Talk:Is Genesis History?

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Talk:Is Genesis History?/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Reactions section

The following is contested, on the basis that this is mostly in-bubble, primary sources, and is altogether UNDUE.

The movie was endorsed by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, the Associates for Biblical Research, and Timothy G. Standish of the Geoscience Research Institute. Jerry Newcombe of the politically conservative website WND also endorsed the film, along with WORLD magazine. In April 2018, Newsmax, using a criteria of highest box office scores and making a "significant impact", rated the film at twelfth place out of its "top 25 conservative documentaries of all time."

Patheos bloggers published positive, negative, and ambivalent reviews about the film, as well as interviews with key cast members.

References

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Kind of goes back to why this should've been deleted back at the afd. The keep !voters kept saying that it should be kept because it's a movie and should be treated as a movie rather than consider the fringe subject matter. Then we kept it on the basis that it should be treated like a film, despite the fact that there wasn't significant in-depth coverage of the film itself (only some announcements/press releases/buzz published in local news sources). Now we have an article about a movie that we're supposed to treat like a movie, but we cite sources that are not known as reliable sources for film criticism. Unsurprisingly, it's an article about fringe documentary filled with sources covering it because they also promote that fringe theory, not because they're reliable sources for film reviews. If there's an argument to include this because they're reliable sources for creationism, etc. then we're not actually treating it as a movie. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The stated reasoning for the removal was violation of WP:PRIMARY, but I see no violation there. Our definition of primary sources states: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Almost none of the cited reviews came from someone directly involved in producing the film; the closest it gets is interviewing Snelling, who works for AiG. The rest are only "close" to the movie inasmuch as some of them agree with its premise, while others disagree. If we use this definition to categorize them as primary, then why were other reviews that share the same degree of "closeness", such as the BioLogos Foundation (which publicly disagrees with the premise) allowed to remain? Further, even if the few sources which could be considered "close" are classified as primary, it still doesn't prevent them from being used as they were. Per policy, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." (emphasis mine) There was clearly no interpretation of any primary sourcing used.

Getting more specific, please explain how Newsmax and Patheos are "in-bubble" or primary. How about WND or World magazine? And before you say those two are Christian sources, note that nearly every source remaining in the Reception section is also explicitly Christian. That leaves only the explicitly pro-YEC sources, but even that shouldn't exclude them from being included. The value in including them is to cite the leading pro-YEC organizations to confirm that they consider the film an accurate representation of the YEC belief system. For a counterexample, see Kent Hovind, who AiG condemns for using arguments they consider discredited and not representative of current state of thought within YEC. And again, if you think this is not important, then why was it important to leave content from non-YEC Christians stating that the film is not broadly representative of Christianity? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

While many of the organizations in the paragraph Jytdog posted above advocate YEC views, they are still notable organizations and can thus be mentioned in the article. We could simply attribute them as organizations that promote YEC. Also, WORLD and Newsmax are mainstream publications so it makes no sense to remove those altogether. It should be mentioned that even with retention of this paragraph, the majority of the Reception section is still devoted to negative reviews of the film. Lorstaking (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is WP:PRIMARY. We can't rely on a creationist group to decide the significance of their creationist take on a creationist work. They have a clear ideological commitment to the content, so of course they are going to say certain things about it. By reporting these from primary sources, we are effectively endorsing them as commentators, when their views are WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the problem is not WP:PRIMARY, as I discussed above and you summarily ignored. None of the sources cited – with the possible exception of AiG, as noted – are primary to the film under Wikipedia's definition of primary sources, and nearly half of the cited sources (WND, World, Newsmax, and Patheos) are not even explicitly pro-YEC. And even if the sources were primary, that doesn't exclude them from being used, under policy, as long as we don't try to make interpretations of what they say. These are the leading voices on the subject of the film, fringe or no. Are they really any less qualified to comment on the film than the Orlando Sentinel guy, whose comment was left in even though it tells us literally nothing about the film? If there were a documentary about the Church of Scientology, and it was endorsed by Tom Cruise, do you really think that wouldn't at least warrant a passing mention in the article about that documentary? As I showed with the Kent Hovind example, YEC proponents are not a homogenous bloc; it is noteworthy that they agree that this film accurately reflects their views.

All this said, can we at least agree that WND, World, Newsmax, and Patheos fall outside the scope of this objection and should be restored? We can discuss the rest if the community still thinks it is warranted. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will also note that every positive review cited is from a notable organization, and some of them, such as AiG, WORLD, Newsmax, are especially notable. Also, while many positive reviews cited come from non-YEC organizations (WORLD, Newsmax, etc.), the organizations that do promote fringe views are still all notable in their own right (I saw some other good reviews of the movie that were positive but kept them out because they didn't have a Wikipedia article).

Also, as Lorstaking noted above, most of the section even with the positive mentions was devoted to negative reviews, and the negative ones were placed most prominently in the section. And while we included some quotes for the negative reviews, we kept all the positive reviews at a bare minimum, by only including the organization's name (and they were all notable organizations). So not even that was enough for some editors here?

And it's silly to think that it's a given that people in any movie's target audience will like the film -- several YECers (Kent Hovind, Walt Brown, etc.) have been strongly criticized by other YECers, and many Christians (the target audience) criticized the "God's Not Dead" movies. With this movie, at least some of the positive reviews were still critical of certain aspects of the movie, such as this one, and I saw this review from a YECer (who I don't think was notable enough to ultimately add) had a lot of criticism -- so it's not like the positive reviews didn't come to their conclusions in an uncritical manner. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's PRIMARY. X says Y, source, X saying Y. That's primary. X says Y, source, Z discussing X saying Y, is secondary. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If that's the issue, then you should also have an issue with the Joel Edmund Anderson blog, Reason to Believe, The Gospel Coalition, and The BioLogos Foundation. How are these any less primary than the reviews by AiG, ICR, WND, etc.? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I also have a problem with Adventist Review, since the Adventists are a creationist sect. I don't have a problem with Christina Post, which seems not to be aligned to a creationist POV (could be wrong there). We should not be using sources that have a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least you were (eventually) consistent with this removal, although the entire reception section is now a joke, with a single comment that adds no information about the film by a critic who didn't see it. It would be better off removed entirely.

I do not agree with your broad interpretation of what can and cannot be used – and I'm interested to see if others agree with it – but at least for the nonce, it's consistent. I think, for example, that it's silly to remove objective, factual information – such as the location and start date of filming – simply because it was reported by a source that leans a particular way on the film's topic. It is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, so it does not require extraordinary sourcing. It does a disservice to the reader by censoring non-controversial information about the film because of where it came from. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

These edits are ridiculous and utterly fail NPOV. Not only did they remove over half of the article's content (including good reviews both for and against the movie, but they also removed Paul Nelson's disapproval of the movie and the filmmaker's response, something notable since Nelson was in the film). Also, the editor clearly went out of his way to "show" that YEC is silly (by putting scare quotes around "creation scientists" despite it being a notable term and using odd wording and italicizing in the intro). Also, the editor did an obviously sloppy job editing, considering how many double spaces are in the article. These edits are ridiculous and are unacceptable -- I've been editing this site for nearly five years, and I don't think I've seen a more blatant example of bias on the site. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"creation science" is a pseudoscientific form of creationism. We have that not only from the scientific literature but from court findings of fact. I took this from our linked articles, because it relevant in context and people seeing this as a film article may well not be familiar with the fact that "creation science" is not science. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC).

