"...is refuted by the scientific community's finding that the age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years."

This would alleviate the problems voiced above about using the word "incorrect" in Wikipedia's voice, plus by adding the portion about the actual age, we can include the link to the relevant article for interested readers. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont think the specific age is included in any of the current sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Providing an approximate date is good suggestion; certainly there ought to be a consensus within a billion years or so.--John Foxe (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

4.54 billion years old with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent.http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a fan of "refuted by the scientific community's finding..." The age of the Earth does not need such qualification in this article. The incongruity of Ham's idea of a the age of the Earth makes giving the age in X.XX BILLION years largely irrelevant. The fact that the Earth is not 6,000 years old should be stated simply and as a matter of fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The scientific community's finding? No, that's not quite right.

"All the observations that have ever been made are consistent with an Age of the Earth that is not consistent with Ken Ham's beliefs."

would be fine.

Or the present wording.

jps (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. The age of the earth is a fact as much as it roundness is. We don't say "the flatness of the Earth is refuted by the scientific community" just because some idiots claim it's flat still today. We state facts as facts. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 04:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to make your assertion about the age of the earth? The Scientific Community is a very vague term. I think you need to be balanced and show specifically how many people are in the "Old Earth Scientific Community" and how many people are in the "Young Earth Scientific Community". That is why I provided the poll numbers above from Pew Research, the NCSE and Harris Poll, and the Gallup poll. This is what people use who are interested in truth. Are you interested in truth or propaganda? Seriously..What is it going to be? Truth or Propaganda. If you want Wikipedia to be propaganda, then you go right ahead and avoid those poll numbers that I have provided you. Create a "Scientific Community" that is a figment of your imagination. That is what I would call propaganda. Let's be specific. After all, what does 46% of the population believe? I suppose to you we are just all ignorant underachievers. If you believe Doctors are stupid, then you have absolutely have no interest in reality. What is your reality? I know that you are trying to hang onto the way things used to be, but the slow and gradual processes mentality is over. Rapid and Catastrophic process are responsible for the conditions that we live in today. As a Biblical Young Earth Creationist like Ken Ham, I find what we observe today is exactly what you would expect to see given that The Bible is true. Isn't this a page about a Biblical Young Earth Creationist? Yet you do not want to have one participate in the CREATION of this page. That is why you are not interested in the secular poll numbers I provided because these poll numbers show that many scientists would have to be Biblical Young Earth Creationists. Do whatever you want? If you want the truth, then just have a look at the polls. Otherwise, this page really is irrelevant isn't it? I suppose this is another irrelevant supposed "WALLOFTEXT", and you will censor it just like you blocked my previous Talk Page Posts. What kind of Talk Page is this anyway, when only a select few people can talk? That is reminiscent of the dark ages. Lampstand49 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"truth" has nothing to do with it - its what reliably published sources that represent the mainstream of current academic thought say. And they say Ham is not only not even playing in the right state as the ball park, he is not even on a continent in the same hemisphere. We follow their lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

They? Do you mean those with higher education? Who are they? What is the breakdown? Who are these scientist that you include in your "Scientific Community"? I am not talking about The "Scientific Community", but I am talking about your "Scientific Community". These are two completely different groups. What percentage of the population? That would be great information to know. Well, I gave you some poll numbers about College Graduates. Lampstand49 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"they" is the reliably published sources that represent the current mainstream academic views. You can keep kicking this very dead horse and keep getting nowhere. but I recommend that you just accept that Hams views are going to be presented as the wingnut fringe claims they are and move on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What would you do without wingnuts? They are very useful. Give them a little tap, then they practically tighten themselves! It is the very fringe that makes a Persian rug beautiful. Is 46% of the country fringe? If that's the case, then where is the rug? It sure has a lot of fringe. Did you know that I am not trying to get anywhere on here? What's the point. I am just letting you know that this page is not balanced propaganda. What's more. It is not even truthful. :) Lampstand49 (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Virtually, every scholar throughout history has known that the earth is round. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould commended the most definitive work by Jeffrey Burton Russell about this myth. Here is Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould's quote: "“There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.” Numerous theologians by the tens of thousands throughout history even in the medieval period are on record that the earth is round. Here is a quote by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)Summa Theologica/Theologiae "The Physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the centre, and so forth.” Even Barack Obama perpetuates this myth, he should know better because he went to Harvard just like Stephen J. Gould. Check this out Barack Obama perpetuating the flat earth myth at Prince George's Community College. Then, fast forward to about 28 minutes. You should love this section of the video on the internet! President Obama Visits Prince George's Community College. Lampstand49 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gaba and jps. Facts are facts they should be presented unequivocally as such. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as you say the position is a "scientific consensus," I have no problem; but there can be no proof of the "facts" asserted anymore than there can be proof that that the earth was created yesterday or that the earth has always existed. It's an assertion of belief, incapable of proof. We can't prove that the world hasn't always existed; we just proffer a scientific consensus that it hasn't.--John Foxe (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

jps, TheRedPenOfDoom, MrBill3 at this point I believe we should WP:DENY Lamp any more recognition. The consensus is clear.

John Foxe applying Postulatism as you propose means means every scientific fact is "an assertion of belief". We don't go around attributing every scientific fact to the scientific community. Science is falsifiable, religious nonsense is not. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that science is falsifiable. Origins are not falsifiable and therefore not "science" in the normal meaning of that word.--John Foxe (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a ludicrous contention with which no serious expert agrees. jps (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I mean that neither creationism nor evolution are falsifiable.--John Foxe (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Evolution is indeed falsifiable, creationism by definition is not. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the vast majority of scientists would consider my opinion incorrect.--John Foxe (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Should this even be in the lede?

