Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC A. A. Gill

The following discussion 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.

---

Is A. A. Gill a proper source for

In 2010, critic A. A. Gill wrote that the museum was "a breathtakingly literal march through Genesis, without any hint of soul". He stated, "This place doesn't just take on evolution – it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most '-onomies' and all '-ologies', including most theology."

Does this use imply he is an expert on the topic of museums? 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (Gill)

AFAICT, Gill is a restaurant reviewer and televeision critic, and thus this is UNDUE here as he is not in any way an "expert" on the topic of the Creation Museum.Collect (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, fun, let's spend another month discussing this. I just deleted the sentences. I think that it's important to give due weight to criticism of the museum, but I also would like to see the criticism section of the page go away, and have all of the criticism incorporated into the other sections of the page. But if anyone still wants to argue about Gill, please don't let me interrupt you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You, as far as I can tell, specifically made this an issue - I suggest that Gill is not exactly a biologist nor theologian of any stripe at all, and why you insisted on having the material in this problematic article was something where an RfC is the only proper course. By the way, are you suggesting that we currently underweight the criticism of the museum? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

?? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• For editors who come here in response to the RfC, the sentences in question are no longer on the page, because I deleted them: [1]. I replaced it with new material, on the premise that Gill is qualified as a media person: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: The "deleted material" is now:

In February 2010, Vanity Fair magazine sent critic A. A. Gill and actor Paul Bettany (who portrayed Charles Darwin in the film Creation) to visit the museum on the 150^th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. Gill wrote a scathingly sarcastic critique of his visit: "now seems like a good time to see what the world looks like without the benefit of science. Or spectacles... It is the Word made into bullets. An armory of righteous revisionism."

And the issue remains - is Gill "qualified" to make such a review as a restaurant reviewer and television critic, and is the "In the Media" section which has now had this material added fulfilling the prime requirement of WP:NPOV? Collect (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is my reasoning: there is a plausible case to be made that Gill is, well, not exactly a bad choice, but not an ideal one either, to offer a view on the various scientific "ologies". But, if one looks at his bio page here, he seems to me to be entirely qualified to serve, along with an actor, as someone sent by a prominent magazine to provide a feature in the magazine lampooning the subject of this page. He is very much an "in the media" person. I think he is entirely worth quoting when it comes to looking at creation "without the benefit of... spectacles". The passages that I quoted are comedic, along with being sharply critical. These passages do not depend on any kind of expertise at all. He doesn't have to be an expert about museums to say those things. They are unambiguously opinion, presented as part of a media event rather than as part of a scholarly analysis. And yes, they are negative opinion. I don't think that's a problem in this case, in terms of NPOV, given the subject matter (see also WP:VALID). What he says is pretty much mainstream. It would fail NPOV to leave this sort of thing out. That's my reasoning. Please discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Aha -- so it is "mainstream" to give 31/37 lines in a section being clear criticism -- including clear sarcasm from a restaurant reviewer/ tv critic, and six lines of "sympathetic coverage" which includes as well as other museum visitors who expressed skepticism and disbelief at the museum's claims which seems far more neutral than "sympathetic." I am nowhere near being a Creationist, but I also take WP:NPOV seriously -- even applying to topics we think are loony, evil, horrid or whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I, too, take WP:NPOV very seriously. One of the sections of that policy page is WP:VALID, which I take seriously along with the rest of the policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And that section has absolutely nothing to do with using blatant humor and sarcasm as a basis for "claims" in any article. It applies to using sources asserting validity of a ringe claim -- but it does not in any way say "if I hate a topic, I can insert articles which are blatant sarcasm and untruths, and even use The Onion as a source of fact on a Wikipedia article". Sorry -- WP:VALID is not remotely close to an excuse for this type of edit. And is not an excuse for violating WP:NPOV which even applies to articles one hates as it is "non-negotiable". Collect (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And while you've been here, not negotiating, I went and tracked down Ken Ham's response to Gill, and I added it to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For anyone keeping track: [3], [4], and [5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• I see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Creation Museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

At this time, 3 editors have responded there (not counting me), and all disagreed with Collect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

With the change to "In the Media" there is no inherent POV associated with that. This section should highlight incidents and coverage in the media. If the majority of the media coverage is critical of the creation museum, then it's not a NPOV violation that 31/37 lines are portraying that negative coverage. The NPOV violation would come in if someone was trying to include positive coverage, but it kept getting deleted by other editors. Of course, with this type of section title, it can be hard to discern which examples of media coverage merit inclusion. If people start to include way too many examples that start to become trivial, then we may need to set some sort of guideline on what merits inclusion. However, this section should just be an informative area where readers can see where/how the creation museum has been featured, it shouldn't express it's own POV on the museum and I don't think it currently does that.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I can't help but wonder, if this material hadn't already been in the article, would anyone trying to improve the article have run across it and said, "Hey, there's a really compelling need for this information", and if so, upon what basis? What does it tell us about the museum that we don't already know? That the media is critical of it? Seriously, we think the reader got this far in the article and didn't know that already? Because it's "comedic, along with being sharply critical", it's more worthy of inclusion? Which Wikipedia guideline says that? The fact that Ken Ham responded to it on his blog doesn't make it any more relevant. He tends to do that with any criticism he becomes aware of, as far as I can tell.

Also, I note that the additions of "a British Press Awards Feature Writer of the Year" and "an avowed Christian" seem to me to be designed specifically to burnish Gill's credentials and preserve this material from removal. The bit about winning the British Feature Writer of the Year didn't even make it into Gill's Wikipedia page! (Assuming this isn't the same as "Hatchet Job of the Year", an award which is noted in his Wikipedia page. I guess his piece on the CM was the runner-up in this "prestigious" category.) What did he win Feature Writer of the Year for writing about? I'm guessing food or travel, not biology or religion. If so, how exactly does that make him more qualified to talk about the CM?

And if you look at the source cited for him being a Christian, you'll find that it says, "He surprised me years ago by saying he was a Christian - it came as news to even his closest friends". So his own best friends didn't recognize him as a Christian, but we're supposed to list this as one of his credentials/qualifications to comment on the religious value of the CM? Gotta shake my head at that one. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Scoobydunk pointed out at NPOVN that it is better not to describe what Gill wrote as "scathingly mocking", and I now agree with that.
• Acdixon raises the point (basically WP:DUE) about whether the Gill incident is important enough to include, and I guess it's subjective. I think that Vanity Fair is a significant media outlet, and (although this fact was obscured by some recent revisions) the source indicates that the magazine actually set up the visit by Gill and Bettany as a sort of featured event.

inserted:

• Where is that indicated? Serious question. The opening paragraph of the article says "On the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s masterwork, the author visits Kentucky’s Creation Museum, which has been battling science and reason since 2007." If VF set up the visit, I would have expected the opener to go more like "On the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s masterwork, we sent author A. A. Gill to Kentucky’s Creation Museum, which has been battling science and reason since 2007." Also, at the bottom of the page, Gill is credited as a "contributing editor" to VF, which according to our article on contributing editors, means "a freelancer who has proven ability and readership draw. The contributing editor regularly contributes articles to the publication but does not actually edit articles." To me, this means a lot of folks like Gill because of his writing about food and travel, so he submitted, of his own volition, an article about his visit to the Creation Museum and VF published it. I realize that's a subjective interpretation, but still. The linked slideshow by Bettany opens with, "When A. A. Gill visited Kentucky’s $27 Creation Museum ... he brought with him none other than Charles Darwin—or rather Paul Bettany, the actor who plays the theorist of evolution in the film Creation—to document the journey." Again, no mention of VF sending either Gill or Bettany. It sounds to me like Gill chose Bettany to accompany him on a trip he planned on his own. And again in the linked interview with Bettany, the inteviewer's first prompt says, "I wanted to start with your contribution to our fine rag" (emphasis mine). Sounds like Bettany also submitted his photos rather than VF soliciting them. Finally, Bettany answers, "I was really excited for a number of reasons to go to Kentucky, to the Creation Museum. I'm a huge fan of [V.F. contributing editor] A.A. Gill's and I was sort of struck dumb by him." Again, nothing about VF, just Gill. All this may add up to a somewhat circumstantial case, but I've seen no evidence so far that VF set up the visit. It looks like Gill planned the visit, wrote a hit piece that some – perhaps many – people found humourous, and VF decided to publish it and list him as a contributing editor. If that's the case, then it is pretty likely that VF published the article not because it found Gill's expertise relevant to the subject matter, but because he "has proven ability and readership draw". That's hardly the proper motivation for including his words in our article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps we are simply getting into something where we can each speculate, but we don't actually know. My guess is that there was likely discussion between authors and editors before anyone traveled to the museum, and the magazine probably provided some travel expenses, but, you say tomayto, I say tomahto. Anyway, if your question is ultimately about including or not including the material, I'll seize on where you called it "a hit piece", so I think that it's noteworthy enough to include, no matter who initiated it. And, as I said below, I think it is also illuminating to present Ham's response, with its appeal to how the snobs look down on Cincinnati and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• So the fact that someone published a "hit piece" is worthy of both note and quote? Why so, I wonder? Would we be as anxious to include and quote from, say a Fox News contributing editor who wrote a "hit piece" on Barack Obama or the SEIU at FoxNews.com? Somehow, I doubt it. I think it would – and should be – be removed with extreme prejudice. I'm also curious what "illumination" you find – viz a viz the museum itself, not Ham or AiG – in Ham's response. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• My hope at this point is for the temperature of this discussion to come down a couple of degrees. I just realized that you meant "hit" in the sense of something organized crime might do, whereas I had misunderstood you to mean it in the sense of being like a hit song or a hit TV show. Sorry. What I meant was that the Vanity Fair feature was enough of a significant media event to be included here. For what it's worth, some of the comments at NPOVN seem to agree with me about that point. I also think that Ham's views about how other people view Young Earth creationism are very much related to the subject of the museum. But I really wish someone besides you and me would come along and revert that sentence about Gill being a Christian. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• But I agree with Acdixon very strongly that it was a huge mistake to put in the stuff about Gill's credentials and beliefs. Just looking at the edits back-and-forth about that shows that it becomes a sort of POV battle over whether Gill was "right" or "wrong". What difference does it really make that he was or was not an adherent of a particular religion? He said what he said, and Wikipedia should not editorialize on the relative merits. We link to his bio page, and readers can assess him for themselves. And there's an additional problem. Keeping in mind that this is about "in the media", the source material makes it clear that the visit by Gill and Bettany was something organized by Vanity Fair, not something that the two men undertook on their own. Wikipedia's account of it should frame it accurately in that regard, and the most recent revisions obscured it. For those reasons, I'm going to partially revert those edits now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(About text formatting, regardless of what the page about Brackets says, WP:MOS take precedence when we are formatting a page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC))

Gill's (self-declared) Christianity should be included here for the following reason. One of the cornerstones of Ham's rebuttal is his assertion that "the British media" (i.e. Gill, since he's the British media person Ham is rebutting) have an "anti-Christian agenda" that is "often so obvious." Without inclusion of Gill's Christianity, Ham's assertion will leave the reader with the misunderstanding that Gill's piece was motivated by an anti-Christian agenda. I have reinserted it. Writegeist (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you, but if another editor does, I'll agree with that other editor. I think that a good feature of us having material about Gill comes in Ham's response, where readers get to see what Ham says, and how he says it. It gives a useful picture of Ham's thinking, that does not quite come across the same way elsewhere on the page, and I'd prefer that we not try to tell readers what conclusions they should draw about it. And, given that Ham likely considers Christianity, as he uses the term in this blog post, to refer to Ham's own take on Christianity, it is entirely possible for someone else (Gill or whoever) to be another kind of Christian and still be anti-fundamentalist or anti-Young Earth creationism, or the like. I'd prefer that we not rebut Ham, and that we not try to give Gill the "last word". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This should be obvious, but for the record, I also disagree with the inclusion of Gill's self-professed Christianity. If it was a secret to even his closest friends, it hardly defines him as a person, at least publicly. I'm also refraining from reverting at this point because a) I don't enjoy edit wars, which I fear that would become, b) I'm waiting to see if others wade into this RfC, and c) I still believe removal of the entire paragraph is the appropriate course of action, so I don't want to waste time on the micro-issues until the macro-issue is resolved one way or another. But if the material stays and we're trying to find consensus on whether or not we should include this qualifier for Gill, count me on the side of omission. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Tryptofish: There's Christianity and there's Young-Earth Creationist Christianity. Ham said "anti-Christian agenda", not "anti-Young-Earth Creationist agenda." It's not our job to second-guess possible meanings that go beyond what Ham's words say, but simply to report what he says. So either 1. drop that part of his quote along with Gill's self-declared Christianity, or 2. include both, or 3. drop the entire Gill section. If it remains, and it includes Ham's snipe at the "British media's anti-Christian agenda", then it would obviously be absurd and grossly misleading to omit the fact that the British journalist Ham refers to is a Christian. If you feel uneasy about Gill's avowed Christianity coming after Ham's "anti-Christian agenda" statement, it could easily go back into the paragraph's introduction.

@ Acdixon: Gill's friends' surprise or otherwise about his Christianity is irrelevant. Neither is it relevant whether you think Gill's Christianity "defines him as a person" or not. (It could be argued that he has numerous defining attributes.) What we do know is that he has publicly stated "I am a Christian." Writegeist (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Writegeist, Collect just changed the sentence you wrote to "Gill, noted as a "notorious" restaurant critic, is an avowed Christian." This is going from bad to worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is clearly based on the "notorious restaurant critic" and if the source is used, we can not use one minor statement and ignore the article's primary focus, can we? Collect (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect, Gill began his career as a food critic for the Sunday Times, and is now a contributing editor to Vanity Fair.[6] I would not however use the term critic without context, but "restaurant" is not the correct one here. TFD (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What does the source proffered for "Christian" call him? When a source is used, we use what the source states. Did you read the source given?

How drink and dyslexia prepared AA Gill for life as Britain's most notorious restaurant critic. By Lynn Barber

Is AA Gill God? Let us know what you think of the notorious critic, and if you've seen his site, on Word of Mouth

Much of his best writing is inspired by hate ('Hate is good. Hate is fine')

So if we are in for a penny on a source, we are in for a pound. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The first and second quotes come from the headline and a sidebar link in the source, so they presumably come from the editors and not the author, something where we normally exert caution when WP:BLP applies. The third quote is from the main text of the source, but it seems to have been chosen to make a point here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can dismiss the eleven other sources for the use of "notorious"? Oh? And you are at 4RR -- so I strongly urge you to self-revert post haste. Collect (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me float this suggestion: (1) We shorten the quote from Ken Ham by deleting the part that says: "We do find the British media have a much more mocking tone than the USA media. Their anti-Christian agenda is often so obvious." (2) We delete the sentence about Gill being notorious and a Christian that comes after it. As best I can tell, the desire to point out Gill's Christianity is based on a desire to refute what Ham said about an agenda, and the desire to call Gill "notorious" is based on a desire to counteract the statement that he is Christian. So if we delete that part of Ham's response, those concerns go away. It still would present Ham's views quite well, and it would make the overall paragraph shorter. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I made that edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You are at 4RR in 21 hours at this point. Verb sap. Collect (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to direct you to my user talk or to WP:BOOMERANG. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that the 3RR complaint has been declined, I suggest getting back to improving the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Undue weight. It would be different if we had a shortage of comments about the Creation Museum. But we don't. Everyone and their brother has voiced an opinion. So we want to pick the most relevant ones - theologians, biologists, archaeologists, historians, museum experts, that sort of thing. Gill seems to be an important restaurant reviewer, but unless we decide that the Creation Museum is, at its heart, a restaurant, we shouldn't value his opinion highly. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• The Gill quote is perfectly reasonable in a paragraph or section on public/critical response, just as with a film or whatever. In the lead, or in isolation in the prose, presented as if Gill's opinion were a reliable fact about the nature of the museum, then it would be undue weight. By putting it in its proper context, it will obviate the urges of most if not all counter-critics to keep attacking Gill's own character (with "notorious" and other terms) in this article, which is really, really inappropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

At this time, I've moved Gill's quote out of the text and into a footnote. That comment seems to me to be a good argument for moving it back into the main text, with judicious context and attribution of course. However, I'm content to leave it in the footnote in the interests of peace. But I just wanted to draw attention to the argument against having footnoted it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There are tons of opinions about the Creation Museum and the most credible should be used. Since there is no shortage, then there are probably other people to use beside Gill. However, I must note that it seems like the question about him being qualified is rooted in POV. There are real experts on the Creation Museum, Theologians, Scientists and lay people's opinions are all equal. Honestly it, doesn't take special knowledge to criticize the method of the museum, given most people are trained in the scientific deduction as part of their basic education. The Creation museum is what it is and extensive opinions for or against it are unnecessary. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A. A. Gill, super glue, and notorious

[7] Recently, A.A. Gill (notorious baboon slayer and the restaurant critic at the Times of London) visited three New York eateries (Momofuku Bakery and Milk Bar, the Breslin, and DBGB) and came away with the impression that right now in New York, there is an infantile-regression recession.