So because of that, you have to note it in the article -- of a movie? And even if it is to be included, it is worded and formatted very poorly. All of these changes in the past few days are horrible, and I support reverting entirely. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is "notable" is completely and entirely irrelevant. See WP:N. That a source is well-known, gets a lot of traffic, etc. does not make it reliable. Anyone who thinks that Newsmax or WND is a reliable or mainstream source needs to reread WP:RS (or the archives or WP:RSN). Primary isn't the only reason these shouldn't be included. Being a reliable source for a film review is another, rather than a source that promotes evangelical Christian beliefs and thus would review a film about creationism on ideological grounds rather than because it's worthy of mainstream note. That's what I presume Guy and Jytdog are talking about by "in-bubble". Promoting evangelical Christian beliefs doesn't mean they're always unreliable, but it does mean their bias affects the extent to which their coverage of certain subjects reflects a mainstream scientific consensus and the extent to which they select stories (i.e. if it were a movie about how vaccines cause autism, a review from publications that regularly advocate for such ideas that have been rejected by the mainstream scientific consensus would not carry much weight and would not be viewed as reliable for covering such subjects. If it's a notable fringe subject, it has been covered by reliable mainstream sources; it it's a notable film, it has been covered by mainstream sources known for film criticism/reviews. WND, Newsmax, AiG, etc. do not fit either of these. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

First off, we're talking about movie reviews, not scientific papers or the like -- that kind of stuff is inherently opinion-based. They're telling the reader what they think of whatever movie they're reviewing, and the positive reviews (some of which came from non-YEC sources) are just as capable of that. And since when could only OECers and theistic evolutionists be reliable sources on what they thought of a movie? Also, many of the organizations removed do regular movie reviews (AiG, for example, reviews many movies, Christian or secular, and even some having zero to do with the creation-evolution issue, and AiG no doubt isn't the only such organization).

Lastly for my thought here, as I and others stated above, the paragraph mentioning the positive reviews was less than half the length of the paragraph listing negative reviews (and half of the former paragraph was comprised of positive reviews from non-YEC sources). That paragraph didn't go into specifics and really only mentioned the organization's name. Furthermore, the positive review paragraph had a less prominent place in the paragraph. It's ridiculous that it's somehow inappropriate to include any positive reivew (better termed as an opinion) whatsoever of this movie even if it came from organizations independent of the movie while allowing reviews (opinions) from OEC and theistic evolutionist organizations. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to make the case for deletion again? Because that's not what this discussion is about. You are more than welcome to open another AfD, but to keep this discussion on track, please confine the comments here to whether or not the paragraphs in question should be restored. If your argument is that the sources cited for the paragraphs under discussion are unreliable because they have a bias, then please explain how the sources in the remaining part of the reception section do not have bias. If the argument is that the sources cited in the paragraphs in dispute are not known for reviewing movies or qualified to review movies, the please explain how the sources in the remaining part of the reception section are any more qualified or known for reviewing movies. BTW, the only "qualified" movie critic in the whole section (i.e. the guy whose job it is to review movies) is included despite the fact that he, you know, didn't actually see the movie before writing the review we have cited to him, which sort of ignominiously distinguishes him from everybody else in the disputed section. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• The standard on WP is not "reliable sources", but "reliable independent sources". AiG is not independent in any meaningful sense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if AiG isn't an independent source here (and two AiG employees being interviewed doesn't equate to the organization itself being part of the movie -- after all, they could easily be, and are likely, doing it independently of their employment in their personal capacities), it doesn't mean the other sources have to do -- they're all independent of the movie, and ideological agreement doesn't count (besides, at least some of them did come to their conclusions critically rather than uncritically as the reviews clearly show). --1990'sguy (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with 1990's guy here. Perhaps AiG is not truly independent of the movie because Snelling works for them and Wise has in the past, and both were interviewed for the movie. I think that could be solved with an appropriate in-text acknowledgement of Snelling's and Wise's connections to AiG, but even if we omit AiG altogether as a compromise measure, all of the other organizations in the disputed section should be considered independent of the movie. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, you guys missed the grade school logic in my comment and now I have to explain it to you.... A creationist advocacy group is not, in any way, independent from a creationist advocacy film. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. We should rely on mainstream press and perhaps those Christian journals that are not ideologically committed to creationism. It's important to remember that creationism is WP:FRINGE as well as objectively incorrect, so ideologically aligned sources should be avoided. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

We can cite sources like that if we're recording their own recorded opinion on something -- and doing it all in only a single sentence is completely in accordance with WP:UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No we can't, because they are not in the least bit neutral. We should not cite atheists or creationists when discussing this movie, we should cite reliable independent secondary sources who discuss the atheist and creationist reactions. That is absolutely standard Wikipedia practice, in fact. I don't know you identify as a creationist and you edit Conservapedia. You need to understand that Wikipedia reflects empirical reality not biblical Truth™. Creationists are a fringe view even within Christianity, and creationist reviews of a creationist propaganda film cannot be included without the intervening context of a reliable independent secondary source to establish their significance and the extent of their bias. This is not the NYT reviewing a marvel film, it is a group of people who are waging war on empirical fact reviewing a propaganda piece, and we handle it very differently. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It's called the "reaction" section for a reason, and movie reviews are inherently non-neutral by their very nature. Besides, all of those sources (YEC and anti-YEC organizations -- not to mention the third-party reviews also removed for some reason) are perfectly reliable and appropriate for citing their own beliefs/opinions on a topic (and that's what we're doing). We don't need to cite the New York Times to confirm that ICR enjoyed the movie or that Biologos hated it when they make clear themselves -- and all of these opinions were condensed into a few paragraphs (and it could have been shorter had certain editors not insisted on including long quotes for some of the reviews). Also, while many of these organizations (remember, we had several non-YEC or anti-YEC sources too) may have fringe beliefs, they are also large and influential, at least in the U.S. where over a third of the population supports YEC according to Gallup. It's not like we're citing flat earth organizations which only have a reach of a couple-hundred at most (not to mention that we're citing reviews and non-controversial facts with them). I think it's clear that the opinions of multiple YEC organizations (along with OEC/theistic evolution) are notable enough to cite in the article.

Since you mentioned my involvement on CP, I started editing the site nearly three years after I started editing here, and my main motivation for "moving" there was that I was sick of the anti-YEC bias by "certain" editors (in other words, you're responsible for that). I'm familiar with WP's rules, and I have tried my best to adhere to them, especially NPOV (my personal views are irrelevant) -- that's why my edits here on YEC topics are very different from what you'd find on a site like CreationWiki. It's problematic when you think neutral edits (which also avoid "false balance") are somehow "creationist POV" because they don't go out of their way to bash the belief. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Even in light of WP:NOTCENSORED, it saddens me that you've resorted to such base "discourse". I suspect you knew – or should have known – this would be especially offensive to your intended audience, and in the interest of WP:CIVIL, I would ask you to refrain from such in the future.

The reason I assumed you might be implying that AiG (which was the one you specifically mentioned) was "involved" was: A) An AiG employee was interviewed in the film; B) I find it logically inconsistent that "creationist advocacy" organizations should be excluded, while explicitly anti-creationist organizations are not; and C) I think it is acceptable under policy to report, without interpretation, the reception of the film from both relevant points of view, but not only one or only the other. At this point, even sources such as Newsmax and World, which to my knowledge take no position on the YEC issue, are being excluded. Most, if not all, of the claims being cited to these sources are far from controversial. Reliable sources don't always have to be free from bias. It depends on what they are being used to cite. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to break this down barney style because clearly there is a lot you're not grasping... The single biggest problem is that AiG is full of lies. They lie about almost every subject they write about. I'd be surprised if you could find so much as a bio on their site that doesn't contain at least one claim that the author knows damn well isn't true. So any review of the film is fucking worthless, because for all we know, the author hated the film, but since it pushes a creationist POV, said nothing but good things about it. That's why we don't cite acupuncturist groups for claims about the results of acupuncture studies. That's why we don't cite the flat earth society for claims about the circumference of the earth. That's why we don't cite anti-vaxxer groups for reviews of anti-vaxxer propaganda films. But we damn well WILL cite skeptical groups and vaccine defenders for those things, because skeptical groups and vaccine defenders have the reputation for fact checking that the advocacy groups don't have. In fact, those groups (including anti-creationist groups) are pretty much defined by their reputation for fact checking, seeing as how they spend their time fact checking the claims made by these sorts of advocacy groups.