Passing by and read the current lead. In my opinion the last sentence is unnecessary, since we´ve already stated that he is a YEC, with wikilink. That scientific consensus disagree with YEC is not notable for Ken Ham per se (at least not lead-wise). He is notable for AiG, C.M. and being on tv more than most other YEC:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. We are talking about a BLP here and the recent addition to the lede that the subject is "incorrect" about his young Earth theory really isn't in keeping with nearly all of the other Creationist BLPs on Wikipedia. Lest anyone think I'm trying to defend the beliefs of Ken Ham, please take notice that I am a non-theist who firmly believes in the evidence that the Earth is 4.5+ billions years old. That being said, I took a look just now at all the other Creationist BLPs in the category, and found the following:

• Thomas G. Barnes - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• Vine Deloria, Jr. - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• Robert V. Gentry - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• Duane Gish - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• John Hartnett (physicist) - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• Tim LaHaye - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• John D. Morris - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• Nancy Pearcey - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• Jonathan Sarfati - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• Monty White - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• Carl Wieland - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
• Kent Hovind - the lede mentions his "views are contradicted by scientific evidence"
• Henry M. Morris - the lede mentions his "conclusions have been disputed by many in the mainstream scientific community"

Thus, out of 13 BLPs, only two mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject, and only mildly at that. The fact that science disagrees with Ken Ham was only recently added (10 days ago with this edit here with the edit summary "context in lead", although the same information does not appear in the body of the article that it is purportedly summarizing). Are there good reasons for why 40% of the lede of Ham's BLP should contain material like this, stating that this claims are wrong, when the majority of Creationist BLPs do not and remaining two only make mild mention that the scientific community disputes it? Wouldn't this article be in better accord with with Wikipedia's norms if we moved the new material out of the lede and down to the "Position on age of the Earth" section in the article body, and included a link therein for the Age of the Earth article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." WP:NPOV says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Clearly what he is notable for is his controversial advocacy of an utter fringe position and the reaction thereto. It needs to be presented in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Judging by their Wikipedia articles, it appears that Kent Hovind and Henry Morris are better known for this kind of silly Creationist fringe thinking. Both have much larger "criticism" sections than the Ham BLP, with Hovind's material being substantially more developed than the BLP at issue, yet their lede's say far less about science disagreeing with them. To be consistent, shouldn't we move more material into the article body and beef it up (no pun intended), then add a proportionate statement back to the lede to the effect of "Ham's claims are contradicted by scientific evidence" or "Ham's claims are disputed by the scientific community", etc.? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ham's claims are contradicted by scientific evidence" might be a good summary statement for the lede. I would recommend beefing up the criticism section first and then looking to see if the lede is a decent summary. jps (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If "consistency" is the rationale, then policy thing to do would be to have the lead sections of other fringers who flagrantly flout science be more clear in their identification of being nonmainstream positions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Change the others to match what was recently inserted here, so that this one can then be in the norm? That doesn't seem consistent with neutral BLP-oriented policy. Honestly, that sounds more POV purpose driven, as if the key point of their BLP ledes should now be to identify their flagrant science flouting. I think Creationism is ridiculous, but it's clear to me that it's not good Wikipedia writing to declare someone is "incorrect" in the lede of their BLP for their misguided views. Can you point out any other BLP on Wikipedia that does that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with TheRedPenOfDoom. Watering down hard facts to accommodate WP:FRINGE views should not be our goal, if those other articles do not reflect the facts clearly then those are the ones that should be changed, not this one. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: I see nothing in BLP that in any way suggests that people who are notable for advocating fringe ideas should not clearly be identified as advocating fringe ideas and indicating how fringe those ideas are. Can you point to where you are seeing such guidance? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba p: We are not "accommodating fringe views" by changing the lede to say that "Ham's claims are contradicted by science" or "disputed by the scientific community" instead of saying that he's incorrect. Can you point out a single BLP on Wikipedia where the lede says the subject's misguided views are "incorrect"? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: WP:BLP isn't going to speak directly to an issue like that. Borrowing your language, a fair response would be "is there anything in BLP that in any way suggests that people who are notable for advocating fringe ideas should be identified as being incorrect in the lede of their biographical article?" AzureCitizen (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is. BLP states "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)" and the WP:NPOV policy clearly states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I am not sure how much more obvious than the lines directly from the first paragraph of each policy we could get.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing quoted suggests that the notions of living people ought to be labeled "incorrect." The phrases "high degree of sensitivity" and "without bias" rather suggests the reverse.--John Foxe (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: You seem to be saying we're actually obliged by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV to state in the lede that Ham's claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old is "incorrect". If that's true, there should be plenty of BLPs on Wikipedia following your policy; BLPs where the subject has fringe views, and the lede says their claims are "incorrect" or "wrong", etc. Can you show us one? Regards, 16:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views" can you possibly be reading and interpreting as "We should not be presenting the views of the mainstream science"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody here has been arguing that we should not be presenting the views of the mainstream science. Everyone here is okay with including a statement in the lede to the effect of "Ham's claims are contradicted by science" or "disputed by the scientific community", similar to other Creationist BLPs in kind. The real issue is over the recent insertion of the word "incorrect". Are Ham's claims about the age of the Earth incorrect? Of course they are, but that's not the point. The real dispute here is whether or not it is in keeping with Wikipedia norms to unequivocally state in the lede of a BLP that a subject's views are "incorrect". You've stated that we are required to do so by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, but you can't point to a single instance of that anywhere else on Wikipedia. What would you suggest we do to resolve this dispute? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to start a formal RfC to see if there is a consensus that there is any policy basis why we should be not be identifying incorrect claims as incorrect, feel free. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will write up something shortly. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And Ham himself is out there loudly proclaiming his disbelief in the science so there is no "sensitivity" issues that would prevent that from being addressed in the lead. Its not as if it is something he said once in private that was accidentally overheard. That is, in fact, precisely why he is notable at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as suggested, I've written up a draft RfC. Does this accurately (and neutrally) present the question? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(This is a draft write-up for an RfC. Please do not respond to this RfC until it has been listed)

The subject of this BLP is Ken Ham, a young-Earth creationist who is well known for claiming that the Earth is only ~6,000 thousands of years old. This claim is incorrect; it is a well accepted scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old. There is no dispute on this point, and there is also general consensus here that Ham's BLP should contain material informing the reader that Ham's fringe claims are disputed by the scientific community and/or contradicted by scientific evidence, in keeping with other BLPs on well known young-Earth creationists. A difference of opinion, however, has arisen on whether the lede of this BLP should additionally state, as a point of fact, that Ham's claims are "incorrect," as BLPs do not normally contain assertions in the lede that a subject's views or claims are "incorrect", "wrong", "erroneous", etc. An RfC was suggested to help resolve the matter. The question for this RFC is:

In addition to stating that scientific consensus disputes and/or contradicts Ham's young-Earth claims, should the lede also factually state that his claims are "incorrect"?