[8] Britain’s most notorious restaurant critic is one of the stars of the Auckland Writers & Readers Festival, which runs May 11-15. Nervous fellow journalists, acutely aware they are not in his league because almost no one is, are despatched to watch him toy with a croissant and catch the astringent aphorisms as they fall from lips that, in his writing, seem set in a perpetual cruel and wintry smile.

[9] However, bleeding heart is not his natural vein - he is better at blistering rage. This book includes his two most notorious rants - "Hunforgiven", which led to complaints from the German ambassador, and "Mad in Japan", which takes a bovver boy's boot to Japanese culture.

[10] AA Gill may be the most notorious restaurant critic in the Western hemisphere. Among the many vicious critics who fling lacerating insults at London's eateries, Gill of the Sunday Times cuts deepest. In the States, he is perhaps best known as the critic who, in Vanity Fair, compared star chef Jean-George Vongeritchen's dumplings at his New York restaurant 66 to "fishy, liver-filled condoms."

[11] Gill is notorious for his acerbic, provocative style, on one occasion in 1997 damaging his career by describing the Welsh as: "loquacious dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls,"

[12] achieved a feat few people thought possible by landing a rave review from the notorious Sunday Times scribe. Gill once infamously claimed ``you can easily travel from Cardiff to Anglesey without ever stimulating a taste bud

[13] This volume is a best-of notorious British critic Gill’s restaurant reviews and general food writing

[14] Vanity Fair magazine gives us the back of its white-gloved hand. For its October issue, VF unleashed notorious hitman A.A. Gill to deliver the smackdown. Gill dutifully throws every vile adjective he can think of into a bitter stew of rhetorical nastiness. Hoover Dam gets the only ounce of praise Gill can muster.

[15] Further along in his notorious reportage, Mr. Gill claims that Albania is so backward, that it can be likened to "Europe in the 16th century" (!).

[16] Gill is also the notorious critic for the Sunday Times, and a writer for Vanity Fair.

[17] often the case when notorious critic AA Gill darkens the door of many establishments. Indeed...

In short -- "notorious" appears to be super-glued to the name A. A. Gill. Collect (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Creation Museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

At this time, 5 editors have responded there. All 5 have disagreed with Collect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

At this time, only one editor ignores the Talk Page guidelines about making personal comments about other editors. And five have stated the sources are reliable (one demurs on a post by what appears to be a pseudonymous author) -- making your snark here rather silly. The disagreement there is whether the word is supported as one to be cited in the middle of a phrase in this article, etc. Not as to the overall reliability of the sources, again - other than one where a post is signed by its author, but apparently pseudonymously. Collect (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is wildly misleading. Some of those sources don't ascribe "notoriety" to the man, some don't ascribe it to his criticism, some don't use the word notoriety. It is a dog's breakfast of sources that don't always directly support the claim you are trying to make. In more than one of the sources, you cite unconfirmed-user internet forum message boards that are not reliable sources for anything. I wasn't "demurring" on a single point or a single source, and I don't see anyone who supported your view in that thread. (And a person who intentionally uses a completely untraceable pseudonym on an internet comment thread is maintaining their anonymity, that shouldn't be a point you waste time arguing about).__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly an impressive effort to document that the term "notorious" should be used to describe Gill! Honestly, I don't support the use of the term "notorious" describing Gill in this article, despite this variety of sources referring to him as such. However, this selection does confirm to me that writing about the CM is atypical of the subject matter he typically covers. I still question why he is qualified to comment on this subject. The selections also demonstrate to me that his work is significantly more acerbic than the majority of the media (and, incidentally, makes me feel lots better about characterizing his article as a "hit piece"; apparently, hit pieces are his stock-in-trade.) Based upon these observations, I don't think that the article's being "comedic, along with being sharply critical" (as described above) makes it particularly noteworthy (or quoteworthy) for this author or this subject. I also don't think it is representative of a typical media response to the CM, since apparently nothing Gill writes is a typical media response to much of anything. So, we're back to "why is this worthy of inclusion?" Because Vanity Fair might or might not have sent him to cover it and printed the result? If they did, in fact, send him, do we really think, given his reputation, they expected – or desired – any less than what they got? Again, if Fox News sent Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Michelle Malkin to a Planned Parenthood convention, would we be surprised if their report on the event had a similar tone, and would we consider their work a "must add" to an article on Planned Parenthood or the event itself? (Not a perfect analog, I know; please don't pick it apart on technicalities. You get the gist.) If you send someone whose criticism is known to be severe – to the point of being over-the-top – and who is known to be antagonistic to the subject they are covering, why would it be noteworthy when they write an over-the-top criticism of the subject? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The original wording before I came in on this was "outspoken" which I considered as unsourced, and feel now that "notorious critic" (not just "notorious" with criminal implications) applies. I do doubt whether Gill's credentials extend to being a valid museum critic, moreover, and this is a long distance from the ideal source of a peer-reviewed journal. Collect (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

AA Gill isn't just a restaurant critic with a bit of a mouth on him. He's, as the French would put it, a "man of letters". He will write anything about anyone - almost always scathing. As this pays best and gets sued least when applied to restaurant reviews, he mostly writes those. It's not because he's a great cook. Choosing him to write about the Cretin Museum isn't because they have a great recipe for Dinosaur a la Eden, it's because he will write something abrasive, interesting to read and thus saleable. It's like sending Hunter S Thompson to write about Hell's Angels. Gill's name is relevant here. Gill's past style is relevant here. 82.132.237.119 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

82, I would like to WP:AGF that "Cretin" was a typographical error, but if it was intentional, I object to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I expect 82 meant Musée Chrétien. (Easy mistake to make.) And Dinosaure à l’Eden. Writegeist (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Here are Google search results for A.A. Gill and "brilliant": [18]. And for Ken Ham and "notorious": [19]. It appears that search and you will find. But finding it doesn't make it encyclopedic, nor compliant with BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Gill and brilliant yields 458 actual results -- almost none of which use the adjective about Gill at all " The power of the illustration is brilliantly demonstrated in another compact volume ... A. A. Gill is one of the most feared writers in London, noted--according to the ...", "Here and There: Collected Travel Writing A.A. Gill ... There are moments of brilliant comic portraiture here—for instance, the description of the ...", " Rather brilliant reply to AA Gill from Mary Beard ...", "Tim Bacons Brilliant Reply to AA Gill | I LOVE Manchester" etc. all seem not to call Gill "brilliant" in any event. I suggest you put quotes around "aa gill" by the way -- it does affect results for the "initial estimate" and again that "initial value" is generally a tad misleading. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If Gill's criticism of the "museum" had been widely described as "notorious", it might have a place here. But his past and present activities as a restaurant critic, and how they are described, are far off-topic and have no place in an article of this scope. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Collect asserts "notorious" appears to be super-glued to the name AA Gill.[20] and "notorious critic" applies.[21]. Google, while not definitive, does at least provide a rough guide. A search for "AA Gill" and "notorious critic" returns a total of five hits, of which two appear RS. (Super glue? Really?) For comparison, Gill's name with "outspoken" returns 5,320; with "journalist", 371,000; "journalist AA Gill", 38,800; the name with "critic", 389,000; and the name with "Vanity Fair contributing editor", 25,900. (I think I've got the numbers right; correct me if I'm wrong.) Writegeist (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC) [Adding] Yikes, spectacular mismatch of "journalist" and "371,000", hilarious and accidental, no idea where that came from; striking. Writegeist (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Add "notorious restaurant critic" 95, and so on. Paging through the "journalist" and "a a gill" results gets all of 354 results (Google is "notorious" for overstating number of hits, by the way). So it is correct to affirm the 371,000 hits you thought you found were wrong (my search had Google say only 47,300 hits) -- but when only 354 results get shown, then that is the actual figure one should use. "Notorious" and "a a gill" gets 425 solid results. Next time you cite Google hits, page through the results to confirm at least 1,000 are "real." "Critic" and "a a gill" gets 385 actual results. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The accuracy of a calculation (specifically a simple addition) you posted elsewhere was questioned by a user who seemed to me to have a better grasp of addition, so while I thank you for your musings I hope you don't mind my glossing over your figures in this instance. Your clarity about the precise form of the content you want to insert is helpful: you are pressing for "notorious critic" (you wrote "notorious critic" applies) So do you want that as, say, "AA Gill, a notorious critic" (search returns one hit,* unfortunately not RS)? Or perhaps "notorious critic AA Gill" (two hits,* neither of them RS)? *I note your comment that Google is notorious for overstating the number of hits. Writegeist (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if you noted what I wrote, consider what I wrote and then accurately deal with what I wrote. The word "notorious" is frequently found directly referring to Gill, and the counts given of "371,000 hits" or the like are technically and factually errant. And if you will note precisely what the section title is (A A Gill, super glue and notorious), I think your snark is all-too-clear. Collect (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