In case you can't puzzle that out: There's no equivalence between skeptical group and creationist groups. The former tell the truth. The latter lie through their teeth. If that bothers you, too fucking bad, because all we care about are facts and verifiability here, and everything I just said is a fact which is easily verifiable.

Oh, and telling me that I picked my well-justified epithet specifically to offend you is a personal attack and you should damn well know it. If I ever decide to offend you, I'll have you frothing at the mouth and screaming at your computer screen before I'm done. Anything short of that is just me being salty, so kindly get the fuck over it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

MPants, what in the world are you saying? Your tone is not civil to any extent -- "get the f*** over it", "Jesus H. F***ing Christ, you guys missed the grade school logic", other vulgarity. Also, how in the world do you now that AiG and other YEC groups are "lying" (as opposed to simply being misguided, wrong, etc.)? And seriously? "because for all we know, the author hated the film"? And accusing Acdixon of violating AGF? Any person with a clear mind can see that you're being very uncivil right now, and how can we have an actual discussion with that? These are ridiculous statements that either reveals your (apparent) sheer hatred for AiG/YEC, or the fact that you're probably intoxicated right now (and if I'm wrong, you've done absolutely nothing in your last two comments to indicate otherwise).

But back to the actual substance of this discussion, you and the other editors supporting your position are failing to see the distinction between YEC groups and non-YEC groups -- in your zeal to remove reviews by YEC organizations, you removed reviews by a bunch of other groups (World, Newsmax, etc.) which don't take any position on this issue.

Besides, these are movie reviews (which are essentially op-eds by the organizations of what they think of the movie) -- being fact-based, objective, or whatever, is irrelevant to what they think of a movie, especially since we're not citing them for scientific facts or their beliefs on YEC (we're citing them for their opinion, which is allowed here). Also, as several editors pointed out above, many YEC people and groups disagree with each other, sometimes sharply (AiG vs. Hovind or Brown, etc.), so the fact that these organizations (which was entirely mentioned in literally just a single sentence covering half of a short paragraph, so WP:UNDUE is not violated) were all united in favor of the movie is something notable. You seem to assume that these organizations were all somehow involved in the movie's production and planning, making their reviews simple endorsements of their product (which is false -- and either way, there's still the WORLD, WND, Patheos, and Newsmax reviews which are not at all YEC). Of course, if you think that these organizations all "lie through their teeth" simply because they're YEC groups who disagree with evolution, you'll probably think they're all greedy closet-atheist capitalists taking advantage of people, or other ridiculous notions. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't state with absolute certainty that you chose your epithet – which could never be well chosen – to offend me. I said you knew OR should have known that it would be especially offensive, and that was – and remains – true. As you persist in this behavior after being asked respectfully to refrain, I'm interested to know how you feel this style of discussion comports with WP:CIVIL.

Now, allow me to work from your "barney style" premise for disallowing creationist sources; namely that, "The single biggest problem is that AiG is full of lies. They lie about almost every subject they write about. ... There's no equivalence between skeptical group and creationist groups. The former tell the truth. The latter lie through their teeth." This is an over-generalization on both accounts. Creationists indeed espouse views that run counter to scientific consensus; all parties involved recognize this. But we are not using a creationist source to cite a statement like, "The Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the biblical flood." This is why your examples such as citing acupuncturists on the results of acupuncture research or flat earthers for the circumference of the earth. We are using creationist sources only to cite non-controversial facts such as the date that principle photography started or the fact that prominent YEC groups endorsed this film. Only by looking at these sources through your extremely malicious lens can we arrive at conclusions like "for all we know, the author hated the film, but since it pushes a creationist POV, said nothing but good things about it". In AiG's case specifically, there is evidence to the contrary, as they have denounced individuals and works that promote theories that they consider discredited, even if those theories support YEC.

Your portrayal of skeptic groups as always truthful is similarly over-generalized. One example that I have seen repeatedly regards tax breaks offered to AiG's Ark Encounter attraction. Multiple skeptic groups, and even several "mainstream" sources, reported that tax breaks were being given by the state to help AiG build the Ark Encounter. This is factually untrue. Construction of the Ark Encounter was funded by donations and revenues raised from a bond issue; AiG received no tax money from the offered incentives until a full calendar year after it opened. Just Google it to see how prevalently the false narrative that tax breaks were used to build the Ark Encounter were reported. So the generalization that "creationists always lie and skeptics never do" is false on both accounts.

Further, the assertion fallaciously ascribes motivation. You assert that creationists "lie", which implies that they are knowingly and maliciously spreading information that they know to be false. I am not saying that is never the case. In most cases, quite apart from any objective truth of the statement being made, we don't have enough information to judge the creationist's motivation in making it. The fact is, no matter how far-fetched it seems to you, many creationists sincerely believe the doctrines they teach. For some, it is a matter of pure faith, without the need for factual support. For others, they genuinely believe that their interpretation of the observable facts better explains them than does evolution. Again, whether they are correct in that belief or not, it is not an intentional attempt to deceive (i.e. lying) on their part. If this is your justification for removing all creationist sources, I find it lacking. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

1. Ken Ham presents the Ark Encounter as "Christian outreach" when in truth, it's a for-profit business.
2. The formerly biggest name in American creationism served a 10 year jail term for tax fraud. He also has a history of questionable legal charges.
3. The Wedge Strategy.

Those three are just off the top of my head. I actually mention more, lower down. Want me to actually start compiling examples of demonstrable lying on the part of creationists? I could make a fucking career out of it.

Guy doesn't think most creationists lie, and Guy is free to hold that opinion. But I grew up with creationists. I used to be a creationist. There are still smugly arrogant comments about flying squirrels and eyeballs from me at the talk.origins archives. I know for a fact that creationists lie, because I've not only told those lies, I've been helped to craft lies and helped others craft lies. I've seen how people like Behe, Hovind, Gish and Ham (but not Comfort: He's the rare deluded sort) talk to young creationists who engage with skeptics and encourage them to pursue half-truths and use rhetorical devices to fluster skeptics instead of addressing their arguments directly. People who haven't had experience with these sorts of fringe views don't understand the mixture of dishonesty and delusion that go into crafting and maintaining them, but I damn well do, and I know how to call them out, too. And if Guy were to start piling up all the "exceptions to the rule" where creationists were obviously or provably lying instead of simply being deluded or deceived(you can start with just about everything said about biology by Nathaniel Jeanson), he'd quickly find himself buried in an avalanche. If even 10% of some group's message is a lie, then they are liars, and creationist claims are more than 10% lies. Meanwhile, if you've got to argue technicalities to come up with a single example of a lie told by another group, then that group does not lie.