Please support, oppose, or comment if you wish to participate. (Signature)

(Please do not respond to this RfC at this time. The text has been entered above for editing and/or adjustment.) AzureCitizen (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this presents the question understandably nor very neutrally. First of all, why is the presumption of the question that it is necessary at all to state anything about scientific consensus in the lede? I am not a particular fan of that Wikipedia-favorite term, and yet it is assumed that the lede should have attribution to a nebulous "scientific consensus" somewhat in contravention of WP:ASSERT. Also, you put "incorrect" in quotation marks. Does this mean that the RfC is solely about this adjective? What about synonyms for the adjective? "wrong", "contrary to fact", "off by six orders of magnitude", etc.... jps (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

On your first point, I'm not quite sure I understand you. Are you saying we shouldn't say anything in the lede that science disputes Ham's claims? Or is it just the word "consensus" that you have a problem with, in which case we should swap that word out? With regard to the second item, the RfC is on whether or not the lede should contain an unequivocal assertion (as a specific point of fact) that the subject's claims are wrong, erroneous, etc. I'm not sure it's necessary to expand the question to include synonyms for "incorrect" such as "contrary to fact" and others, but we can explore it. In what manner and phrasing do you recommend the question be asked? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Should the lead specifically describe Ham's position that the earth is 6000 years old as "incorrect" (or similar wording) or is such a description inappropriate for the lead of an article about a living person.
  • offering simple formulation -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest before framing the question just this way that you make sure Ham's actually said somewhere that the earth's 6000 years old; perhaps he'd be willing to step back a few thousand more. Sounds like a nonsensical difference when we're kicking around billions of years; but when I listened to the Ham-Nye debate, it was Nye using the number 6,000, not Ham.--John Foxe (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how about an even shorter hybrid version, as follows below? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Should the lead specifically describe Ham's young-Earth claim as "incorrect" (or use a similar word such as "wrong", "erroneous", etc.)?