So wait, you're hoping to add "notorious superglue critic A A Gill"? I'm confused. AFAICT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I did no such thing, and your sophomoric snark is not in accord with talk page guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• See previous comment; I don't like repeating myself in sections that re-raise the same issues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

A recent edit by Tryptofish has triggered me on a possible compromise. (And btw, although it seems he and I are on opposite sides of pretty much every issue raised here, I commend him for continuing to seek common ground in a reasonable manner.) We now have some indication of why Gill's piece might have some significance. I propose replacing the current paragraph with this:

In her book Sensational Devotion: Evangelical Performance in Twenty-First-Century America, Jill Stevenson wrote that although most press coverage of the museum occurred around its 2007 opening, a February 2010 Vanity Fair article by A. A. Gill "tesif[ied] to people's ongoing curiosity about the venue." PZ Meyers characterized Gill's article as "a good take-down", while Ken Ham contended that the piece reflected a "lack of research" about the museum and the city of Cincinnati.

This avoids the issue of what to call or not call Gill; gives outside opinions from both sides regarding the appropriateness and accuracy of the article; and avoids quoting from the article itself, which to me is overly nasty (maybe not for Gill) and doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of any particular aspect of the museum itself. If the community is insistent that the reader not be troubled to Google Gill's article for themselves, I'd be willing to add a footnote referencing it so those with an appetite for such things can locate it more easily. Does everybody (or anybody!) find this acceptable? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Appears a really good solution on the face of it, and has my tentative support, although first I'd like to see the relevant verbatim text in Stevenson's book (is it a published graduate thesis or some such?) which I don't get from the link. Is there another way to post your links here so that the replies to your comments come after, not before, the links? Writegeist (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't expect the reference links to show up at all. I just put the markup in there so I could copy and paste into the article if/when the paragraph was accepted. Not sure how to control where they show up. I'm not sure regarding Stevenson's book. Tryptofish might have a better answer. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been on an airplane all day today and am a bit fried mentally, but I'll comment more thoroughly tomorrow. Thanks for the kind words. About seeing what Stevenson actually said, if you follow the link in the citation and then scroll from the footnotes (that show up first) to the page indicated in the cite, you'll find the content that I quoted (it's a book published by the Univ. of Michigan Press, not a thesis). I have two questions about the proposal. First, do I understand correctly that the paragraph to be replaced is the one in the media section of the page? If so, don't we need to quote something from Gill? Without that, I feel like the context is missing. Second, given that the paragraph earlier on the page cites Stevenson, might it be too redundant to repeat the information about the book again? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me answer the second question first. I forgot about the earlier paragraph talking about Stevenson; yes, we would shorten that here to avoid redundancy.

On the second point, no, I don't think we need a quote from Gill. I still maintain that his area of expertise (such as it is) seems to restaurant critiques; he is not qualified to comment on the museum or its displays. I strongly suspect that the only qualifications Vanity Fair cared about when choosing him to visit the museum (if they chose him at all) was his biting snark and high readership. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. As GRuban points out above, I might be willing to bend on this a little if we were short on published opinions by more qualified individuals, but we aren't. There are tons of them already in the article. The only reason I'm OK with still including Gill is because the timing of his piece, not the content, seems to have some significance, at least according to Stevenson. We do not need to quote any of the content to see that significance, and I have consistently maintained that nothing in the content aids the reader's understanding of the museum itself. The Meyers quote characterizing the tone of the piece is sufficient. As I said, we can include a footnote to Gill's article if you insist, but I see no reason to include a quote in the article body when the quote does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic and is made by an unqualified individual known to put a high priority on nastiness for the sake of nastiness. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying those points. Let me start by giving you my take on the due weight issue that you and GRuban raise. One could quite reasonably point to the paragraph just before the one about Gill, and ask what qualifications Jim Bob Duggar has to comment on the subject. That media event was a reality show on a cable TV channel. Part of what one runs into in examining how this or any subject is covered in the (popular) media is that one keeps bumping up against coverage in entertainment. Unlike 19 Kids and Counting, Gill's piece was picked up on by an academic writer in a scholarly book to comment on as something of cultural significance. In fact, the way I came upon Stevenson's book was by looking for commentary about Gill – and her comments about Gill on page 128 of her book come in the same paragraph as what I quoted from her, higher up on the page. She opens her chapter about the CM by mentioning how Gill's piece reflects cultural recognition of the CM, and then, immediately after that and in the same paragraph, goes into the comments that I put higher up on the page, about how the CM is culturally important. She doesn't cite Duggar that way.

So that, then, leads me to examine why we should present Gill's material without really indicating what he said (or burying it in a footnote), even though we quote from Jim Bob Duggar. I recognize that what Gill said was, intentionally, offensive. And it would be inappropriate, of course, to present Gill's snark in Wikipedia's voice. But we need to be careful about whether we leave material out because it really does not add to the reader's understanding of the museum (I think it adds to the understanding of the perception of the museum), or because of dislike of the source

I, too, am looking for compromise, so let me throw out a couple more possibilities. Could we summarize him without a direct quote? Something like: "a February 2010 article by A. A. Gill in which he compared the museum's statue of Adam to a musician in a Janis Joplin tribute band,..." Of course, the more we get away from direct quotes, the more we get into the problems we have already had about characterizing Gill in Wikipedia's own words. Or is there something else in Gill's piece we could quote, instead? It seems to me we could quote pretty much anything of his to the same effect. I just wouldn't want to quote him on stuff where he talks about science, because he isn't an expert, or about stuff unrelated to the museum, such as the surrounding community. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I wouldn't quote Duggar (or anyone else with a reality show), but he is somewhat representative of and influential among the conservative Christian demographic, which is a relevant to this topic. He also served in the Arkansas legislature, and his oldest son works for James Dobson's socially conservative Family Research Council, so it's not like he's just a random guy who happened to land a TV show. While not noted in scholarly journals, the CM episode of his show was noted and commented on in the mainstream media. Given that positive opinions of the CM from sources other than AiG employees are currently pretty sparse in the article (perhaps more sparse than is WP:DUE, even), I thought the mention added balance.

I must say I'm disappointed that you questioned the sincerity of my reasoning about why I think this material should be included. I think you will remember that, only recently I, of my own volition, located sources calling the museum "Ken Ham's fabulous fake museum", "the Anti-Museum", and "the Fred and Wilma Flintstone Museum" and added these to the article. Why? Because they were relevant to the discussion of whether or not the CM is regarded as a museum. So let's not imply that I'm averse to adding criticism simply because I don't like the criticism or the critic, OK?

Gill has neither the expertise, nor likely the intent, to seriously evaluate any aspect of the museum (absent the cafeteria food, perhaps). You contend that his quotes "[add] to the understanding of the perception of the museum". If you had said his quotes reflect the perception of the museum, I could probably agree with that, and if the article were lacking quotes that reflect the perception of the museum, I might be OK with including them, but you didn't and it isn't. I continue to ask what this adds to the article that isn't already there. This is the last paragraph of prose in the entire article. By the time the reader gets here, I contend that they fully understand how the media, scientists, humanists, atheists, museum professionals, comedians, several politicians, and a non-trivial segment of relgious folks oppose the museum, Ken Ham, AiG, and YEC, often expressing their dissent in mocking terms. What could a snarky quote from a British food critic about how the CM's representation of Adam looks to him like a singer in a rock-and-roll band possibly add to the reader's understanding that they don't already know by that point? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please understand that I was not questioning your sincerity. After all, I, of my own volition, added the material from an academic book reflecting a positive view of the museum and a sympathetic view of the museum's admirers. I just think it's bad writing to tell our readers that a Vanity Fair piece was noteworthy in the opinions of secondary sources, while witholding from our readers what the Vanity Fair piece said. It's entirely reasonable to ask why we would have a couple of sentences about something, without saying what that "something" is. This isn't about whether Gill's views are valid, or new. It's about whether they are noteworthy. We have a scholar of evangelism in the US, who is sympathetic to what the CM espouses, who says that Gill's piece was noteworthy. (The secondary source cited about Duggar, in contrast, is The Washington Times, which is a very POV news source.)