Speaking of which, according to AiG itself, they used $62 million in tax-based subsidizing bonds to help build the attraction. So tell me again how all that money was used only to operate the park and how that technicality makes skeptical groups liars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not say creationist groups always tell the truth, nor did I say skeptical groups always lie. I said creationist groups do not always lie – either because their motivation is not to deceive, even if what they are saying is false or because lying once (or even lying many times) falls short of the standard of always lying. I also said skeptic groups do not always tell the truth, because even if one skeptic group tells one lie, it is enough to falsify the statement that skeptic groups always tell the truth. All-inclusive generalizations are often impossible to defend, yet you used them as your basis for disallowing the use of any creationist source for any purpose. In your latest response, however, you also seem to acknowledge that your all-inclusive generalization is indefensible, as you cite Ray Comfort as delusional, but not a liar, despite being a creationist. You then set the bar (arbitrarily) for being a liar at 10% and assert that all creationists clear that bar and no skeptics do, assertions which are unproven and unproveable. Again, relative to this discussion, I'm not insisting that creationist sources are reliable for citing something like "Dinosaurs and man co-existed". I am suggesting they are reliable for sourcing things like the date principle photography on the film began (non-controversial) or that a creationist organization endorsed this film (which, if it is a noteworthy creationist organization, is also of value, since creationism is not a homogeneous doctrine). You are free to disagree with this assertion; that's why the question was submitted to the community. But if your justification for excluding creationist sources for non-controversial facts is, "All creationists lie" or even "creationists lie a lot", ergo, they are probably lying about this, I'm just pointing out, for the community's consideration, what I see as logical fallacies in that justification.

Also, concerning the tax incentive question – which I don't want to get into a long discussion over, since it's ultimately tangential to the decision at hand – you will notice that in my original comment on the subject, I acknowledged the use of bonds, in addition to private fundraising, in the construction of Ark Encounter, just as AiG did in the article you cite. But although the city of Williamsburg issued the bonds, neither the city nor the taxpayers were required to make good on those bonds if the project failed. They were backed only by the projected future earnings of the park. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The press is full of sloppy characterization about tax credits, period. All the press. People trying to build something need actual money. Tax credits are not actual new money in your pocket so no, nobody can build anything with them. They do often make a business plan viable that was not viable otherwise, and because of that and because of the validation of the agency that grants them, they help people raise money. Even knowing that they are coming in the future can free up money to spend now. That is regularly messed up in the regular press and discussed like the government is actually giving money, instead of giving taxes back or not taking the taxes at all. Not an issue with the skeptic press per se. And in the broadest sense as discussed above, they do help people build things. Just a bad argument. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think most creationists lie. Some do - Behe, for example, cannot possibly fail to know that that what he says is objectively false - but for the most part this is about religious Truth™ versus empirical fact - creationists believe that if religious Truth™ is contradicted by empirical fact then it's the fact that is wrong. They probably know deep down that this is ridiculous, most of them go to doctors not priests when they are ill, for example, but it is a specific form of self-delusion that is different from actually lying. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite having same view as JzG about the subject on creation science, I do find these content removal to excessive because they removed informative material that had to stay. I am not sure if reason as "primary source" was enough either. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nobody is going to convince anybody here and some form of DR is needed. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Rfc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• Closure statement:--

• • As Rhododendrites and Jytdog have said, there is a minimum criterion of reliability and independency, that all sources shall achieve before being used as sources of reviews in films.
    • As much as I am satisfied about the arguments about the non-independency of these source(s), the arguments presented by the opposite camp (1990'sGuy, Desmay et al) mainly relies on this guideline.
      • Editors can disagree as to the interpretation of two supposedly-colliding-guidelines and it's impossible for me to weigh one camp over the other.Hence, a nuanced !vote count (coupled with some discounting of tag-teaming head(s)) leads to the establishment of a no consensus as to the inclusion of reviews by publications which though wedded to creation-science or fringe-Christianity (and hence biased), pass the test of reliability in it's domain.Same for poser 2.It may be prudentially noted that the reliability of these sources is also debatable...
        • Thus, per onus of inclusion and all that stuff, the current version sans all these debatable sources shall be maintained and such csources added only after establishment of a t/p consensus on a per-se basis.
    • But at the same time, it's but a fact that the reliability/independency of a source is not a binary concept and the validity of a source almost-always depends on the content it is used to source.
      • Thus, I am very inclined to accept Acdixon's argument that the edit(s) which removed entirely non-controversial information about the film under the pretext of the sources being not very reliable/independent, is a dis-service to the reader.
        • Accordingly they may be re-instated, at the very minimum.

• • As to 3, there's a strong-consensus to include the point but the editorial details need to be settled.

• • I'll echo a statement by JzG:--When the only sources are biased in one direction, we have a major problem. but umm......, AfD's that way.(This's not a call to start another Afd:) )∯WBG^converse 11:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• • ∯WBG^converse 07:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)}}

There is active dispute regarding the inclusion of certain classes of commentary.

1. Should reviews by creationist groups be included, referenced to the primary source?
2. Should reviews by atheist groups be included, referenced to the primary source?
3. Should we note the well established fact that creation science is not science, to contextualise discussion of the subject matter of the film?

Guy (Help!) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinions

• I would exclude material from ideologically committed organisations cited directly, but allow third-party discussions of how these groups reacted. This is not a Marvel movie, opinion on whether it is good or bad are going to depend largely on whether you are creationist or not. Mainstream Christian press is OK (if the publication is not wedded to creationism) but we have to remember at all times that creationism is a fringe view even within Christianity, and that this film is part of a long-running political agenda to promote creationism as a parallel to objective fact. For the same reason I would include a brief statement about the legitimacy of creation science, a term deliberately coined to give a false impression of legitimacy to religious creationism. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Questions 1+2: As pointed out below, though I don't think the AfD close was particularly good, it did say there was consensus to treat this as a movie. As such, the relevant question is whether we would consider the source a reliable source for a movie review in general. If the answer is no, and it's only reviewing this movie because of a particular ideological perspective, then we should exclude them.

Question 3 gets at not just reviews of the film but analyses of the specific subject matter/content of the film. While we don't necessarily have to apply WP:FRINGE to sources about the film broadly, if we get into the specific content of the film, we would indeed need to use sources that measure up to those guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Question 1+2, reviews should be WP:INDY which means not "in the fight". Rhododendrites really nailed it here when they wrote: The keep !voters kept saying that it should be kept because it's a movie and should be treated as a movie rather than consider the fringe subject matter. Then we kept it on the basis that it should be treated like a film, despite the fact that there wasn't significant in-depth coverage of the film itself (only some announcements/press releases/buzz published in local news sources). Now we have an article about a movie that we're supposed to treat like a movie, but we cite sources that are not known as reliable sources for film criticism. Folks are trying to have it both ways.