Yes this should be in the lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Query: Why can't we just say, "Ham's young-Earth estimates for the age of the Earth are off by approximately six orders of magnitude"? What's controversial about such a statement? jps (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, it´s enough that the lead states that Ham is YEC, as it does. The lead of THAT article covers this well. Let the body of this article elaborate on Hams specific YEC-ism, and the reactions to it. I guess what bugs me is that the current lead-writing "He´s a YEC who´s wrong about the age of the earth" is to me like "He´s a christian who believes in God". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:JARGON, to me, seems relevant. Most people known nothing about creationism, let alone the different subsections of that movement. "YEC" ought to be defined when it is first mentioned, in my opinion. This is a lot more obscure than "Christian". The statement is more akin to me to "He's a Trinitarian who holds that God is three persons." jps (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A point, certainly. I don´t think young-Earth creationist is "intrinsically technical", but reasonable people may disagree (you just did). How about this for lead, then? "Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about 6 000 years old." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My preference: "Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about a million times younger than it is." jps (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)that fails WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV to fully and correctly place his beliefs in their place in relation to the mainstream views. He is REALLY wrong and is pushing for his REALLY WRONG ideas to be taught in schools as fact. That is the only reason that he is in fact notable and needs to be in the lead.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ham really is "REALLY wrong and is pushing for his REALLY WRONG ideas to be taught in schools", but Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV do not require that we put a statement in the lede of an article that a subject's wild claims are "incorrect", "wrong", etc. If we don't do things like this anywhere else in Wikipedia, why is Ham's situation so special that we need to do it here? Let's just remove the word "incorrect" and figure out a better way to express the point of what the scientific community thinks of Ham's nonsense. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not advocating that we use Wikipedia to "right any wrongs". I am advocating that the Wikipedia article about a person whose very notability is based upon the fact that he advocates for incorrect information and that the incorrect information be taught in schools should be accurately identified as advocating for incorrect information to be taught in schools. That's just straightforward NPOV and V. Mushing around those facts and disguising it under the euphemism "Young Earth Creationism" is where the inappropriate advocacy comes into play. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the beautiful things about science is that it acknowledges that current consensus can change again. jps, you say "than it is", the article you link to says "best measurement" which is more humble, as it should be. We learn more things all the time. New attempt: "Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about 6 000 years old, contrary to the scientifically accepted age of ca 13,8 billion years." Then we could add a sentence, depending on sources, to say something like "Ham have gained significant attention advocating this view." Surely he has been both praised and critisized for it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think what I wrote is any less humble than the article you are praising. The "best measurement" is just referring to the one with the smallest uncertainty. You are moving away from the point which is that Ken Ham is off by a factor of a million. I compared this earlier to someone who insisted that you had a height of one centimeter. It would surely be appropriate to write in an article about such a person, "He believes in an average height of humans which is about one hundred times smaller than what it is." Trying to attribute the age of the universe to "scientific acceptance" is as problematic as it would be to attribute the average height of humans to "scientific acceptance". It does not explain the facts of the matter (the fact is that Ham is off by a factor of a million or so, and that's simply an error, it's not an argument). jps (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we disagree, but that can happen. I think my latest suggestion (TRPoD had a good point) makes it clear enough that Ham is way off (abour 2,3 million times off, I make it), and I prefer "scientifically accepted" to "than it is", in my opinion it´s better language in this context. BTW, I was praising science, not Age of the universe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What do we disagree about? Why do you prefer "scientifically accepted"? Do you have any reliable sources that contradict the fact that Ham is simply off by a factor of a million or so? (Note, I'm talking about an order of magnitude estimate here. Factors of 2 or 3 are irrelevant to the point -- thus the "about".) Unless you have a source which shows that there is controversy, we are commanded by WP:ASSERT to simply state the fact that he is incorrect and I can say that your insistence is a direct contravention of our WP:NPOV policy. Sorry. jps (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a simple case of someone being wrong about a straightforward measurement. If I ask you the question, "How large is the circumference of the Earth?" and you respond, "12 meteres" we would say, "I'm sorry, your belief that the Earth has a circumference of 12 meteres is off by a factor of one million." If you were known for advocating such a belief, surely it would not be a problem for the Wikipedia biography to state, even in the lede, "Gråbergs Gråa Sång believes that the circumference of the Earth is about one million times smaller than it actually is." Even though our page on the Earth admits that we don't know the circumference of the Earth to arbitrary precision! jps (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a simple case of someone being wrong about a straightforward measurement. Ham is wrong and his claims are off by more than a factor of a million, but the analogies to humans being one centimeter in height or the Earth being 12 meters in diameter don't work very well. In those situations, every layperson would immediately recognize how nuts that would be and every day human experience would quickly invalidate those claims. When it comes to the age of the Earth, however, many scientifically illiterate human beings do not readily perceive the vast ocean of time that exists between the time the Earth formed and the present day. For thousands of years, people have believed that the Earth was only thousands of years old because that's what it seemed like. Fortunately, scientific advances in the last century or two have peeled back that layer of the onion and revealed the Earth is actually billions of years old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång isn't arguing that Ham's claims aren't off by a factor of millions; I think they are just saying that our choice of words here is important in how we address this in the lede of a BLP. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What policy can you point to which distinguishes "everyday human experience" as a basis for when we should simply WP:ASSERT a fact and when we should cast it as the opinion of "scientific consensus"? I understand that not everyone is familiar with how to make a measurement, but then, not everyone is familiar with how to use a ruler either. We don't write Wikipedia on the basis of what readers do or do not understand. We write it on the basis of what the reliable sources say. If you have a source which can distinguish between one kind of measurement and another, please let me know. Otherwise, I think you're making a distinction on the basis of your own gut original research about what is "obvious" and what is not. jps (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What I said above has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policy prohibition against incorporating original research into an article; I was simply explaining why your analogies about human height and global circumference aren't readily applicable to common layperson understanding and experience. On the issue of WP:ASSERT, if we were discussing edits to the lede of the article Age of the Earth, we wouldn't say "It is the scientific community's opinion that the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years..." (that would violate WP:ASSERT). Instead, that article rightly says "The age of the Earth is..." etc. The situation here on Ham's BLP is different; nothing in WP:ASSERT requires that we state in the lede that Ham's claims are "incorrect", and if you look at other BLPs, it just isn't done. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is there a policy or guideline about considering the common layperson understanding and experience in Wikipedia? Why is Ham's BLP different from the Age of the Earth? Surely I agree that we are not required to say he is incorrect, but certainly we aren't forbidden from stating as such and it is problematic to attribute the Age of the Earth to the opinions of scientists rather than plain fact as WP:ASSERT points out (and doesn't contextualize). jps (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about Wikipedia policies specifying common layperson understanding and experience. My comments above were in reference to your choice in analogies and the way in which they do not mesh well with common layperson understanding... it would obviously strike a layperson as being incorrect if someone claimed humans are one centimeter tall or that the Earth was 12 meters in circumference, but the age of the Earth is much harder to discern for someone who is judging by what they feel seems right to them (in the absence of science explaining the true reality). With regard to the Age of the Earth article versus Ken Ham's BLP, they are different in that one is an article on how old the Earth is and the other the biography of a living person who claims the Earth is ~6,000 years old. In the former, it should clearly be WP:ASSERTed as a fact that the Earth is 4.54 billion year's old; in the latter, there is strong disagreement here on whether it is relevant and appropriate for a BLP to outright state in the lede that the subject's beliefs, views, or claims are "incorrect", "wrong", "erroneous", etc. No other BLPs do that on Wikipedia, and the word "incorrect" was only recently inserted into the article here, hence the debate. Wider review by the community through an RfC might be the only way this gets sorted out, be it one way or the other. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

what a layperson does or does not understand or experience is irrelevant. The two scenarios are plainly comparable. The issue is that we can simply WP:ASSERT how far off Ham is in his belief. That's not a problem at all. If you think it is, cite the policy that it violates. jps (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

jps, If I understand you correctly, we disagree what is preferable to say in WP:s voice.

• Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about a million times younger than it is.
• Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about 6 000 years old, contrary to the scientifically accepted age of ca 13,8 billion years.

These variants don´t contradict each other, and I don´t read my version as less straightforward or more lacking in NPOV. To me, they both make it clear that "he is REALLY wrong". "Scientifically accepted" is not a weak statement, in my opinion. I know of no WP:RS that "contradict the fact that Ham is simply off by a factor of a million or so", my version says the same thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said the two statements contradict each other. Rather I am pointing out that the phrasing "scientifically accepted" is an attribution to a group of people making a measurement while the phrasing "it is" simply states the fact of the measurement. See WP:ASSERT. Why do you prefer to attribute rather than state? Explain *why* you prefer your version. It's not good enough to just say that you do and leave it at that. I prefer my version because it is in line with WP:ASSERT. I don't have any understanding for why you prefer your version. jps (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I´ve reached the end of my line in this discussion. I don´t clearly see your asserting/stating difference here, I´m stating that it´s "scientifically accepted", and that´s as good as it gets in science, since proven is for math (and possibly religion). The differences are small enough that we are left with personal preference, what do we feel serves our readers best? And there we differ, you and I. See you around! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So you think the problem of induction means we can't state plainly that the age of the Earth is some million times greater than that which Ken Ham advocates? I really don't understand. I don't know where this "proof" idea is coming from, but I didn't write that either. The point is that the age of the universe is a measurement. jps (talk)

Okay, it's time to get things back on track. As it's become obvious in the thread above that we actually do not have a clear consensus on exactly how we should state that science contradicts and refutes Ham's young-Earth claims, it would be better to allow passing-by editors who visit the RfC to contribute additional opinions on that for the group to consider. Here is a revised version which covers both but is worded more simply:

The subject of this BLP is Ken Ham, a young-Earth creationist who is well known for his claim that the Earth is only thousands of years old. This claim is incorrect - it is a well accepted scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old - and there is no dispute here on this point. However, differences of opinion have arisen among editors as to what degree the lede of a BLP article should state that science the scientific community contradicts and/or refutes the subject's claims, and whether or not the lede should directly state as a point of fact that the subject's claims are "incorrect". The two questions for this RfC are:

1. To what extent should the lede state that science the scientific community contradicts and/or refutes Ham's young-Earth claims?