The proposal you've made starts by citing that scholar, but then it cuts directly to someone who calls the Vanity Fair piece "a good take-down", followed by Ham's concern about research. Just looking at it as writing, there's something obviously missing between the first part and the second part. Why was it a take-down? What had it not researched?

I've offered some ideas about other ways of communicating what Gill's piece was about. Can we work with any of that? Or can we work with moving the material somewhere else on the page, so that it isn't at the end of the article? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how else I am supposed to read "we need to be careful about whether we leave material out because it really does not add to the reader's understanding of the museum [...] or because of dislike of the source", but whatever. I'll drop it. And I never accused you of having any other agenda; citing your contributions is not necessary.

Regarding the Gill piece, Stevenson considers it noteworthy because of its timing, not its content. The exact quote (for those who haven't yet looked) reads: "The great majority of articles appeared when the museum opened in May 2007, but more recent pieces, such as a 2010 piece in Vanity Fair, testify to people's ongoing curiosity about the venue." That's it. No mention of Gill by name or any of the article's content. The author considers article is noteworthy only because of its timing. The content is 100% irrelevant to her point. So Gill isn't an expert, the content isn't considered important in the secondary sources proffered thus far, and no one has yet offered a substantive way in which any quote from his piece adds to the reader's understanding beyond what is presented in the rest of the article. So, no, I don't really see any reason to work with any of the other ways of talking about the content of the article.

In fact, now that I think about it, an even better solution than what I proposed above would be to drop all commentary about Gill and the content of his article. What if we opened the "In the media" section with something like this (obviously dropping the redundant part of the quotation from the earlier paragraph): "Jill Stevenson wrote that 'In my own experience, the Creation Museum prompts more questions from friends and colleagues than any of the other venues I examine in this book.' She further noted that although most press coverage occurred around the museum's 2007 opening, later pieces like a 2010 article in Vanity Fair, "tesif[ied] to people's ongoing curiosity about the venue." No Gill, no Bettany, no Ham, no Meyers. Just Stevenson, Vanity Fair, and the only reason the article in question is significant. While mention of a 2010 article prior to the other media mentions (which occur in 2005, 2007, and 2008) could be seen as throwing off the chronology a bit, the quotes note how the museum has been the subject of continuing media coverage, which introduces the entire "In the media" section rather nicely, I think. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion section has a heading that refers to compromise, and, throughout the discussion, I've made edits, toning down the paragraph, that I genuinely believe to be compromise. I think what we have at the time of my timestamp here is very fair. Perhaps we should just prune the media section to be a paragraph about Bill Maher, but I think that if we go with no Gill, et al., then we need to prune back the other paragraphs of the section as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have praised your work toward compromise above. Just because the process has been difficult doesn't mean we haven't made progress. The latest version is, as we say where I'm from, "a far cry better" than what we had. In fact, I can darn near live with it. I would like to see Stevenson's quote first, since it emphasizes the reason for the significance of Gill's article. Would you be willing to change the paragraph to read like this: "Jill Stevenson noted that whereas most press coverage of the museum occurred around its 2007 opening, continuing media coverage such as a 2010 article in Vanity Fair "tesif[ied] to people's ongoing curiosity about the venue." The article referenced, entitled "Roll Over, Charles Darwin", was written by British critic A. A. Gill, illustrated by Paul Bettany (who portrayed Darwin in the 2009 film Creation), and published in conjunction with the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species."?

Also, I'm sure the other sections could stand to be pruned as well. I'm totally open to that. Let's see if we can finish this up first, though, to avoid muddling the issue. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Before seeing your reply, I made some more edits, and I think that we are, indeed, both moving in the same direction. Please take a look at what I did, and let's assess where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It may surprise you to know that the only potential issue I see is that I think the longer quote from Robert Winston is probably better. If we just leave it at him being disappointed with what he saw at the museum, one is left to wonder why. If the overall quote needs to be shorter, we should probably drop the part that we have now and re-add the part that was deleted. I don't have any major issues with the rest of your edits, as far as I can see right now. I would still like to implement the paragraph flip-flop I suggested just above, as well. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I just added back what you suggested adding back. Yes, we are getting very close now! I feel like it's awkward to quote Stevenson first and then indicate what she was talking about. It makes better sense to me to describe the media event first, and then indicate its significance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd still like to mention the significance up front, but it does mess with the sentence flow a little, I guess. How about "In conjunction with the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, Vanity Fair published British critic A. A. Gill's review of the Creation Museum entitled "Roll Over, Charles Darwin" in February 2010; the piece was illustrated by Paul Bettany, who portrayed Darwin in the 2009 film Creation. Jill Stevenson noted that whereas most press coverage of the museum occurred around its 2007 opening, continuing coverage such as the Vanity Fair article "tesif[ied] to people's ongoing curiosity about the venue."? That's a little shorter and at least puts a reason for significance up front, if not the reason we're most concerned about here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fair, and I just made an edit implementing basically that approach, with some tweaks of my own. Personally, I believe that we have watered down Gill's review more than I think is appropriate, but I am happy to go along with this version in the interests of consensus. I hope that this revision proves to be stable. Looking more broadly at the revisions of this page over the past month or so, I believe that there has been a lot of genuine progress, most of it for the better. There is a much more rigorous presentation of the source material with respect to accreditation and the definition of museum, with editor interpretation removed. There is no longer a problematic section dedicated to criticism and controversy. There is coverage of a sympathetic scholarly analysis of the museum. And the media section has been tightened up to where it has a broader perspective with much less recentism. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful review of improvements. It has been a difficult process, and from my perspective, we aren't done yet, but I think we have an objectively better article for our trouble. I'm most proud of the elimination of the Criticism section, which I think had been and would have continued to be a magnet for adding drive-by comments from sources without any real significance. I feel like we are in the process of establishing some loose criteria for what to include in terms of criticism, and I think that's a BIG step forward for a topic as controversial as this one. I still have some issues with some of the content that was salvaged from the Criticism section, but there isn't nearly as much as there once was. I think I'm going to wait until next week before bringing up the next one, though.

@Collect:, does this sufficiently address the concerns from your RfC? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record: [22]. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You had said earlier that you might accept a quote from Gill in a footnote. I just added such a footnote quote, due to my concern that we have otherwise watered down what Gill said. I hope that's alright with you and other editors. It's not in the main text, just the footnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I said I would be willing to include the citation in a footnote, since I thought at that time we were going to cite what Stevenson said about Gill, but not Gill himself. After all this (as yet unrefuted) discussion about how it was the timing, not the content, of Gill's article that was noteworthy, and you still feel a quote has to be there! At least it's one of the fairer quotes in the piece. Because of that, I'll not fight it, but I absolutely maintain that, because Gill is not qualified to assess a museum and the quote doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the topic, it isn't necessary (or in my opinion, proper) to include it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that, according to Stevenson's assessment, the significance lies in its timing more than in its content. I'm not disputing that. What I "still feel" is what I said earlier, that I personally believe that we are watering down Gill's review more than I think is appropriate, and I oppose burying it in a footnote, but I am looking for compromise. Left to myself, we'd still have the quotes about Adam looking like a rock musician and scientists staying in school past age 14 in the main text, probably with a neon light around them. For me, this is still very much a compromise from what I, and a number of other editors who commented here and at a noticeboard, would really prefer. I think it's reasonable to take the position that readers who want to look down in the footnotes can see what the review was about, and even this way, they are seeing something that is skewed towards what you described as "fairer" and is not entirely representative of the source as a whole. I've compromised a lot here. Thank you for saying that you will meet me part way by not fighting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking further about the concern that you expressed, and I decided to add Ken Ham's rebuttal to the footnote as well. So even the footnote reflects both sides. And it is all in a footnote; I think any reasonable analysis of the main text will show that it is entirely in accordance with Stevenson's assessment and is in no way unfair to the museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• See previous comment; I don't like repeating myself in sections that re-raise the same issues. Much of this dispute could be avoided by putting reviews and other critical commentary, pro and con, in a section specifically for that. It's normal, routine practice here. This entire fight is about POV issues arising because different parties are trying to misuse external opinions as if they were facts, and both sides are wrong to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia editors intrinsically have a problem on articles about "religion" and this article is a prime example of why that difficulty exists. IMHO, we should start with the affirmative statement "the CM is a museum founded on specific religious beliefs" and thus obviate the large amount of "modern science does not comport with theological beliefs" which makes up so much of this article. CM is not the only religion museum in the world (albeit others do not generally have the same specific theological basis). [23] St. Mungo's in Glasgow, [24] Museum of the History of Religion in St. Petersburg, [25] HUC-JIR (Hebrew Union College) in New York, etc. If we treat this museum as primarily one with a theological basis, and deal with it recognizing that theology != hard science, we could easily reduce the acrimony here. This would remove pretty much all "opinions" from all sides, and stick to simple empirical facts about the museum. Collect (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2014 (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.