Question 3, yes per WP:PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think that the AfD could be treated as factor whether we should be treating this as a movie or not. Should we ask the closure to clarify a little more? For now, I support the organizations in the article as they are notable and are connected to this subject. Furthermore, they serve as a balance to the review section that also contains negative comments. Lorstaking (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, and if it's a movie, we don't consider advocacy organizations reliable sources for reviews. As an aside, notability is irrelevant to the reliability of sources, we have special guidelines for what sources to use when dealing with fringe concepts, and the "balance" you're asking for is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. (edit conflict)This was originally intended to elaborate on what jytdog wrote, but with helpful wikilinks, but it seems he removed that comment in the meantime. I'll still go ahead and save. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• As noted in the discussion below, I feel the questions stated in this RfC are not specific enough. I support inclusion of non-neutral sources, on either side, to cite non-controversial claims about the movie. For example, this edit, among other things, removed the date and place that the film's principle photography began solely on the basis that it was cited to a non-neutral source. That is a disservice to the reader. I also think it is fair to summarize the reaction to the film from various creationist – YEC, OEC, and theistic evolution – and non-creationist perspectives, which was done prior to the most recent purge of information. Neither creationism writ large nor YEC are homogeneous schools of thought, so the endorsement or disagreement among these groups is notable. Any extraordinary claims – which would go beyond X endorsed the film or Y condemned the film – would, of course, require WP:EXTRAORDINARY sourcing, but the version that was purged did not appear to have such claims. Regarding the treatment of the term "creation science", I think the current treatment of the term is sloppy and inconsistent with what I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. I do not understand the import of the italics, and the parenthetical breaks up the flow of the sentence. I have long opposed the knee-jerk reaction to throw the "pseudoscientific" qualifier somewhere near every instance of the terms "creation science" or "Young Earth creationism" in every article, much less the argument that policy requires such a qualifier. Our users are perfectly smart and capable enough to click through to the article to see the thoughts surrounding these topics. If the consensus is to qualify it in this article, I oppose the present form of the qualification. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think the article should include non-neutral sources from all sides with regards to those sources' reception of the movie. Doing so would not be commenting on the merits of those sides' views, but would demonstrate whether those sides believed the film adhered to their views, was proficient in establishing its viewpoint, etc. That seems useful to the reader and doesn't seem likely to confuse anyone, so long as the sources are identified and (if the source names aren't sufficiently clear) their affiliations disclosed. Dbrote (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The only problem there is that there are no sources on the reality-based side that pass WP:RS. Literally nobody other than creationists has taken this seriously. Which means we would be presenting a review of a creationist propaganda film supported entirely by sources sympathetic to creationist propaganda. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't you just say something along the lines of "Creationist group [XYZ] praised the film as being in accordance with their own biblical values and as providing an argument in favor of creationism, [transition] [non-theological components of praise (direction, etc.)]"? That would let the reader know that at least some groups think it succeeded in advocating their message and flag that their non-theological praise might be colored by their theological views? Dbrote (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include the "non-neutral" sources (though reviews are inherently opinionated) and restore deleted info back to the status-quo version: These reviews are both YEC organizations, mainstream anti-YEC orgs such as Biologos, and organizations that take no position on creation/evolution (World, Newsmax, etc.). All of these reviews are acceptable under WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and not including them creates the false impression that literally nobody took notice of the movie, when in reality, several notable organizations that represent the views of roughly 80% of the U.S. public wrote in-depth reviews of the movie. WP:UNDUE was not violated since all the YEC org reviews were condensed in a single sentence, and all the positive reviews in general only took up a single small paragraph (more space was devoted to a single embarassing incident where one of the people interviewed came out against the movie). Some of the sources not cited as reviews, such as the movie's own website, are OK to cite for non-controversial facts such as when principle photography began. I agree with Acdixon with the "pseudoscience" wording -- we can mention it where it's appropriate, but it's smacks of POV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to have to mention it on every single article related to the topic of creationism. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include Material from inside the walled garden should be included with attention to phrasing and to the ordinary danger of tilting the article by giving WP:UNDUE weight.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that if there was material form outside to balance it. Isn't it weird that something so loudly defended has literally no sources outside its own bubble? Guy (Help!) 23:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few independent sources, including coverage in general circulation newspapers, and in Christian media that is not inside this particular bubble.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

So people keep saying. Inexplicably, they haven't presented them. The sources outside the walled garden have always been based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU -- Several editors, including myself have pointed to several reliable and independent sources that exist in addition to the reviews. Besides, we just had an AfD (the 2nd one) over this, and this RfC is not about whether the non-review sources are independent. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think sources like Biologos are "in the bubble" -- it agrees 100% with evolution, and its founder led the Human Genome Project and was appointed director of the NIH under Obama after two years of serving as the org's president. You don't get much more mainstream than that.

@E.M.Gregory: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to add your !vote under the "Opinions" sub-section of this RfC rather than this sub-section? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

right. fixed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, no, and yes to the three questions above. Creationist groups are not reliable sources; Atheist advocacy groups are not, either. If any of their opinions are reported on by independent, reliable sources, then they can be included. Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• include and restore per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. This information is also helpful to readers who want to know what these notable people thought of the movie and give a broader picture of the reaction. If we have the right wording and give the right amount of space to each viewpoint, we will be in line every relevant policy. I am no fan of the movie or of creationism, but the bias I'm seeing on this talk page is making even me offended.desmay (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There are no mainstream sources. Again, per its about page, Biologis is very specifically Christian, and a specific bible-is-the-inspired-and--authoritative word-of-God sort of christian. We do not build pages in WP that are trapped in bubbles. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering that a sizable proportion of scientists believe in God,[1][2] Biologos (which believes 100% in evolution) is not out of the mainstream. Besides, its president lead the Human Genome Project and was appointed as the NIH director under Obama (the latter while he was Biologos's president). You don't get much more mainstream than that. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep references and restore - I don't agree with creationist ideology, but anyone can agree that these sources represent a really large proportion of Americans (young Earth and evolution-related). I agree with the arguments on WP:BIASEDSOURCES, as nobody has pretended they were neutral or reliable. My Lord (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include #1 and #2; for #3 Yes but not in lead: the sources should be included per WP;BIASED as others have mentioned. "Creation science" is relevant. A brief, single mention is due--but not in the lead. – Lionel^(talk) 04:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If you can source it, add it.91.235.142.81 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include for questions 1 and 2 there is nothing wrong with using non-neutral sources as long as we treat them as such, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES allows for this. Some editors here have claimed that the content made the article biased toward creationism, but I don't see this because most of the removed content was negative. The content should be retained. With question 3, we can include a mention, but the wording right now should be changed to avoid making a WP:POINT. Also, the cited sources for pseudoscience do not actually mention the movie, making it COATRACK. I support User:Lionelt's suggestion for how to fix this.Knox490 (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You appear not to understand WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When the only sources are biased in one direction, we have a major problem. This is not citing the Discotute for creationist views on Kitzmiller, for example, it's a reationist propaganda film where nobody other than True Believers appears to have written a word. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Another WP:IDHT comment -- just take a look at the status-quo version, and you will find that the biased sources are not "biased in one direction." In fact, mus the opposite, considering that so much more space is devoted to the negative reivews by organizations such as The BioLogos Foundation (whose founder, Francis Collins, was appointed by Obama as the NIH director while he was the org's president) and several others. Of course, Biologos (which fully accepts evolution/long ages/climate change/etc.) is probably some YEC org in disguise because they actually decided to comment on a movie that nobody in their right mind would ever comment on (Wikipedia's voice, not mine). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes to all", on the first two why should reviews be ignored just because they are going to reject the basic message? But we must also make it clear what the scientific community thinks.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude I've gone on record a few times as saying that I believe articles on topics that can't be covered in an accurate, neutral matter per a lack of relevant sources should be deleted. In this case, the question posed by the film's title has been discussed in great detail by professional historians for centuries, with a near-unanimous consensus that "It depends on what one means by history", but this film is actually about pushing a pseudoscientific view that has no relation to whether "history" means "stories", "stuff that totally happened in the past and wasn't just made up" or an account of the past. However, I know very few Wikipedia editors actually agree with me on this issue. I'm disclosing all this to say that if you want to disagree with my premise for essentially !voting Heck no! then you can dismiss my comment as representing the minority view it is and just focus on what everyone else says (and they seem to largely disagree with me anyway). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that I think groups whose only qualification for discussing this film are that they are atheists should be treated roughly the same as those who only qualify because they are fundamentalist Christians: the former are not pushing fringe pseudoscience, and obviously I personally identify more with one than the other, but both are equally problematic in principle, IMO. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include for #1 and #2 per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as the sources were presented in a neutral way that did not show favoritism toward creationism, based on the diff. Wikipedia should avoid making a false impression that nobody covered this movie when reputable sources like Biologos and notable ones like the Newsmax did. They are not professional media reviews, but that is irrelevant here. For #3, include this for context, but I agree with others here that the wording could be fixed. Lorstaking (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• No, No, and Yes. If we do go the route of including creationist and skeptical reviews, then we should write it in such a way as to not imply any equivalency between them: the former are completely untrustworthy, while the latter are generally highly trustworthy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Restore sources for 1 and 2 - The reviews were from a diverse set of sources, and as users above also said, the content was presented in a way that is in line with NPOV, UNDUE, or FALSEBALANCE. Oppose 3 because including it goes against WP:COATRACK, mainly based on the sources showing that creationism is pseudoscience - they have nothing to do with the movie and shouldn't be in the article. --RaviC (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, so you think we should include pro-creationish fawning reviews and exclude the fact that the "documentary" is promoting objectively false claims that have been adjudicated to be false by a court, because otherwise it would be false balance? How does that work? Guy (Help!) 10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're taking his comment out of context, since the false balance mention seems to be for his reasoning for #1 and #2, not #3. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, and yes per the reasoning of Slatersteven and Lionelt. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 09:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Never too late. I would say: yes, yes, and conditional yes - the diffs given by the other editors show that the content was not presented inappropriately, and took into account that YEC is fringe, based on the weight given to their pressure groups. Mentioning that it's pseudoscience is likewise appropriate, though it would be in the interest of NPOV to rliminate all the scare quotes and references in that sentence not really having to do with the movie.Raymond3023 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The article until recently treated this film as a documentary, and handled the critical reactions as if it were a normal movie. Imagine doing that with Triumph des Willens. This is a propaganda film reportedly inspired by a creationist's daughter's exposure to reality based perspectives in the infamous Ham on Nye debate. One core problem is that of the walled garden: virtually all commentary I can find on this movie is either by creationists or atheists. Very few mainstream film reviewers appear to have watched it - it has nothing on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, IMDB lists four external reviews none of which is of any weight (one is a student who received extra credit for watching the movie). None of the usual elements of a movie are present here, and treating it as a mainstream movie article is simply not possible because the movie is proselytising and everybody commenting on it is either rooting for it or vehemently opposed.