2. Should the lead specifically state that Ham's young-Earth claims are "incorrect"?

(Please do not respond to this RfC at this time. The text has been entered above for editing and/or adjustment.)

Does anyone see any problems with this formulation? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to set up a user page and provide some examples of the various wordings/inclusions/exclusions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I've set up some examples here. Please feel free to add more or make suggestions. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't believe "science" contradicts Ham's claim, only scientists do. (Likewise, "history" doesn't declare Stalin guilty of genocide, historians do.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think an exact science like geology and a "social science" like history are comparable John Foxe, then I'm afraid you fundamentally don't understand the concept of Falsifiability. Science does not simply contradict Ham's claims, it irrefutably disproves it beyond any conceivable doubt. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; and I have some pretty good secular support for that opinion in the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by Thomas Kuhn. (By the way—and almost totally off topic—I consider history a branch of literature and don't believe there's any science at all in "social science.")--John Foxe (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, measurements are what contradict Ham's claim. jps (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think the history analogy works well either but since the article has already been using the "scientific community" from before the lockdown, we can swap out "science" with "scientific community" with little to no impact on the question the RfC is trying to solicit input for. I've amended the text accordingly; does anyone have any other objections before we move this process along? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This wording in no way addresses my concerns I listed about the previous way you constructed the RfC. It includes all the same problems, and, now that it is trying to attribute the plain measurement of the Age of the Earth/Universe to the "scientific community" rather than just pointing out that it is a straightforward measurement, we are going ever further away from a neutral presentation. Sorry, but no, this is not a good formulation at all. jps (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The existing article already uses the phrase "scientific community", so I'm afraid you're out of luck there. If you think the RfC is not neutrally worded, propose an alternate version to show what you think a neutral presentation would be. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this BLP is Ken Ham, a young-Earth creationist who is well known for his belief that the Earth is only some thousands of years old. This belief is inconsistent with the measured Age of the Earth - and there is no dispute here on this point. However, differences of opinion have arisen among editors as to what degree the lede of a BLP article should point this fact out and/or remark on the fact that the scientific community has refuted Ham's claims. The two questions for this RfC are:

1. To what extent should the lede point out that the measurements of the age of the Earth contradict Ham's young-Earth claims?

2. Should the lead specifically identify Ham's beliefs about the age of the Earth as being inconsistent with the measured age?

jps (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you took the time to state your own version of what you think would be neutral. However, it appears you're trying to change the focus of this RfC to be what you want this dispute to be about rather than the actual disputed article content at hand. Edit warring and debate erupted over a lede that states "is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community", thus it has become necessary to have an RfC on to what extent the lede should state the scientific community's dismissal of Ham' claims and whether or not it should specifically use the word "incorrect". If you want to argue that a better way to phrase the lede would be to focus on how measurements of the Earth contradict Ham's young-Earth claim, you're free to do that during the RfC itself, but your formulation of the questions moves away from disputed text at issue. Do you want to take another stab at this? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you're the one who doesn't understand what the conflict is about. The conflict is plainly not over specific wording which is simply what was edited in at the last edit request. It is over what I'm describing, namely that there are certain creationists/creationist sympathizers who did not think the article could simply WP:ASSERT the fact that the age of the Earth is what it is. Simply read back through the archives. Now, you and Gråbergs Gråa Sång may have a slightly different spin on the conflict, arguing that a particular turn of phrase is perhaps not editorially sound, but as far as I know no one is wedded to any particular word per se so the attempt to cast the dispute as one over the word "incorrect" is a straw horse. So, you want to try again? jps (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My interest is piqued by your statement that based on your knowledge none of the editors here are wedded to the word "incorrect" and it's a straw horse, which implies there is no objection to it's removal anymore. Obviously, if that's true, there is no need to include an RfC question as to whether or not Ham's claims should be described as "incorrect". We can easily put that to the test so that we can clear up that part of the perceived dispute right now. I'll remove that word as an interim step and include an edit summary inviting anyone who disagrees to please revert. If nobody objects, problem solved. If anyone wants us to keep saying Ham is "incorrect", it's obviously a continued bone of contention in the RfC. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I added an explanation as to why it is so dismissed. jps (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you've twice added "because it is six orders of magnitude lower than the measured age of the Earth[4][5][6][7]" but have been twice reverted. Technically, that information isn't included in the cited sources and it increases to more than 50% of the lede talking about this point about Ham's silly young-Earth claim. Compared to Kent Hovind and Henry M. Morris, it's really kind of undue. Can you re-state your case why it's necessary? I don't recall other editors in the thread above expressing support for adding material like that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is in the sources. It's what he is most notable for. Go ahead and explain why he is wrong in fewer words, that's fine with me. I don't appreciate fly-by-night reverts who aren't active on the talkpage, though. That's unreasonable. jps (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that if Unscintillating is going to keep reverting, he needs to join in here on the Talk Page. Just don't like seeing a new edit war erupting the day after the article's lock protection expired. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I took a crack at the amount of space problem you mention, in any case. jps (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In the essay WP:BRD, the D follows the first R.  I don't agree that Ham is "most notable" for being six orders of magnitude off.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation. What is Ham "most notable" for, in your opinion? jps (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Two of us have been trying to keep the article page stable, but you are restoring your proposal for the article quickly, between 2 and 11 minutes for each restoration.  Five times today you have added this idea to the article, but never have you tried to initiate the D in WP:BRD.  You've claimed that some of the sources listed support the metric, but you've not removed the ones that don't, and in this last reply you do not explain your claim that this metric is that which is most notable about Ham.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are on about. "Metric"? "Stable"? "This idea"? I have been having a fruitful conversation with AzureCitizen about how to get the article to explain why scientists dispute Ham's beliefs, and all I see here is a rather confused lack of coherent discussion after a torrent of reverts done by yourself while I'm trying to make sure the lede explains what exactly is incorrect about Ham's arguments. Please take a minute to formulate your thoughts and then explain what you are trying to say. Do you think it is not correct that Ham is off by six orders of magnitude? The sources on the page indicate that he is. What exactly do you think my idea is introducing that is "new"? jps (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the previous consensus version and I'd recommend nobody changes it without getting consensus here first. That version was agreed by no less than 6 editors if I remember correctly. If an RfC is necessary then we should agree on a very simple wording and just do it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would help if we could get an idea of the motivation of those people who want to remove the word, "incorrect". Why is this important to you? One argument seems to be of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS variety. I'm not too keen on that as I don't think the biographies of other creationists are particularly exemplary and worthy of emulation. Another argument seems to be that this is a WP:BLP. But I'd like to see that one fleshed out. What part of the the biographies of living persons policy is supposed to be the issue? Frankly, I can understand where the science-skeptics are coming from more than those who claim to agree that his ideas are at odds with the general consensus but don't want us to tell the reader what that consensus is in the lede. jps (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Left last night for dinner and an evening out of fun, when I got in late I checked the site and saw that things were back to square one. This is okay; the process of resolving this can play out on its own timeline, no worries. With regard to asking people what their motivations are, it's usually not a good area to shift the focus of a discussion to that area and people will likely sense that if they candidly state what their motivations are, their position and arguments may be treated differently by editors who will then want to emphasize their opponent's motivations over their opponent's arguments. If people want to share their motivations with you, better for them to do it on a personal Talk Page of their own volition. Make sense?