Main picture

Why are we using their advertising slogan "prepare to believe" as the main picture? It seems to cross the line towards promoting this place, rather than writing neutrally about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.110.111 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the assertion that this is promoting the museum, I think a photo of the exterior would be a better choice. The one in the History section would work, but it seems thinly-sourced and might not actually be free. I have several pictures of the exhibits inside, but I'm not sure many of them wouldn't be considered derivative works of three-dimensional copyrighted works. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It does not seem to be a problem to me. I agree with Acdixon that it isn't really promotional. Also, I think that there is a difference between a logo in an infobox, which is what we have here, and an image in a thumbnail. It's very typical of Wikipedia pages about organizations and institutions to use a logo in this way. It does not constitute an editorial position of Wikipedia with respect to the CM. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Creation Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100622085449/http://news.aol.com:80/story/_a/scientists-say-velociraptor-had-feathers/n20070920140009990015 to http://news.aol.com/story/_a/scientists-say-velociraptor-had-feathers/n20070920140009990015

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Historic event in America"?

I'm not sure if this was used ironically or not. In either case, it's citing to AiG's blog, which is not RS for the purposes of an encyclopedia:

• In a blog post on the AiG web site, Ham called the opening "not just a historic event in America, but a historic event in Christendom".

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding these edits: [26]. The issue isn't about using quotes ironically, because the quotes are not described in Wikipedia's voice in an ironic way. Editors should not censor or sanitize the opinions of controversial subjects, simply because the opinions might not reflect well on the subjects, so long as it is WP:V that the opinions are being presented accurately. The source is not an RS for statements of fact, but it is an RS for statements of what the authors of the blog believe (WP:SELFPUB), so long as the statements are attributed. And as for WP:DUE, it seems to me to be important for this page to feature prominently what the Museum founders say about the Museum. I would argue that both quotes ought to be restored. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The two passages removed came across as WP:POV as they represented the viewpoint of the organisation in charge of the museum. Combined with the SelfPublish rationale, I don't believe they belong in an encyclopedia article -- otherwise, it looks promotional in nature. If a reader wanted to find out how the organisation views the role of the museum, they could go to AiG or the Museum's web site. In this particular case, since creationism is a pseudoscience, then I believe that WP:Fringe applies as well. It indicates that Wikipedia should only source fringe opinions that are noticed by independent sources.

For these reasons I believe this material should stay out. Hope this explains my rationale in taking these two pieces of content out. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that the opinions are fringe, but the subject of this page is based upon fringe beliefs. If, for example, a page about a political candidate included quotations from that candidate about the candidate's political positions, we would not delete them selectively from pages about minor party candidates while retaining them on more popular candidates, and moreover we would not consider the page to be promotional simply because it includes those positions, unless those positions were expressed in Wikipedia's voice or displayed in a promotional fashion. These quotes are not presented that way here. And there are certainly many independent sources that have written about the beliefs of the Museum founders, so it is not a case of presenting fringe views that have no independent notice. Indeed, a lot of critics are quoted here, so it isn't POV to include those two quotes as well. As I already explained, SELFPUB is not a valid reason to delete. So I think that your deletion rationale, although based upon a valid reading of what is or is not fringe, is not a valid reason to delete the quotes. We should present the quotes without editorializing, and let readers decide their own opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV, Notability and Fringe are valid rationales for removal. Stating that the opening of the museum was a "historic event in America" and in the whole of "Christendom" is extremely fringe. The fact that Ham believes this is not notable. If there are 3rd party sources that comment on this belief, then yes it would be possible to include.

"We should present the quotes without editorializing, and let readers decide their own opinions" is inviting readers to do OR based on primary sources, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand what OR is. Editors must not engage in OR in Wikipedia content, but the policy does not apply to what readers choose to do. The alternative to letting readers form their own opinions is to editorialize, and that would be contrary to both NOR and NPOV. Notability refers to pages, not to passages within pages. It's not POV unless we present that POV more prominently than that of opposing POVs.

How would you feel about much briefer mentions as paraphrases, instead of direct quotes? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I follow this line of reasoning. Quoting/paraphrasing guidelines apply to secondary sources, which Ham / AiG are not; they are primary sources as to what their opinions and beliefs are. It would be fine to quote a secondary, reliable source as to their expert opinion on the Creation Museum. If the article is quoting Ham, it becomes a mouthpiece for the organisation. My understanding that a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article is not an extension of the an org's web presence; it needs to be based on independent, reliable sources. In this case, AiG may also be both WP:Biased and unreliable.

I think these quotes should stay out, unless there's a secondary source that commented on the supposed historic significance of the museum. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't really care that much about these issues, so I'm going to leave this issue, as well as what you raise in the next talk section, to you. I guess that my original concern stemmed in part from concern that it sounded like you did not want to make the CM look bad by allowing embarrassing quotes, but I see that this is far from the case. To a large extent, I agree with you that the subject is indeed fringey, and I don't think that the changes you argue for will particularly reduce the value of the page. I think that you are misapplying some policies, but not in a harmful way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the quote was out there, so I was not sure whether it was being used ironically (i.e. to poke fun at the group by quoting their own words). In either case, for a fringe topic it's best to use secondary sources to avoid misinterpretations. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I know it wasn't done to poke fun. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I also know that the quote was noted in secondary sources, but without comment. I agree with Tryptofish that you are misapplying policies, both here and in related articles. All that said, this one is probably not worth fighting over. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

2007 Opening section

Does the section need to be as extensive as it is now? The opening happened 9 years ago, so the intricate detail on the advertising campaign, etc. does not appear to be needed. Similarly, the section "Planning and approval" seems to contain an excessive level of detail for an attraction that has been opened since 2007. It could probably be trimmed to about half its current size. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time tonight that someone took the words right out of my mouth and made the same post that I was just about to make! —PermStrump(talk) 06:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:Promo?

I've tagged the article original research. Please see a few examples below.

This is either promotional content, non-neutral or original research, I can't quite determine which:

• During the week of the museum's opening, AiG ran a 30-second television commercial promoting the museum in six metropolitan areas: Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Columbus, Dayton, Lexington, and Louisville. Although groups from churches and Christian schools were anticipated as visitors, Ham said the museum would not try to attract tour groups from public schools, explaining, "I suspect by intimidation and threats of lawsuits, I doubt whether public school students, as an official tour, would come."

First statement is cited to AiG's blog; the second statement is Ham alluding to "intimidation" (I believe this is undue quoting from the subject of the article")

• In a 2013 blog post, Ken Ham responded to such criticisms by writing that the Creation Museum is a true museum, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the AAM's web site.

Citing to AiG's blog; appears to be original research and undue.

• In response, Ken Ham posted on his blog that "The 'Confusion' section (dealing the Tower of Babel) in the Creation Museum teaches that all the people groups on earth today are descendants of the three sons of Noah—obviously so, as Noah's family was the only family to survive the Flood," but, referencing the book Darwin's Plantation (since retitled as One Race, One Blood) that Ham co-authored, he adds, "dark-skinned people ("black" people) are certainly not 'the cursed offspring of Ham.' In fact, it is only one of Ham's sons who was cursed (and not Ham himself)—the younger son Canaan... And this 'curse' of Canaan has absolutely nothing to do with skin shade! We do not teach that 'all races stemmed from the children of Noah'—as we explain, there is only one race biologically of human beings (as we are all descendants of two people, Adam and Eve)—different people groups, but not different 'races.'"