We should not view this in isolation. This movie is clearly following the wedge strategy. It is designed to influence opinion and present non-science as science. It's available as a learning pack for homeschoolers. It bigs up the scientific credentials of the people interviewed, but instead presents creation science, which we know from dozens of intersecting pieces of evidence is not science at all. "Creation science" is pesudoscience in the service of religious creationism, and we have that in court findings of fact. I don't have a problem with people who want to believe in literal Biblical creationism. I do have a problem with trying to present that as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, because it isn't. You can't have a documentary describing the scientific evidence for young earth creationism, as this movie purports to do, because there is none, and any evidence claimed to support that view is by definition either cherry-picked or misrepresented. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, life arose by random mutation and nonrandom selection, and this film exists solely because a few people want to replace these verifiable facts with Biblical Truth™ and have creationism taught in public schools. You cannot possibly view this outside the context of that long-running political action and the serial rebranding of creationism to try to get past Aguillard and Kitzmiller, and we have obligations under WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV not to represent ideologically motivated claptrap as a valid part of a scientific debate that in fact ended over a century ago. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources that are still cited in the article (that even you said above are reliable and appropriate to cite) all call it a "documentary" -- we say what the reliable sources say. You may try to right great wrongs by "revealing" what the movie "really is", but that doesn't change what the RSs say, and your assertion violates WP:OR. Nice try, though, with the National Socialism comparison. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the reason the article treated this film as a documentary and a normal movie is because the attempted AfD resulted in a consensus to do so, and to keep the article on that basis. The closing admin explicitly notes that all seven of the delete !votes were based upon rationale substantially similar to your argument that the film should be held to different criteria because of its subject matter and many or most of the twenty-two !votes to keep were based on the rationale that this should be treated as a normal film, especially since it received coverage in non-creationist sources such as Newsmax and World (which, incidentally, have also mostly been purged by recent deletions). Your reviving of this argument for purposes of this RfC is done in direct conflict with the existing community consensus. Also worth noting is that the version that existed when the AfD was closed contained most of the sources now being objected to, quoted from even more extensively than they currently are, even after extensive discussion of what constituted acceptable sources.

Even in light of the guideline that consensus can change, I think starting this RfC from a position that the community consensus has rejected is unwise. This discussion should be held under the terms of the current consensus, or you should attempt to form a new consensus outside the mechanism of this RfC, which already asks too many questions for the discussion to remain productive, in my opinion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD is a discussion on whether to keep the article. "The community" hasn't made any determination on how the subject should be edited. As the close noted, "this is a film promoting Young Earth creationism, which we cover, with respect to science, as a fringe theory." The article before my edit of 23 May did not do that. Instead it combined a number of flattering reviews by creationists and a smaller number by atheists to weave an article almost entirely from partisan sources, with the judgment on inclusion or exclusion largely in the hands of a creationist WP:OWNer. I have no particular view on whether the movie is notable, I do have a view on using flattering reviews in fringe sources to make a fringe film look good. I have exactly the same problem with any kind of fringe propaganda, whether it's "chronic Lyme", antivaccination, homeopathy or whatever. We cannot treat propaganda movies for fringe subjects the same way we treat actual documentaries. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. The main problem here is that nobody other than partisans appears to have written about the thing. I am still looking for what I would characterise as a decent source. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of what AfD is. All your cited quote from the closer says is that we cover YEC as fringe; it does not say we cover this film any differently. The closer of the discussion also noted that the reasoning of most folks saying the article should be kept was that it should be treated as a film. That's the same as saying the community's consensus is that the film should be treated as a film. At the very least, we can conclude that there was NOT a consensus from the community to treat the article differently because of the film's subject matter. You may call the film propaganda, but the reliable sources, even the ones that regard it negatively, call it a documentary. By all these measures, insisting that we should treat it differently from any other film is special pleading.

You also keep saying the article is using flattering reviews in fringe sources to make the film look better. The extent of the inclusion of these reviews is a single sentence that lists the outlets that endorsed the film and acknowledges their slant, with exactly ZERO quotes from any of them. Additionally, there are two more sentences from three non-YEC sources (WND, World, and Newsmax) that note endorsements or, in the case of Newsmax, note its inclusion in a list of influential conservative films. How is this overly flattering? By contrast, four organizations are noted as providing negative reviews, with the arguments made in each review quoted, summarized, or both.

Finally, the RfC questions just ask whether creationist and anti-creationist sources should be cited in the article, but the relevant question is WHAT, if anything, they can be used for. We have removed, for example, information about when and where principle photography began, simply because it was cited to a slanted source. This is not an extraordinary claim and doesn't require an extraordinary source. Same with the endorsements; we aren't saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that this film is a "great film that totally discredits evolution", and citing that to some YEC organization. We are using a YEC source to say that a YEC organization endorsed the film. That's it! Insisting on sources without a slant one way or the other leaves us with a reception section with a useless quote by a critic who didn't see the movie just because he's a "neutral" source. This is a disservice to the reader. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, it was you who said that the AfD mandates treating the article as one thing or another. I don't think it does. It only decides the narrow question of whether to keep the article. The subject of the article is a creationist propaganda film with no evident mainstream reviews or impact. That clearly has to colour how we cover it.