Okay, before we get back to working on the text of the RfC to bring in the opinions of new editors, perhaps it would be useful to conduct a strawpoll to see what the current editor-participants think of the way "incorrect" continues to be used in the lede. We could gauge that interest as being in one of three categories: Keep the word "incorrect" in place, Remove the word "incorrect", or No opinion/Don't Care. Sound good? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears that you have moved on from your proposal to change the third sentence of the lede to read, "Ham's belief about the age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is too small by six orders of magnitude." as sourced by [2], [3], [4], and [5].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me AzureCitizen. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll on "incorrect"

This is a strawpoll to see what the current editor-participants think with regard to whether or not "incorrect" should continue to be used in the lede. Please express your WP:!VOTE in the context of Keep the word "incorrect", Remove the word "incorrect", or No opinion if you have no opinion or simply don't care if it is retained or not. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as it simply WP:ASSERTs an indisputable fact. It's a slippery slope to start attributing irrefutable facts to the "scientific community", it serves no purpose other than to give a bit more credibility to ridiculous WP:FRINGE views. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• support a straight-forward, plain English contextualization as per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. "incorrect" meets those criteria. other formations that eschew obfuscation are also acceptable.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Reject The term "incorrect" cannot be credited to anything other than the majority of scientists (the "scientific community"). "Science," like the personification of any other academic discipline, is voiceless.--John Foxe (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Large discussion about science, proof, philosophy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster

To clarify: we do not credit the term "incorrect" to "Science" or any other entity, we simply assert the fact that he is incorrect. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC) You simply assert? On what basis can you assert at Wikipedia without an authority?--John Foxe (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC) on the basis of policy and the overwhelming mainstream academic views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC) We WP:ASSERT using WP's own authoritative voice just like we do on the Earth article: Earth formed approximately 4.54 billion years ago... Notice the lack of "scientific community" attribution there? That's because the age of the Earth is a fact and we should assert is as such. From WP:ASSERT: The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. In-text attribution to sources should be used where reliable sources disagree, not where editors disagree. Note that citations are a different matter: adding a footnoted citation to a fact or an opinion is always good practice. The text in the article, however, should mention the source only if the matter being described is an opinion, not a fact. (bold added) Do you contest that the age of the Earth is an opinion or that there is a "serious dispute" about its value? Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC) I believe in a youngish earth, so I don't share the consensus of the scientific community that the earth is billions of years old (in fact,three billion years older today than when I was a child.) There's certainly no "serious dispute" about what the scientific community believes about the age of the earth; but in my opinion, they're wrong.--John Foxe (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Well there you go, we agree that the age of the Earth is not an opinion and neither is its value in any way under a "serious dispute". The good thing about a scientific fact is that it couldn't care less about your opinion. So now that we've reached the conclusion that your belief in creationism is immaterial and WP policy is clear on this regard, can I trust you to change your vote? Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Since I've just given you my opinion about the age of the Earth, I don't understand why I should agree that it isn't an opinion. That the earth is billions of years old is the opinion of the scientific community, and I have no problem with that statement being part of this article. But I don't agree that the opinion of the scientific community is a fact. For one thing, the age of the earth is now given as more than twice the age it was at my birth. More importantly, as I said above, origins (creationist or evolutionist) aren't susceptible to proof. There's no way to prove that the universe wasn't created yesterday or that it hasn't always existed. Scientific consensus says that it wasn't and hasn't, but there's no way to prove those opinions false.--John Foxe (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC) John Foxe: "There's no way to prove that the universe wasn't created yesterday or that it hasn't always existed." What do you mean "there's no way"? Of course there is, it's called science. This isn't a philosophy forum, this is WP and we don't edit under the presumption that everything is an "opinion" as your factual relativism seems to imply. A fact is a statement which can be proven. The age of the Earth being around the several billions figure can and indeed has been proven many many many times. Do you dispute this? Gaba (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Yes. Absolutely. The age of the earth is unprovable and will always be.--John Foxe (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Foxe is completely correct here but it's meaningless. Science does not deal with proofs, it deals with probabilities; proofs fall into the realm of mathematics and deductive logic. Science makes observations and logically induces conclusions from those observations and as the amount of data increases, our theories become more specific. It's true that there's no way to prove that the earth is 13.4byo; however, proof is not the standard. The difference between theories of a young earth and theories of an old earth is that theories of an old earth have a massive amount of evidential backing while young earthean ideas have absolutely none that meet rational standards of evidence. It's certainly possible that existence as we know it was created last Thursday and all of our memories were implanted by Xenu; it's also possible that apples will start floating tomorrow, but we don't devote time in a physics class to such absurdities until we have a reason to do so. Lots of odd ideas are technically possible, that doesn't mean that they're on equal footing with ideas that are both possible and confirmed through vigorous experimentation and observation. As much as a fact can be a fact, considering the limitations of induction, that the universe is billions of years old is a fact as much as and as evidenced as gravity itself. Noformation Talk 23:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC) No, he is not correct and you are confused. Of course the age of the Earth can be proven the same way I can prove a given apple weights 0.2 Kg: you measure it. The fact that there exists a degree of uncertainty in any physical measure by no means implies that nothing can be proven. As I stated above, factual relativism is not how we operate, neither here in WP neither in the scientific world. Lastly this "The age of the earth is unprovable and will always be" tells me you lack the minimum WP:COMPETENCE to edit anything science related. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Actually that's exactly what it implies and you're out of your element here. In an epistemological context, proof has a very specific meaning: that the conclusion of an argument necessarily follows if its premises are true. Weighing an apple and getting a reading of 0.2gs is not a proof, it's a measurement. Here as an old talk.origins article on science that briefly discusses the difference in the first paragraph. See Euclid's theorem for some examples of proofs. If you think that I'm arguing in any way for factual relativism then you did not understand what I wrote above and I would be a pretty shitty biologist if I believed that. Noformation Talk 02:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "you're out of your element here" not sure what that means but I'll assume it's nothing bad. Weighing an apple and getting a reading of 0.2gs is indeed a proof, it proves that apple weights 0.2gs plus/minus a given uncertainty. You are conflating the existence of a given inaccuracy inherent to any physical measurement with the impossibility to assign any degree of "truth" to a statement. Lastly: I've moved your comment out of my comment, please don't insert comments within comments, it makes it harder to follow a thread. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC) The problem here is much more simple: equivocation. You are using the word proof in the sloppy way that a layman uses it while I (and I assume Foxe) am using it the way that a scientist or philosopher would use it when addressing this subject (and I say this with recognition of your status as a physicist). It is rather astonishing to me that you have a PhD in physics and are not aware of this very common misuse of the word. Incidentally, it was in my first physics class that I was corrected on my misuse of the word. I do not know what you're referring to regarding my comment placement but I apologize if I accidentally placed it within yours. Noformation Talk 00:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Not at all, my use of the word proof is entirely within its definition. You are using it not in the way a scientist would use it but rather in the way someone trying to water down its meaning would (Foxe for example) to push an un-scientific agenda. The philosophical stance on weather we can ever be certain of anything is known as Cartesian doubt and has no place in the empirical sciences as being unfalsifiable. To quote Popper: "If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are."[6]. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC) The claim that I'm watering the definition down is ironic as is using The Logic of Scientific Discovery as a counter example! Firstly, Popper uses the word proof multiple times in that book and I'm almost certain he uses it only in the formal sense which I am elucidating; he talks of proof in regards to Goldbach's Theorem, Kolmogorov's failed attempt at a proof of the axiom of continuity, and other mathematical and logical proofs. Secondly, assuming that by "watering down" you mean "making more ambiguous," I'm doing the exact opposite; I'm using a narrow definition such that it only applies to deductive processes, which is in line with the standard academic usage, while you are using a watered down definition that is more inclusive. Note that I am in complete agreement with you and Popper on the matter of subjecting science to strict proof and am not at all attempting to disregard the very valid science upon which our measurements of the universe are based. I understand that creationists commonly use this word play in order to undermine science, this is why I started my OP with "Foxe is right, but it's meaningless." Foxe is right that by the epistemological standard of proof, the age of the universe is unprovable, but—and I'm simply repeating what I wrote originally—it's meaningless because the standard of science is not proof (basically exactly what your Popper quote said). This why I ended my OP with "that the universe is billions of years old is a fact as much as and as evidenced as gravity itself." In no way does this undermine science or provide validity for the absurdity that is YEC; it simply recognizes that science is limited in some fashion (again, in the same sense Popper discusses). Lastly, dictionaries do not generally promote first and foremost the academic usage of words, so providing that dictionary reference is only adding to my point: proof in such a loose context is how non-scientists use the term; when you see the term in a journal/textbook/white paper (with the exception of crank papers) it's virtually never to indicate proof in such a loose context. Noformation Talk 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Not sure what you find ironic, the quote is quite clear in it's meaning. By "watering down" I actually mean the exact opposite of what you describe. You are adhering to a particularly narrow interpretation of the word thus dismissing all other interpretations and stripping it of most its meaning, ie: you water it down. So to recap: Foxe is not right (you aren't either) and the age of the Earth is not unprovable; of course it is, just like the weight of an apple is. You are confusing "proof" with "unquestionable universal timeless truth". Lastly, dictionaries are what help us communicate, imagine if everybody had their own prefered definition of all words. You keep referring to how scientists act, are you around them much? I am. I'm a scientist and I'm around other scientists all the time. You know how we communicate? We don't have our own secret language, we use simple words (well, sometimes not so simple) taken from a plain old dictionary. In any case, this has gone far too long and Jytdog is right pointing to WP:NOTFORUM. This is my last comment and I'm collapsing our discussion. If you want to comment further, please do so within the collapsed thread. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC) (throat clear) you guys, i know this is very exciting but WP:NOTFORUM - this is a straw poll not a debate on science. thanks. This dialogue should probably be hatted. Jytdog (talk) You are right Jytdog. I've collapsed the discussion right after Foxe's vote. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Advocacy of creationism is prima facie evidence of a lack of WP:COMPETENCE required to edit articles that have anything at all to do with scientific topics. I would suggest that therefore, User:John Foxe be no longer allowed to opine upon questions directly related to science. Since he has already been warned about WP:ARBPSCI by myself, we could ask for an injunction against him at WP:AE. jps (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. Unnecessary to state he is "incorrect". Just stating he is a YEC is sufficient. Stating a faith-based opinion is incorrect should not be in a BLP. Bahooka (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • crawling under the mantle of religion does not make his claims any less incorrect, nor does it exempt him from the BLP imperatives which by the specifically call to follow NPOV which assert that we must place things in the context of mainstream academic views. And Ham is incorrect even among mainstream creationists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I just don't believe it is necessary on a BLP to state that he believes in Young Earth creationism and he is incorrect . . . I think just stating he believes in YEC is sufficient. Bahooka (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
      • the average person does not know what YEC is. we should not be forcing them to click into another article to find out that what the guy is notable for is advocating incorrect information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the word "incorrect". The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years... that is a fact. Ham may be sincere in his beliefs but he is incorrect. Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Remove the word "incorrect". The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years and Ham's claims are obviously incorrect. In a BLP, however, it is highly unusual to prominently state in the lede that a subject's views are "incorrect" and there are no other BLP's that do this. At most, we should say that his claims are dismissed by the scientific community and leave it at that, similar to Wikipedia's BLPs on other well known creationists like Kent Hovind and Henry M. Morris. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• If it is not retained then a statement as that his ideas are at odds with measurements ought to be included. jps (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable for his view on the age of the earth, so it makes sense, as per WP:FRINGE, that along with his claim to fame, that the scientific consensus is stated in plain and simple English in the lead, too, - namely, that his view on this is incorrect. And I want to add, that WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP do not contradict one another. That is a bit of a red herring being thrown around above. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The notability of the subject is closely associated with his ideas about the age of the Earth. The fact that his ideas are incorrect is an important fact that should be asserted. Other BLP's on YEC proponents may need improvement that is not cause to omit important facts from this. FRINGE is clear on this and there is no contradiction of BLP, Ham's ideas of the age of the Earth are well known and reliably sourced, the fact they are wrong is important and accurate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Remove The word incorrect. It isn't right in a BLP article and others on wikipedia do not do so. Still include what science says in the intro but incorrect is not necessary and unusual on wikipedia. There is no reason to mention it. "Dismissed by the scientific community" is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.176.108 (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • BLP is not a white wash and does not in any way prohibit expressing the mainstream academic view. In fact BLP says we must adhere to NPOV which in turn states that we must present the subject in context- in context of the age of the earth, he is wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep There are turtles all the way down. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Ham is incorrect, and that should be asserted in Wikipedia’s voice. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Note This article is subject to WP:BLP and only claims from reliable secondary sources mentioning Ham really are usable. He may be a loon, but unless a reliable source makes that claim, we can not use our own impeccable knowledge to add that to the BLP. I suspect most who read this, and read the wikilinked articles, will realize and understand that he has no scientific support, but that is for the reader to determine, not for us to bludgeon the reader with. There is a slope here -- as clearly we are treading on the intersection of orthogonal belief systems, and if we do it here where we are sure that we know the truth, what other categories will offer the same argument where we might even disagree that something is absolute truth? So we should only offer material specifically mentioning him in reliable sources, even if we "know" more than can be sourced -- the world will not end if we do not have this stuff in the lead, of anywhere on Wikipedia, in fact. Collect (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