Also undue and appears to be original research based on a primary source. Also WP:quote farm.

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The examples you cite are not presented in the article in such a way as to violate the guideline against original research. If they were presented as facts, they would be original research. But they are clearly presented as illustrations of the beliefs of Ken Ham. Such illustrations of fringe beliefs are needed to accurately portray the subject in an article such as this. As long as the quotes are pertinent to the article and clearly identified as opinions of the founder of the establishment, they add to the article, and do not constitute WP:OR. Ken Ham is an expert source WP:RS on his own opinion, and that all these quotes represent. Regards. Plazak (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this WP:DUE or WP:PROMO issue then? In an article about a museum, Ham is mentioned 32 times:

• AiG Executive Director Ken Ham said...
• Ham estimated...
• Ham responded...
• Ham declared...
• Ham noted...
• Ham posted on his blog...
• Ham stated ...
• Ham explained...
• Ham promised...

As the result, the article read's like AiG press release, not an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you really thought that this article reads like an AiG press release, that would call into question your reading skills. As the moving force and most prominent spokesman for the museum, it is not surprising that Ham and his opinions are featured through this lengthy article. Such quotes are the best way to convey the philosophy behind the project. It's not as if his views are treated as fact. There is plenty of material here from the scientific point of view, so that no one would mistake Ham's views as science, and no reader will mistake this for an uncritical promotional article. Plazak (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly the purpose of a press release, not an encyclopedia article (WP:NOTPROMOTION). This article should be the balanced representation of the most prominent independent, reliable sources on the topic. Ham is a questionable source on account of his COI, so he's only a reliable source for some statements about himself, not third parties (i.e., not statements about who he thinks is going to sue him). He also shouldn't be used as a source for statements the seem "unduly self-serving" (WP:ABOUTSELF). —PermStrump(talk) 06:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the OR flag because I just can't see how there is OR. Ken Ham is a reliable source on what Ken Ham believes. He is a reliable source about the Creation Museum. The article would be biased if it presented criticism without presenting Ham's reply. Also, I've seen a lot of promotional pages, and this is not promotional. Roches (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This was reverted, and I removed the OR code again. I deliberately did the edit as fast as possible to avoid an edit conflict; if another editor began to edit before I did, and then saved after I saved, that creates an edit conflict. I'm going to leave the Jennings quote, then. I don't think the article should say in Wikipedia's voice that "museum professionals" believe the Creation Museum is not a museum and shouldn't be referred to as a museum. Roches (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Please note that this is the third editor, counting me, who feels you are misapplying policy with your sweeping edits. I think this indicates that it is time for you to change your editing style on these articles. Please post proposed changes on the related talk page for discussion before making them, as I did throughout the revision of this article (check the archives). I'm considering asking for peer reviews on a few of these articles to get a wider perspective, but I can't do that if editors are constantly removing content based on their (possibly incorrect) notions of policy. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "WP:Promo?" for clarity. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Disputing edits

As usual, I'm going to dispute some of the content that has been removed.

• This quote succinctly illustrates AiG's motivation for constructing the museum, the subject of this article. It is cited to a secondary source that took note of it. It also helps distinguish AiG's views on creation (the subject of the museum) from other similar views, which have also been removed, btw. The use of the quote box is appropriate as summarizing the content of the section and as a visual element to break up the text.
  • [K.e.]: Unneeded quote; multiple editors have taken it out. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • UNDUE use of Ham's primary claims. Ham has a vested interested in portraying the museum in a certain way. When journalists directly quote him, that doesn't make it secondary source material. —PermStrump(talk)
    • I would put the quote back, but perhaps not as a pull-quote. It is appropriate to present the views of the Museum founders. Of course he has a vested interest, but that is beside the point. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, right, we should say the founder's motivation for creating the museum, but that particular quote directly contradicts what most secondary sources are saying about the museum, so it would either need to be contextualized better or we should use/paraphrase another quote that's not contentious and that more directly talks about their motivation for creating the museum. —PermStrump(talk) 00:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• This edit misrepresents what Neyman said. He said YEC is responsible for the gap, but non-Christians' response to the CM would be responsible for widening it.
  • [K.e.]: This content is not currently in the article, which I think is for the better. The opinions of the OEC groups may be undue for inclusion as I found some of the language strange, i.e. "churched" and "unchurched". :-)
  • Apparently this is not in the article anymore, but FWIW I disagree with Acdixon's interpretation. The original quote was criticizing the YEC for continuing to push away non-Christians from the faith by displaying faulty science that would be easy to recognize. When I trimmed it down, my intention was to be more concise, not change the meaning, which I don't think I did. I don't disagree with its complete removal in any case because my general opinion about this article is "less is more". There's information overload here that no one would ever want to read. The "churched" and "unchurched" thing was definitely weird. —PermStrump(talk)
• This is not trivial. If the motivation for the changes was the increased visitor projections, then it is notable to see where the expansion was proposed.
  • [K.e.]: This is excessive intricate detail (size of cafeteria, etc). It should stay out. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Definitely trivial. —PermStrump(talk)
    • This seems too minor to make an issue of, but I do not see any benefit in having deleted it. It is reasonable to describe dimensions of the Museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • It's minor, but in the grand scheme of this article that already has soo much superfluous information, I think including to the dimensions of the new lobby adds to the already unencyclopedic feel of the article as a whole. —PermStrump(talk) 00:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Much of this is OK, but you've eliminated the rationale for the opening date, which is notable. Also, the 200 protesters did not "visit the museum" – as in, pay for admission. They set up camp across the street.
  • [K.e.]: This edit was not done by me; but I agree with it for the reasons of focus and concision. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Re:protestors visiting: I was trying to make it more concise and I don't think any meaning was lost. The previous version was unnecessarily verbose and would deter people from continuing to read. Who cares that they opened on Memorial Day to attract more visitors? Every pool and amusement park in the country opens on Memorial Day weekend. It's nothing to write home about. —PermStrump(talk)
    • I agree with this deletion. It seems a reasonable way to be more concise without losing anything critical. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Again, much of this is OK, but the bit with Ham and Rissing discussing school field trips is relevant as a church-state issue. Also, if I remember correctly, this scenario has since manifested itself, maybe with a school in Pennsylvania.
  • [K.e.]: If the scenario has indeed manifested itself and was covered by RS then it would be fine to include. Otherwise, it's just AiG's fear mongering. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Fear mongering translated into WP policy is speculation, which is WP:NOT encyclopedic. I thought I wrote that in the edit summary, but apparently I didn't. —PermStrump(talk)
    • I similarly agree with this deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• This was intended to set up the discussion of the criticism from various sources by presenting three views on creationism. Folks would know this if they would read the previous (now archived) talk page discussions or would bother to post proposed changes before making them. Since the related content was moved to "reception", which is probably appropriate, this probably looked out of place, but it isn't.
  • [K.e.]: This content belongs in the article on YEC movement; interested readers can go to the linked article and read about it. I agree with this edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That's the exact definition of a soapbox (see also coatrack), another thing an encyclopedia is WP:NOT. The sources need to be directly related to the museum, all of them, or it will keep getting deleted by the next editor who comes by to verify sources. That's why the same conversations keeps happening. (Also, no one is ever going to read all of the archives. That would be insane, but at times it could be helpful when editors mention and link to previous conversations that they're aware of when relevant.) —PermStrump(talk)
    • Although I think that soapbox has nothing to do with it, it's something this page can do without, because we link to other pages, and it is just background information. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• This removes information that characterizes the kinds of special events that happen at the museum. As it reads now, it sounds like the only notable events the museum holds are ones subject of some kind of controversy.
  • [K.e.]: I agree with the edit by another contributor. It's improved the article IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with shortening the second part, about the same-sex couple, because it's simply more succinct. I have mixed feelings about the first part, the information about special programs. I do not think the information is absolutely necessary, but I see some logic in detailing what the programs are about. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm open to someone adding more about what other kinds of events they have, but it would be better to give a short list of examples, like: "They have other types of events such as date nights, member's-only special tours, etc." The previous version sounded promotional and soapboxy without making it clear what other kinds of events they have, just the message that they're conveying through those events. The museum's message is articulated in many other places in the article, so that's what makes it a soapbox to include it here, especially in the absence of concrete details about what other events they offer. Separately, it talked about how they have "Deaf Day" and "Dia Latina", which IMO sounds unduly self-serving like they're patting themselves on the back when it's coming from the museum's self-published website as opposed to from a secondary source. If those events were substantial enough to be covered in a reliable secondary source, I'd definitely be all about including it. —PermStrump(talk)
• We shouldn't be mentioning a controversial event without presenting AiG's response, if there was one. That is what was removed here.
  • [K.e.]: Not every controversy requires a rebuttal, unless noted by independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I think it's OK, because it does paraphrase the rebuttal, rather than removing it entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I changed the wording in a way that made it coherent, but I didn't remove the rebuttal. Their rebuttal was that (a) it was made clear from the beginning that the event was for heterosexual couples, because all of the descriptions of the event said it was about "Christian marriage", and (b) that they turned the gay couple away because the museum thought they were planning to be disruptive based on a blog post one of the men made a month earlier about taking donations to send a "flamboyantly gay couple" to the event. I also added that it turned out later they weren't gay; they were just bloggers showing up to see if they'd get let in as a gay couple. IMO that context shows that the museum probably had legit reasons to be suspicious of them. —PermStrump(talk)