I am happy to discuss any proposed inclusions, but I am not happy about including sources that have 5% uncontroversial facts and 95% anti-science polemic, for obvious reasons. The fundamental problem, and I will keep cling back to this, is that the film appears to have been entirely ignored by everyone other than existing partisans in the anti-science culture war. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the AfD, many editors were convinced that the article should be kept because of the attention it received from reliable and independent sources, including reviews such as the ones by Biologos and TGC (which were obviously removed). Several editors believed those critical reviews from anti-YEC organizations showed that the movie received mainstream coverage (and even several atheists agreed that Biologos and other anti-YEC Christian organizations are mainstream). Remember, these organizations that reviewed the movie, whether theistic evolution, OEC, and YEC, are very mainstream and notable in American society (considering that about roughly 75-80% of Americans taking any of those views (and this is seen by the fact that many of these organizations have a lot of coverage in their WP articles). While these views may not be scientifically accurate, they still represent the vast majority of Americans, and as an American film, these reviews are not fringe. And of course, we're citing these sources specifically to record their opinions of the movie -- I think WP:BIASED is the corresponding policy on this.

Also, the "keep" !voters agreed that the article should be treated as a normal movie -- sure it was decided in an AfD, but a clear consensus was formed there nonetheless.

Lastly in this comment, certain editors have made ridiculous accusations against me, some of which violate WP:AGF, such as accusing me of being the article's "owner", implying I used arbitrary standards for which orgs to cite, that I used "partisian" sources for the whole article, and implying that I'm some creationist pov-pusher to discredit me through ad homineum attacks. First off, I don't "own" the article, and I know I don't. This article has changed a lot since I created it, and most changes were not made or initiated by me. I have accepted these changes, and (until these latest edits which made so many changes that we haven't even been able to discuss them all) I actually think they generally improved the article. Of course, as someone interested in the article topic (as seen by me creating the article--on my own initiative/time, I should probably add), I am obviously interested when others make changes to the article, but this is a far cry from trying to "own" the article (and no, challenging your massive changes because they are unconstructive -- and you did unilaterally change nearly everything about the article -- does not constitute "owning" the article). Second, I did not use arbitrary standards for which groups' reviews to cite -- I only cited publications/organizations/media outlets/people that were notable enough to have their own WP articles, since ther reviews were by extension notable. Some of these organizations have fringe views, but culturally, they are mainstream and notable -- at least enough to where their (united) opinion of a creationist movie is notable. I saw several other reviews by people/groups that were not made by people/groups that met GNG. Third, I added the reviews (which are inherently opinion-based anyway) in the reaction section, which is an appropriate location for recording people's reactions to the movie. Elsewhere, I cited reliable and independent sources, such as the newspaper of record of Arkansas, several detailed Christian Post articles, a Business Insider article that discusses the movie's significance in relation to the Trump Era, and others. The Adventist Review source, which was removed, was independent of the movie, and as I recall, was specifically endorsed by !voters in the AfD along with all the other sources I just mentioned. In short, this article is not "littered with partisian sources" as claimed. Fourth, certain editors are implying that I'm some creationist pov-pusher, apparently because of my personal beliefs and because of my substantive content disagreements on an article like this. Not only does this blatantly violate WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL (see point #2 under the first header, for the latter), but this could not be further from the truth. First, I mainly edit political topics anyway, but on all topics, I take great care not to let my personal beliefs influence my editing (that's why my articles read very different from one on a website such as CreationWiki), nor do I try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as I believe certain other editors try to do. Of course, I'm not going to bash/mock YEC every talk page or edit summary comment I get, but that doesn't equate to pov-pushing. Please follow AGF in this discussion, rather than go on profanity-laced tirades or accusing opposing editors of false things. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a challenge for you: cite all the reviews from mainstream organisations known for film criticism. I can't find any. To quote one of the conditional Keep !cvotes: "Jytdog's repeated argument is a salient one: if there is plenty of coverage but it is all in fringe-y publications, then referencing the lot of those provides a false summary picture". Three non-bubble sources were listed. One is not visible to me in the UK, one is a single short paragraph in an a long article about a more general subject, and one is an interview so not independent (and also in a minor publication). I am unable to find a single substantial critical (in the literary sense) review. It has zero professional reviews on the main movie review sites. And many of the Keep !votes offered no evidence, only assertions.

I also compared the article you wrote on Conservapedia with the one you wrote here, and the further I go back in the history of both, the closer they get. Conservapedia's mission is antithetical to ours. Conservapedia exists because a bunch of young-earth creationists cannot bear the fact that theearth is 4.5bbn years old and life evolved by natural selection. You also identify as a creationist. I do not think your perspective is anything like as objective as you believe it is.

And as pointed out above, you seem to be trying to have it both ways. You want this treated as a movie article, and then you insist on including ideologically biased sources because no mainstream sources cover it. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the AfD. I will add that the articles still had large differences upon their creation (and I tried hard to make sure it met NPOV), and the similarities are not surprising considering they came from the same person. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sure you did think you were being neutral. I am equally sure that you failed in materially important ways. This is normal when believers in fringe theories try to write articles directly related to those theories. It's not evil, but it pretty much always happens - antivaxers writing about antivaccine movies, for example. Making "documentaries" with selective and heavily slanted presentations of the evidence is quite the thing these days for promoters of refuted ideas, and it's a real problem for Wikipedia because we get into exactly this kind of argument: ten notable proponents of $REFUTEDIDEA talk about it, hence it's claimed by other proponents of $REFUTEDIDEA to be notable. But per WP:NPOV we can't really cover propaganda for refuted ideas in a way that fails to show what's actually going on, hence we require substantive reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I will just say that if the wording is biased towards the YEC position, then that can be corrected pretty easily. I am sure that MOST Wikipedians DO NOT believe in the Ancient Astronauts theory, but we still have a page on Ancient Aliens. TLDR: Correct bias if needed, no need to delete the article Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I will also add, that I know for a FACT that 1990's guy is biased when it comes to this, but correcting bias on such an article is a relatively small issue. I do not see a reason why one guy's bias should result in the whole article being deleted... We can just correct the bias. Simple Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agreed with you, right up tot he point when I tried to do that and found that there are no actual sources to allow us to do that. Nobody other than creationism promoters and a handful of atheist bloggers has taken any notice of it at all. The only sources outside the bubble are press releases for local screenings. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There are several things here. First, do you want this article deleted because the film itself supports creationism? Do you want it deleted because this article resembles the one in Conservapedia? Or do you think that regardless of ANY of the above mentioned, the film itself is not notable to have its own page? Or is it a combination of these things? Now, this is purely anecdotal, of course, but I live in Canada, and the way I know about this movie is through my uncle, who actually is YEC, and he found it on Netflix in Canada. But do answer Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If you read the AfD nomination it is clear. The page fails WP:NFILM because there is a big hole, where there should be mainstream sources about this. What has happened in the absence of good sources, is that the article has been ballooned up with non-mainstream, non-RS sources. That is the problem here. All intrinsic to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The article absolutely fails WP:NFILM (on every criterion) but I would be happy if there were mainstream sources to allow this to be kept on WP:NFRINGE. Sadly there aren't. The problem is not what it's about, but that it's a propaganda film and the only substantive sources are supportive. We have several articles on propaganda films which have proper mainstream sourcing to show them to be what they are. I'm good with that. Guy (Help!) 07:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• i feel bad for the people who are going to close this. ack. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• For everyone's information, since the RfC template has expired and discussion has slowed to a crawl, I have requested closure for this RfC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

remaining reception section claims

Instead of this continued edit warring (it's now 3 to 2 in favor of removing the remaining claims), try making a rationale for keeping in "reviews" from sources that aren't reviewers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's the "reception" section, not the "critical reviews" section. You don't need to be reviewers to have a notable reaction of the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If there were no film reviewers who reviewed it, that casts serious doubt upon the notability of any mention of it. Regardless, the Orlando Sentinel bit is rather obviously not a review, but an announcement that it is showing in local theaters. It's quite a stretch to refer to that as it's "reception", even if the reporter writing the piece is clearly disdainful of it. I suppose the Newsmax bit is arguable; but I have serious doubts about whether a single "we put it in our top 25 [incredibly specific genre] films" paragraph is sufficient to support a reception section. I'd just tack on that sentence at the end of the "release and box office" section.