When you actually use the word “slope” in your slippery slope fallacy it kind of tips people off. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My college background is in hard science (Physics), and I am by no means a "young earth creationist" so I do not know what your snark is intended to convey. I am a strong believer that where Wikipedia has a strong policy such as WP:BLP that we well ought to abide by it. Collect (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My “snark” is intended to convey the fact that you have engaged in slippery slope fallacy. To attempt to rebut such an allegation you would typically explain why the labeling of a young earth creationist as “incorrect” really is a watershed moment for Wikipedia which will inevitably lead to calamity. Though, admittedly I would find your argument less than convincing since you have been shamelessly canvassed by AzureCitizen. [[7]] 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not regard my position as being influenced in any way whatsoever by anyone at all. I have, in fact, voiced a similar position on this talk page in the past in an RfC, and your snark that my opinion should be disregarded in any way here is simply an example of "argument by argument" (tm). It is not the task of Wikipedia to assert that people are wrong, or evil, or ugly, or anything else unless specific reliable sources make assertions and with the caveat that for living persons opinions must be specifically cited as opinion. The current sentence has (1) incorrect use of sources, (2) use of sources which do not support the claim as made, (3) makes assertions not in the sources (SYNTH in this case), and (4) treats the readers as people who cannot even be trusted to actually read wikilinked topics. If we have to tell readers exactly what to think, then this encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia at all but a primer for children. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the linked comment a little more carefully before making accusations of canvassing, 76.107.171.90. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you joking? Denying that one is canvasing when one is in the actual act of canvasing does not in any way negate the fact that canvasing is taking place. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the 4 sources footnoting the sentence? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

Um -- the first is pure editorial content attacking a person - and is not usable for claims of fact per WP:RS and WP:BLP. The second only says Ham believes in the Ark, and scarcely mentions Ham at all (precisely twice -- once as "the Museum's founder" which doe not support the claim asserted at all, and the second as "started his own spin-off organization Answers in Genesis". The third is "Deception by Design" which appears on it face to be an attack piece, and not specifically about Ham as a person, in fact mentioning exactly twice en passant. The last is Grainger's tale of his own family, and is not a scholarly work, nor does it mention Ham except three times en passant - the work is not about Ham. Thus the "four footnotes" include none which meet the requirements of WP:BLP nor WP:RS. To make the claim in Wikipedia's voice requires strong sourcing which is about the person named, and none so far fall into that category. None of the four "sources" say he specifically is "incorrect" nor do they make the SYNTH that his beliefs are "dismissed by the scientific community" - unless a source makes the claim, we can not assert that the source makes the claim. Logic101. Now find a reliable secondary source about Ham making the claim and then it could be added, but SYNTH and misuse of sources is not the way to go. Collect (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. It is enough to say that he is a young earth creationist whose views are based on the taking the bible literally. Going beyond that is just preaching. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • people not familiar with exactly what "young earth creationsim" is - which is most of the general public and potential readers - should not be forced to click to that article to be aware of the mainstream assessment of Ham's most notable aspects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)