• Again this content was debated extensively on the talk page months ago. The content is relevant for showing AiG's motivation for constructing the museum and also for showing how it is viable when based around a fringe theory. From what I understand, folks in other countries have trouble understanding the whole YEC phenomenon, but the information deleted by this edit illustrates that it has non-trivial acceptance in the U.S. It appears this info was restored, but I note this for further justification of restoration.
  • [K.e.]: The first para is in the current version of the article; the para with three quotes came out with my most recent edit (please see below for rationale). K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm in favor of restoring all of it, subject to the discussion of SYNTH lower on this talk page. I think that, unless there is SYNTH, this material helps detail both sides of the controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't know how this stands in the article at this moment, but I commented in the thread below and will continue to follow the conversation there. —PermStrump(talk) 00:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm still trying to figure out what all was done with this edit, but it appears we lost some of the descriptors for people who commented on the museum. It is important to know who they are in addition to what they said.
  • I checked it carefully, and I don't see any loss of those descriptors. Much of it strikes me as reasonable paraphrasing and shortening. But I feel strongly that the part about Krauss, Scott, and Leshner should be put back. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Hm. Yeah, sorry I didn't write a better edit summary for that one. I got interrupted and had close out in hurry. I moved the sections "Opening" and "Attendance" to subsections under "Reception". I also removed some criticism of the museum from those sections, because it seemed excessive and redundant. For example:

Previous: "A. A. Gill, a British writer and critic, described the museum as "battling science and reason since 2007", writing: "This place doesn't just take on evolution—it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most -onomies and all -ologies, including most theology."

My edit: "A. A. Gill, a British writer and critic, described the museum as "battling science and reason since 2007", writing: "It directly and boldly contradicts most -onomies and all -ologies, including most theology."

Previous: "Lisa Park, a professor of paleontology at University of Akron was particularly disturbed by the museum's depiction that war, famine and natural disasters are the result of a belief in evolution. She said: 'I think it's very bad science...'"

My edit: "Lisa Park, a professor of paleontology at University of Akron said, 'I think it's very bad science...'"

At the time I thought it would be ok that my edit summary was vague because I was only trimming down critical commentary, which I figured wouldn't be contentious. I didn't realize how the markup would look since I rearranged some of the sections. —PermStrump(talk) 00:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Note again that I agree with some of these edits. I'm not saying the article was perfect before, but we need more discussion and fewer WP:BOLD edits on controversial articles like this. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I've commented above; most of these edits were not done by me but I mostly agree with them. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This is really hard for me to follow. Did Acdixon write most of it and then K.e.coffman added responses in-line to each contested edit? Just want to make sure I'm understanding what I'm looking at before responding. —PermStrump(talk) 21:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I added my initials for clarity. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I added my reply in red, because I was just playing around with templates and it worked. —PermStrump(talk) 23:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And I've added to the rainbow, in green. I agree with Acdixon's request that the edits should slow down, pending more discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish: I will slow down. I apologize. It's just sooooooooo long. I got carried away. re: your comment above. I'm looking back for something I might have remove from Krauss, Scott, and Leshner. I don't know what that might have been off the top of my head, but I'll say more about it when I figure out if I did what we're talking about. —PermStrump(talk) 00:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Please see: [27], the last part that was deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah. In retrospect, I conflated Krauss with Kagin, and thought we'd accidentally quoted him twice in separate sections. Kagin said some similar things. I will add it back. —PermStrump(talk) 00:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I removed this paragraph as overly promotional; it contains three statements from AiG personnel, which is undue:

• AiG Executive Director Ken Ham said, "I want to make it clear that we don't want to be known primarily as Young Earth Creationists. AiG's main thrust is on biblical authority. Believing in a relatively young Earth is a consequence of accepting the word of God as an infallible revelation from our Creator." While the intelligent design movement is often associated with creationism, in a 2005 interview with The Kentucky Post, Ham said of the movement, "They are not a Christian movement, they are not about the Bible. It's not even against evolution, not really, because they don't tell you what that intelligence is. It could open a door for Muslim belief, for Hindus, for New Age. We are telling you unashamedly that the word of the Bible is the way." In 2006, AiG Communications Director Mark Looy told the Post that intelligent design advocates "want nothing to do with us".

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like these quotes are about the organization, rather than specifically about the Museum, so if that is the case, I think the deletion is OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Do you think we should move that paragraph to Answers in Genesis if it speaks of AiG's views and uses third-party refs? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of this paragraph as it discusses the organisation's opinions about itself. This is press release material and does not to belong in an encyclopedia. 3rd party sources commenting on the group's relationship with the intelligent design movement would be far superior. So in short, no, I don't think it belongs in the AiG article either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Dated attendance information

I took out some of the dated info and excessive intricate detail. Here's the material removed:

• On April 26, 2010, AiG recognized a Dayton, Ohio, man as the Creation Museum's 1 millionth visitor, presenting him with a gift basket and a lifetime membership to the museum. On July 1, 2012, the Museum raised admission prices by $5 to $29.95 per person. In June 2013, AiG senior vice president Mike Zovath told the Lexington Herald-Leader, "We're pretty happy with the way attendance is playing out," noting, "The 250,000 number has been our business model all along, and we've exceeded it every year."

The below information from the same paragraph remains, but it looks dated and includes (also dated) explanations from AiG why the attendance dropped. I believe this paragraph can be further trimmed and/or improved with 3rd party sources and more contemporary data.

• In 2012, Cincinnati CityBeat reported that, from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012, Museum attendance had dropped to 254,074, a 10 percent drop from the previous year and the fourth straight year of declining attendance. AiG officials cited the poor economy and high gas prices as reasons for the decline. In August 2013, Ken Ham estimated that attendance at the museum since its opening was approaching 1.9 million.

As a general comment, I would suggest to those editors who may have been involved with the article longer perhaps go through it and identify what you feel could be non-controversially removed? The article is excessively detailed, reads in parts as a press release, and contains information that is promotional in nature (ticket prices, etc). Then we can debate more substantial issues without focusing on the details that most of us agree are not needed. That perhaps could be more productive going forward. What do you guys think?

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind removing those paragraphs, but I do think that, if possible, more recent numbers should be added. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I also removed this paragraph, as excessively detailed and dated (citing from 2007 source).

• To deal with the larger crowds, AiG proposed adding 663 new parking spaces to the 500 already available at the museum, moving the museum's highway entrance, and adding canopies to the front of the building. The expansion—projected to cost about $500,000—also included the construction of a 14,400 square feet (1,340 m²) maintenance building and a 19,200 square feet (1,780 m²) lake to capture and hold runoff from the overflow parking area, preventing it from polluting nearby Garrison Creek. The Boone County Planning Commission approved the plan after AiG agreed to do a traffic study of Bullitsburg Church Road and construct a left-turn lane if necessary, paint the maintenance building to blend into its surroundings, and not use the area under the canopies as a stage for outdoor performances.

References

Please see "As a general comment..." above; I think these cuts will continue unless an interested editor could improve the article to deal with these issues that do not appear controversial. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)