FWIW: I see that the AfD was close with "No consensus", but I can't see how this topic actually passes WP:NFO. My gut feeling is to keep it, but it doesn't look like it's really notable enough. I wonder if the opposition to deleting this was enough to effect a change in WP:NFILM. Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the movie clearly passes WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO is irrelevant, at the latter serves only as a "backup" in case the former isn't met. Besides, the movie got a lot of attention from many different groups (including many which either oppose YEC or don't take a position on it), yet you've removed them, opposed any attempts to re-add them despite there being no consensus, and then pretending that Newsmax was the only group that commented on the movie. It's absurd to say that it's imperative that a movie article (that otherwise got a lot of attention) should have reviews from people who make a living commenting on movies, especially on a movie as controversial as this, where "professional reviews" would be no different than one from Biologos. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

...the movie clearly passes WP:NFSOURCES...NFSOURCES is not a list of criteria: it's two comments on a different list of criteria, and I don't believe it's at all clear that it passes those criteria. And NFO is not at all a "backup". I'm guessing you get that from a very brief reading of the opening of that section, but that's not even close to what it's saying. It's saying that if it meets the listed criteria, then you can be reasonably sure that enough sources to satisfy WP:NOT exist. So far, we arguably don't have sourcing that satisfies WP:NOT, so the failure to meet WP:NFO is a problem. All of the non-Christian sources used in the article are used to establish tangential information through passing mentions: It's quite arguable that this doesn't represent "significant" coverage, and the Christian sources don't represent "independent" coverage. Note that I tentatively disagree with the notion of deleting this article, and mentioned changing the guideline instead to gauge reactions.

I would also note that two editors who did not make their opinions clear via article edits over this issue have now jumped in on the side of removal. That's five editors in favor of removal, and two opposed. There are a number of "remove" arguments presented thus far, and only one "keep" arguments, which is rather obviously contested. It really is starting to look like a consensus, just not the one you asserted in your edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You keep asserting that. It doesn't become any more true for those repeated assertions. The problem is, and always been, a near total absence of any reaction at all outside the christian fundamentalist bubble. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If a source is not known for its movie reviews and is covering a movie because it promotes a particular belief the source agrees with, it's not a real review and thus shouldn't be in the reception section. They are not reliable sources for statements of fact on the matter, aren't reliable sources for film reviews, and thus are only reliable for their own opinions (and not in the sense of the absurd "all movie reviews are opinions anyway so what's the difference" argument). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Since we're only citing these reviews as their own opinions of the movie, rather than casting them as authoritative voices on whether you should see the movie, the fact that they're not "reliable" is irrelevant.

So, we now have to pretend that no one noticed the movie (despite the contrary being true) because you don't like the existing reviews? And this is a classic case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, since you're implying that all these sources are YEC organizations. There are many reviews, from organizations such as Biologos which is as mainstream as you can get (just ask Obama), or from Newsmax (one of the most important and widely-read political/conservative websites in the country, per its WP article), among others. We condensed every YEC group review (and it's not a given that they'd actually like the movie) into a single sentence, and condensed every single positive review, regardless of the source, into a small paragraph. There's nothing wrong with letting readers know what different people thought of the movie if done rightly, and this actually enhances one's understanding of a movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the two makes no comment at all about the movie other than to dismissively note that a creationist propaganda film is unlikely to arrive at the correct answer tot e question the film's title poses. The auther had not seen the film, and that is clear from the article. The other one is an unreliable source. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Biologos is not "mainstream". It is a Christian website that is very focused on a small set of issues. That is not a bad thing, but it very much what it is; a niche website. It is as niche-y in its own way as some atheist website would be, or as AIG is. The world is much bigger than any of those things, and when WP works correctly it is fully anchored in the big world and doesn't lose sight of it. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I keep seeing people -- not just on this page -- repeat an argument along the lines of "WP:BIASED says biased sources are reliable for their own opinion so we should include it". By that standard, we should include every opinion piece anyone has written anywhere about anything. That's not how it works. There needs to be a good reason to include the opinion of a biased source beyond the fact that it's talking about the subject. One good reason is when a reliable source talks about what a biased source says. Can anyone provide a reason why we should include these biased sources other than the fact that they exist, that they may be well-known within a particular community, etc.? This, of course, is putting aside the other issue of repeated inclusion of sources that say nothing of substance about the movie beyond what is provided in a press release, speculation, and/or quotes from the filmmakers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Creation science

Hmm a recent edit made me remember of this. Using "creation science" would be completely neutral as it would show that it's a name including "science", not a science (it's not the science of creation, but that was the claim). My personal preference would be always using Creation Science (also displaying that it's a name). Both however appear to contradict our manual of style, I think? Very similar is "theistic science". It's also obviously out of the question to insert "so called" before such instances... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm with using the phrase as just that: a descriptive phrase. That the science should be placed in scare quotes is something to be made clear by linking it to creation science. We don't need to double down on making it clear that we're not treating it as a real science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point, I agree that this distinguishes it. Interestingly, I actually just found a mini-encyclopedia calling it "so-called creation science". —PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

• Scare quotes or italics is fine, but plain text not so much, as it is authoritatively established to be religious dogma not science. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that the term creation science is now generally accepted as a term of art and most readers will not confuse it. On the other hand, the term "creation scientist", I think, is misleading and I removed it in favor of the more WP:NPOV term "creationist". jps (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

    Agreed. —PaleoNeonate – 16:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent sources removal

@1990'sguy: I initially had the impression that there remained no source to support the pseudoscience assessment, but I now see there's an existing source (the IPA statement), but which doesn't mention pseudoscience, only denial. It also doesn't mention creation science. I can't confirm immediately that the Ruse source does, as the PDF lacks OCR. Two other sources were also removed: the misformatted Sarkar & Pfeifer 2006 one, then [3]. —PaleoNeonate – 00:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding: here is a troubling pattern: [4], [5]; [6], [7] - and we're here again wasting everyone's time against the status quo... —PaleoNeonate – 20:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Ken Ham's creationist exhibit"

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

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

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

Second, you have already violated 3RR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pseudoscience (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rejected versus incorrect

Because controversy happens. While it is 100% true that the scientific community rejects the claims made in this film essentially out-of-hand, they do so not because of some conspiratorial decision-making process but rather because the claims are simply not true. As such, I think it is important to indicate this. It is, after all, a simple fact that the claims in the film about the subjects outlined in that sentence are false. I included a rather nice source which explains, point by point no less, what is false about them. It is a post made by a graduate student in paleontology on a blog hosted by a professor of biology. In short, I think this is about the highest level of reliability we can hope for on a topic as obscure as this B-movie documentary. I'll also note, curiously, that both the host of the blog and the guest poster are devout Christians(!) lest you think there is some sort of atheist conspiracy going on here. Have a nice day! jps (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)