Talk:Ken Ham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Debate winner[edit]

I have removed the recent addition of the Sevastio reference about the Nye-Ham debate, for three reasons: (a) the reason given for Nye winning the debate was completely different to what was in the article, (b) Sevastio is writing a blog on a presumably non-notable website (Guardian Liberty Voice), and (c) what is included here should just be a summary: the main article is Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate. StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this. There was no official judge, so there is no way to say there was a "winner". That said, the evaluations of reliable sources could be included, but would be more appropriate in the main article about the debate. I don't really know how reliable the proffered source is. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
So you are saying the creationist argument won then????????? We had better re-write thousands of Wikipedia articles then! Theroadislong (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It was just bullshitty content. This wasn't like a sports event where there was a final score and somebody won and somebody lost. Of course Nye "won" since he represented science but that is not the issue here. Part of why Nye was criticized for doing this, is that it put creationism on some kind of equal footing with science and would lead exactly to this kind of stupid discussion about who "won". Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Except that there aren't thousands of article talking about the Nye-Ham debate - there are only two or three. But your comment appeals to a false dichotomy - not saying that Nye necessarily won is not the same as saying that Nye didn't necessarily win, which in turn is not the same as saying that Ham won. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with StAnselm and Acdixon. There is no way of knowing who "won" the debate. Also, in complete honesty, saying that Nye won the debate "because the scientific community considers virtually all Ham's arguments fringe and pseudo-scientific" just doesn't cut it as being a good reason for winning. The scientific mainstream does not determine the winner. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Suggesting that the views of the scientific community are determinative of anything undermines the premise of this article: that it's not the scientific community that condemns Ham's ideas but Science itself.--John Foxe (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't care whether it's the "scientific community" or "Science itself" ("Science" is capitalized?); it goes entirely against NPOV to call Nye the winner based on that reasoning. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the whole thing seems to be based on a non-standard idea of what it means for someone to "win" a debate. In order to do it seriously, you either need (a) an adjudicator, or (b) a group of people who haven't made up their mind on the issue. StAnselm (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── nobody seems to be objecting to the removal so we can let this sit. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Dishonest References[edit]

Obviously the government of Queensland has never required the teaching of creationism in Queensland's public schools. This a patently false claim.

2001:44B8:31E3:8800:1DBF:7C10:3DDF:77B (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to the part that states that Ham strongly disapproved of portraying evolution as fact in the science textbooks? If that is what you are referring to, that has nothing to do with whether or not Queensland ever taught creationism in public schools. Either way, Ham strongly disapproved. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Bias in lead[edit]

The opening part that I have correctly removed is bias, nit relevant to that part of the article and clearly meant to make Ham look bad it should be removed. Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:PSCI which is policy. Please review the this talk page and its archives. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Not relevant to lead. It should be included in reception section. It's obviously meant to bash Ken Ham. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's purpose isn't to score points.
Please sign your comments. Your response was too quick for you to have reviewed the material. Please actually read WP:PSCI, which is relevant everywhere, and the archives. Please also read WP:LEAD. This is not a place for anyone to express their feelings; see WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM. I'll not respond further to arguments that are not based in WP policy and guidelines and the reliable sources on this topic. I doubt anyone else will either. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Ive already read all those policies. WP:Lead, WP:PSCI etc doesnt say "discuss whether the subject's views are true or not in the lead so you can score points". Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
No sense pursuing this course, Apollo. These folks speak for Science, and their viewpoint is therefore infallible. They also have the votes.--John Foxe (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ham's books[edit]

I disagree with Jytdog's edit [1]. There is no reason to remove these books as the distinction between those and the ones still listed is arbitrary. Ham has written many books, true, but how are we to decide which ones to include and which ones not to include? All of them should stay, and doing so would not advertise for Ham any more than it would for anyone else. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. A list of books is just a list of books. Maybe Jytdog can give us some rationale for excluding these particular ones.--John Foxe (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
i just checked MOS:WORKS and we should list them all, and do a SPLIT if it gets too unwieldy. I now recall having bumped into this issue before. I don't like that guideline, but that is the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Good.--John Foxe (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I do believe that Ham has written many more books than even the current list. I will not attempt to add them all, however. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)