Talk:Ken Ham

Deliberate Evolutionary Bias in this article

The line "Astrophysical measurements and radiometric dating show that the age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years and the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years." with footnote 2 is superfluous to the heading 'Creationism' under his beliefs. Given that the article is locked and not editable, I have no doubt these have been placed here deliberately by detractors of his viewpoint.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.55.47.109 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That information is referenced to a high quality source, as all content in Wikipedia should be. It's relevant. Who put it there isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Just because a source is of high quality doesn't necessarily mean the information is relevant. No need to feign impartiality about such things. John Foxe (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Your logic is correct. That's why I didn't say that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2019

Add to "Reception" heading:

Ham's inflexible interpretation of Genesis puts him at odds with many conservative Protestants. Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Tim Keller, William Lane Craig, Francis Collins, and many more have been denounced by Ham and his organization at various times.

Sjwilling (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The proposed text violates WP:NPOV ("inflexible"), the source is a blog (not an WP:RS) with a similar URL as the username of the requesting editor (likely WP:COI). There's no reason why this is notable enough to add, and there's no reason why these specific people are listed and not other conservative Protestants. We could also add a list of conservative Protestants who agree with Ham (Johnny Hunt, Albert Mohler, John F. MacArthur, and others), but once again, there's no reason for this and might also violate WP:COATRACK. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, 1990'sguy is correct, as it's a blog, we cannot use it as a source. It is very funny to read though! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Occupation

One of Ham's listed occupations is "Young Earth Creationist." However, "Young Earth Creationist" is a belief, not an occupation. Also, he used to be a science teacher, so should that be included? Primal Groudon (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

One could argue that he still teaches, but he certainly doesn't teach science these days. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Still, past occupations should count. Also, Young Earth Creationist is not an occupation. Primal Groudon (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In addition to being a science teacher (disregarding HiLo48's comment which didn't add to the discussion), he's the CEO of AiG. The article already (rightly, I think) lists him as a Christian apologist -- that's the substance of what he does. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In what way did my comment not add to the discussion? I was directly responding to the question "...he used to be a science teacher, so should that be included?" And to FURTHER add to the discussion, I don't think this field is meant to include past occupations. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. IMO, the first comment seemed forum-y and doing little more than to take a swipe at Ham. I think your latest comment was helpful. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

How was I taking a swipe at Ken Ham? All I said is "Why aren't his past occupations included?" and "Young Earth Creationist is not an occupation." Primal Groudon (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Primal Groudon: I wasn't referring to you in the slightest. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you say "the first comment" if you didn't mean me when the first comment under the Occupation section was made by me? Primal Groudon (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to HiLo48's first comment in this discussion (he had commented twice when I said that, and I only thought the first one went against NOTFORUM). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, as an Australian with a Science Degree who still teaches real science, I find it irksome that some of Ham's supporters point to his early Australian qualification as proof that what he now teaches is correct. I apologise if that sentiment did reveal itself just a bit. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Forum-y comments on talk pages is a pet peeve of mine. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

The Infobox says Ham's Nationality is Australian. The lead also describes him that way. But he has been living and working in the USA for over 30 years. Surely he would have to be an American citizen by now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's now a naturalized U.S. citizen, though I don't have an RS at hand to prove it. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. In the absence of further information, I have boldly edited the article accordingly. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48, I sense a severe COI on your part here... ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And I sense a possible absence of good faith in that comment. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I can understand why Australians would want to disown a wacky homophobe like Ham. However, AIG itself claims him to now have American citizenship [1] and I believe that Christian News Wire is also an RS [2]. Note however "also has American citizenship", so dual citizenship. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are excellent sources. It would therefore seem that we should describe his Nationality in the Infobox as being both Australian and American. Though "American" seems a little informal. Would it make sense to say "Australia and United States of America"? And to simply call him Australian in the first sentence of the lead is now also misleading. I'd be happy with "Australian born" or "Australian American". (Although that style of labelling is not so common in Australia.) Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia refers to most, if not all, American public figures as "American", so using that term for Ham would be fully appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nah, just trying to be funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

He certainly was an Australian citizen, and there is no reason to suppose that is no longer the case. That would suggest "Australian born" is insufficient. We would need a reliable source to say that he's American (which I think does imply citizenship). StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)